Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:11:29.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-size increasing graph rewriting for natural language processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

GUILLAUME BONFANTE  and
BRUNO GUILLAUME
GUILLAUME BONFANTE
Affiliation:
LORIA/INRIA-BP239, 615 Rue du Jardin-Botanique, 54506 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France Email: guillaume.bonfante@loria.fr and bruno.guillaume@loria.fr
BRUNO GUILLAUME
Affiliation:
LORIA/INRIA-BP239, 615 Rue du Jardin-Botanique, 54506 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France Email: guillaume.bonfante@loria.fr and bruno.guillaume@loria.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A very large amount of work in Natural Language Processing (NLP) use tree structure as the first class citizen mathematical structures to represent linguistic structures, such as parsed sentences or feature structures. However, some linguistic phenomena do not cope properly with trees; for instance, in the sentence ‘Max decides to leave,’ ‘Max’ is the subject of the both predicates ‘to_decide’ and ‘to_leave’. Tree-based linguistic formalisms generally use some encoding to manage sentences like the previous example. In former papers (Bonfante et al. 2011; Guillaume and Perrier 2012), we discussed the interest to use graphs rather than trees to deal with linguistic structures, and we have shown how Graph Rewriting could be used for their processing, for instance in the transformation of the sentence syntax into its semantics. Our experiments have shown that Graph Rewriting applications to NLP do not require the full computational power of the general Graph Rewriting setting. The most important observation is that all graph vertices in the final structures are in some sense ‘predictable’ from the input data, and so we can consider the framework of Non-size increasing Graph Rewriting. In our previous papers, we have formally described the Graph Rewriting calculus we used and our purpose here is to study the theoretical aspect of termination with respect to this calculus. Given that termination is undecidable in general, we define termination criterions based on weight, we prove the termination of weighted rewriting systems, and we give complexity bounds on derivation lengths for these rewriting systems.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 28 , Special Issue 8: Term and Graph Rewriting , September 2018 , pp. 1451 - 1484
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bédaride, P. and Gardent, C. (2009). Semantic normalisation: A framework and an experiment. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS '90), Tilburg, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bohnet, B. and Wanner, L. (2001). On using a parallel graph rewriting formalism in generation. In: Proceedings of the 8th European workshop on Natural Language Generation (EWNLG '01). Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–11.Google Scholar
Bonfante, G., Guillaume, B., Morey, M. and Perrier, G. (2011). Modular graph rewriting to compute semantics. In: Proceedings of IWCS '11, Oxford, U.K., 65–74.Google Scholar
Chaumartin, F.-R. and Kahane, S. (2010). Une approche paresseuse de l'analyse sémantique ou comment construire une interface syntaxe-sémantique à partir d'exemples. In: Proceedings of TALN '10, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Copestake, A. (2009). Invited Talk: Slacker semantics: Why superficiality, dependency and avoidance of commitment can be the right way to go. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL (EACL '09), Athens, Greece, Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–9.Google Scholar
Crouch, D. (2005). Packed rewriting for mapping semantics to KR. In: Proceedings of IWCS.Google Scholar
de Groote, P. (2001). Towards abstract categorial grammars. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Toulouse, France, 148–155.Google Scholar
Echahed, R. (2008). Inductively sequential term-graph rewrite systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Graph Transformations (ICGT '08), Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 84–98.Google Scholar
Godard, E., Métivier, Y., Mosbah, M. and Sellami, A. (2002). Termination detection of distributed algorithms by graph relabelling systems. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2505, Springer, 106–119.Google Scholar
Guillaume, B. and Perrier, G. (2012). Annotation sémantique du French Treebank à l'aide de la réécriture modulaire de graphes. In: Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN '12), Grenoble, France.Google Scholar
Hofmann, M. (1998). Linear types and non-size-increasing polynomial time computation. In: Proceedings of Information and Computation 464–473.Google Scholar
Hyvönen, E. (1984). Semantic parsing as graph language transformation – A multidimensional approach to parsing highly inflectional languages. In: Proceedings of COLING 517–520.Google Scholar
Janssens, D. and Rozenberg, G. (1982). Graph grammars with neighbourhood-controlled embedding. Theoretical Computer Science 21 (1) 55–74.Google Scholar
Jijkoun, V. and de Rijke, M. (2007). Learning to transform linguistic graphs. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on TextGraphs: Graph-Based Algorithms for Natural Language Processing, Rochester, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Jones, N.D. (1997). Computability and Complexity: From a Programming Perspective, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.M. and Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In: Bresnan, J. (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 173–281.Google Scholar
Knuth, D. and Bendix, P. (1970). Simple word problems in universal algebras. In: Leech, J. (ed.) Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, Pergamon.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria 36 (3) 373–398.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka, K. J. J., Moravcsic, J. and Suppes, P. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language, Reidel, 221–242.Google Scholar
Newman, M. (1942). On theories with a combinatorial definition of “equivalence”. Annals of Mathematics 43 (2) 223–243.Google Scholar
Plump, D. (1995). On termination of graph rewriting. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science (WG '95), London, U.K., Springer-Verlag, 88–100.Google Scholar
Plump, D. (1998). Termination of graph rewriting is undecidable. Fundamenta Informaticae 33 (2) 201–209.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. and Sag, I.A. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Roche, E. and Schabes, Y. (eds.) (1997). Finite-State Language Processing, Bradford Book, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Rozenberg, G. (ed.) (1997). Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformations, Volume 1: Foundations, World Scientific.Google Scholar
Schürr, A. (1997). Programmed graph replacement systems. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) Handbook on Graph Grammars: Foundations, World Scientific, 479–546.Google Scholar
Stabler, E. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In: Retoré, C. (ed.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, LACL '96, LNCS/LNAI, vol. 1328, Springer-Verlag, 68–95.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de syntaxe structurale, Librairie C. Klincksieck, Paris.Google Scholar
Uchida, H., Zhu, M., Senta, T. and Foundation, U. (2006). UNL: Universal Networking Language, UNDL Foundation, International Environment House.Google Scholar
Van den Eynde, K. and Mertens, P. (2003). La valence: l'approche pronominale et son application au lexique verbal. French Language Studies 13 63–104.Google Scholar
Vijay-Shanker, K. and Joshi, A.K. (1988). Feature structures based tree adjoining grammars. In: Proceedings of COLING 714–719.Google Scholar