Yuji Matsumoto, Hozumi Tanaka, Hideki Hirakawa, Hideo Miyoshi, and Hideki Yasukawa. 1983. BUP: A bottom up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2):145--158.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... the generalization required to parse word graphs as opposed to strings using an item based presentation in the tradition of [28, 26] the actual parser that is employed in the current version of the ovis system is a left head corner parser in the logic programming tradition, heavily influenced by [14, 18, 12, 27]. Such a parser can be seen as a bottom up parser with top down filtering. This parser is described in full detail elsewhere [31] Careful evaluations on actual word graphs have shown that this left headcorner parser performs much better than any of the chart based implementa11 [q i , w, q j ] ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. BUP: a bottom up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2), 1983. 22

....TR must be satisfied. The violation of the transitive relation can be found beforehand during rule translation. Thus, this feature can help grammar writers .detect the grammar errors before parsing. 113 3. A Bottom up Parser in Prolog 3. 1 Problem specifications The Bottom Up Parsing system (BUP) [2,3,4] uses the left comer bottom up algorithm to implement Definite Clause Grammars (DCGs) 5] It overcomes the problems of top down parsing, e.g. the left recursive invocation, and provides an efficient way as Earley s and Pratt s algorithms [3] However, it does not deal with the important syntactic ....

....3.3.1 The general grammar rules The general grammar rules are divided into two types according as a virtual non terminal disappears or appears in the rule body: a) c(Arg) Cl(Argl) C2(Arg2) en(Argn) When c is not a bounding node, e.g. rule (r2) the . translation is the same as that in BUP [2,3,4], except that an extra argument H (if necessary) for x list and a built in predicate merge are added in the new translation algorithm. This predicate is used to merge all the x lists on the same level. The transformation of x lists is bottom up (only one direction) as shown in Fig. 3. Thus, the ....

Yuji Matsumoto, Hozumi Tanaka, et al., "BUP: A Bottom-Up Parser Embedded in Prolog," New Generation Computing, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1983, pp. 145-158.

....some remarks on head driven parsing, preliminary to discussing issues of uniformity underlying SliDGA. For parsing, algorithms have also been developed, that favour a head driven processing regime, most notably [Kay, 1989; VanNoord, 1993] Both approaches are modifications of left corner parsers [Matsumoto et al. 1983], such that instead of choosing the leftmost element of the body of a rule the parser selects the lexical head first (actually, the parser selects a lexical entry and continues to prove that this lexical entry indeed is the head of the goal, by selecting a rule of which this lexical entry can be ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Yasukawa. Bup: A bottom-up parser embedded in prolog. Computing, 1:145-158, 1983. H. Miyoshi, and New Generation 197

....similarity to the above transformation, but which is applied to definite clause programs, rather than to DCGs. He proves that this transformation respects declarative equivalence, and also shows, using a model theoretic approach, the close connection of his transformation with left corner parsing [12, 9, 10]. 7 It must be noted that the left recursion elimination procedure can be applied to any DCG, whether OP or not. Even in the case where the grammar is OP, however, it will not lead to a terminating parsing algorithm unless empty productions have been prealably eliminated from the grammar, a ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirikawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. BUP: a bottom-up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2):145--158, 1983.

....(Borsley, 1996) Covington, 1994) 3. A crash course in the formal background (Aho et al. 1986) Human Sentence Processing; Chart Parsing (Gazdar and Mellish, 1989) 4. Shift Reduce Parsing: tabular techniques (Aho et al. 1986) 5. Left Corner Parsing Matsumoto, BUP (Matsumoto et al. 1985) (Matsumoto et al. 1983). 6. Stack Based Bottom Up Parsing Tomita (Tomita, 1986) Tomita, 1987) 7. Parsing as Deduction(Pereira and Warren, 1983) 8. Reversibility and Generation. 9. Approaches to Natural Language Generation. 10. Stochastic Approaches, and Alternative Approaches: a broader perspective. 4 ....

....which permits users to write their rules in standard DCG notation: s(s(NP,VP) np(NP) vp(VP) det(det(the) the] Your job is to write a compiler which translates from DCG clauses (for terminals and nonterminals) to the relevant BUP clauses. You will nd it helpful to consult the Matsumoto et al. 1983). The compiler from DCG syntax to BUP Prolog clauses discussed in this paper also computes the link relation and adds terminator clauses you can ignore these details. 3. 50 ) Adapt a bottom up parser to use a well formed substring table. Make sure you include rules (and test sentences in your ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. BUP: a bottom up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2), 1983.

.... items is complex complex data structure, difficult for indexing redundancy check: search for more general or equivalent items rather than identical items calculate consequences: search for consistent rather than identical items Efficient Parsing ffl Head Corner (or Left Corner) Parser [63, 46, 56, 40, 79, 67, 73, 74, 72, 78, 62, 80, 45, 82, 50, 85, 87] ffl With Goal weakening [70] and Selective Memoization [99, 39] ffl Generalized for Word graphs ffl Suitable for Robust Parsing ffl Implemented in Prolog Why Prolog ffl Prolog provides a built in unification operation ffl Prolog provides a built in backtrack search procedure; memoization can ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. BUP: a bottom up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2), 1983.

....rule for which the semantic features are unified with the goal semantic features. The second procedure selects a chain rule and unifies the current pivot with the semantic head of the rule. The left hand side of this chain rule then becomes the new pivot. Both of the procedures incorporate linking (Matsumoto et al. 1983, Pereira and Shieber 1987) so 26 The term input string is perhaps misleading since the algorithm in fig. 3 allows non terminals to be pushed onto this list after a reduction is made. 27 These procedures are defined in Shieber et al. 1990) Some Open Problems in Head driven Generation 177 ....

Matsumoto, Y., H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi and H. Yasukawa. 1983. BUP: A Bottom-Up Parser Embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing 1(2):145--158.

....remarks on head driven parsing, preliminary to discussing issues of uniformity underlying shdga. For parsing, algorithms have also been developed, that favour a head driven processing regime, most notably [ Kay, 1989; VanNoord, 1993 ] Both approaches are modifications of left corner parsers [ Matsumoto et al. 1983 ] such that instead of choosing the leftmost element of the body of a rule the parser selects the lexical 7 This example is taken from [Shieber et al. 1989] where they discuss the problem in a footnote on page 10. 36 head first (actually, the parser selects a lexical entry and continues to ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. Bup: A bottom-up parser embedded in prolog. New Generation Computing, 1:145--158, 1983.

....3) Morpholexical Grammar Rules (which are linear rewrite rules) A set of linear grammar rules is applied to produce strings of syntactic word classes out of the original strings of morphological word classes. 4) Syntactic Analysis Rules (allowing parsing into trees) A version of Bottom Up Parser [4] is then used to execute the linguistic rules for Syntactic Analysis, resulting in a set of all allowable Japanese trees for the Japanese input sentence. We now have a prioritised version of these rules, designed to avoid carrying out the complete search in favour of proceeding with the best ....

Matsumoto, Y. : BUP : A Bottom-Up Parser Embedded in Prolog, New Generation Computing, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.145--158, 1983.

....stack contains one element, unordered rule will be called once. When it contains two elements, unordered rule will be called twice (once for the top element of the stack, and once for the top element and the 2. An introduction to how these techniques are used in Prolog can be found in [4] while [7] shows how a similar technique can be used to accumulate failure results during parsing. To appear in: Proceedings of Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming V, Lisbon, Portugal, May 1995. 6 other element) and when the stack contains three elements there will be four calls. For a ....

Matsumoto, Yuji (1983). BUP: A Bottom-Up Parser Embedded in Prolog, New Generation Computing, 1(2), pp 145-158.

....descent parser. With left recursive grammars such parsers typically fail to terminate because a goal corresponding to a prediction of a left recursive category can reduce to an identical subgoal (up to renaming) producing an infinite loop . Standard techniques for left recursion elimination [12, 13] in context free grammars are not always directly applicable to grammars formulated as the conjunction of several constraints [10] With memoization, or the caching of intermediate goals (and their corresponding answer substitutions) a goal is solved only once and its solutions are cached; the ....

Matsumoto, M., H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi and H. Yasukawa. 1983. "BUP: a bottom-up parser embedded in Prolog", in New Generation Computing 1:2, pages 145--158.

.... However, it is possible to perform a simple transformation of the rules to derive a compiled version of the grammar, similar to the transformation performed by the standard DCG compiler included in many Prolog implementations (cf. also the compiled bottom up parser described by Matsumoto et al. in [1]) Compiled grammars are in general preferred because of their increased efficiency. Note that the bottom up procedure distinguishes between two types of procedure which each use a separate set of rules. generate=1 uses the rules selected by applicable non chain rule=2 and connect=2 uses the rules ....

....generator has been implemented for the RUU Standard DCG Interpreter Compiler and for the MiMo 2 Translation System. 2 A Common Architecture for Parsing and Generation The architecture of the generation process described in [3, 4] and that of the bottom up parsing process first described in [1] show striking similarities. For this discussion we will use the interpreter version [2] of the bup parser. In this section we will attempt to show that in fact the bottom up generation and parsing procedures are in fact two instances of a single proof procedure for Horn clauses. In this ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. Bup: a bottom up parser embedded in prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2), 1983.

.... be particularly well suited to this type of grammar is the head corner parser, introduced by van Noord (1991; 1994) based on one of the parsing strategies explored by Kay (1989) The head corner parser can be thought of as a generalization of a left corner parser (Rosenkrantz and Lewis II, 1970; Matsumoto et al. 1983; Pereira and Shieber, 1987) 1 The outstanding features of parsers of this type are that they are head driven, of course, and that they process the string bidirectionally, starting from a lexical head and working outward. The key ingredients of the parsing algorithm are as follows: ffl Each ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. 1983. BUP: a bottom up parser embedded in prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2).

....NLP because it leads to a large amount of search and to termination problems, especially for grammars which make use of discontinuous constituents. Therefore NL parsers and generators often make use of bottom up methods, e.g. left corner parsing and its compilation into a Prolog program (BUP) Matsumoto et al. 1983 ] semantic head driven generation [ Shieber et al. 1990 ] head corner parsing [ van Noord, 1991 ] The advantages of bottom up and top down processing are often combined by making use of a precompiled reachability relation [ Kay, 1980 ] In logic programming, bottom up approaches are found ....

Yuji Matsumoto, Hozumi Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, Hideo Miyoshi, and Hideki Yasukawa. BUP: a bottom-up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, 1:145--158, 1983.

....parser described in full detail in van Noord et al. 1996) We will therefore leave out many of the details here, and refer to the previous deliverable for motivations and technicalities of the methods used. The left corner parser implemented for Ovis can be compared with the BUP parser (Matsumoto et al. 1983; Pereira and Shieber, 1987) The following characteristics can be given: ffl Top down filtering. Top down filtering is obtained using a precompiled table of (a generalization of) the left corner relation. The left corner relation is the reflexive and transitive closure of the relation left most ....

Matsumoto, Y., H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. 1983. BUP: a bottom up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2).

....by the user in a PATR like style are compiled into Prolog (an extension to the compilation described in [18] to enable an efficient implementation of parsing, generation and transfer. The parser is a leftcorner parser augmented with a well formed substring table and a reachability table [30, 28]. Both techniques are optimized by using a set of restricted features [39] The generator of Mimo2 is a member of the generation family described in [49, 43, 50, 44] Transfer is implemented as a top down backtrack search procedure. 3 Illustration 3.1 Linguistics in MiMo2 In MiMo2 grammar ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. BUP: a bottom up parser embedded in prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2), 1983.

....by the user in a PATR like style are compiled into Prolog (an extension to the compilation described in [14] to enable an efficient implementation of parsing, generation and transfer. The parser is a left corner parser augmented with a well formed substring table and a reachability table [26, 25]. Both techniques are optimized by using a set of restricted features [34] The generator of Mimo2 is a member of the generation family described in [42, 38, 43, 39] Transfer is implemented as a top down backtrack search procedure. 3 Illustration In MiMo2 grammar fragments of English, Dutch, ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. BUP: a bottom up parser embedded in prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2), 1983.

....going the other way around, the output of the inflection rules will be a parsing problem for this unification grammar. The parser and generator of this grammar are completely similar to the parser and generator defined for the syntax semantics unification grammar. For the parser see for instance [4, 5]; for the generator [9, 7, 8, 10] Note that if the user does not intend to use the morphological unification grammar no special action is required. 5 Other remarks Note that both the inflection and orthographical rules are monotonic in the sense that they can only add information to the feature ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. BUP: a bottom up parser embedded in prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2), 1983.

....TITCS TR93 0028 11 Finally, we would like to mention about the relation between logic programming language and natural language parsing. Pereira et al. discussed about the advantages of using logic programming language such as Prolog for natural language processing. Interested reader can refer to [56, 39, 55] for top down and bottom up parsing in logic programming. Handling of long dependency is another difficult task in parsing, but most interested works have been based on the logic programming. Interested reader should refer to [54, 10, 9, 64, 3] Part II: Natural Language Generation 7 Introduction ....

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. BUP: A bottom-up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 145--158, 1983.

No context found.

Yuji Matsumoto, Hozumi Tanaka, Hideki Hirakawa, Hideo Miyoshi, and Hideki Yasukawa. 1983. BUP: A bottom up parser embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing, 1(2):145--158.

No context found.

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. Bup: A bottom-up parser embedded in prolog. In New Generation Computing, volume 1, pages 145--158, 1983.

No context found.

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. 1983. Bup: A bottom-up parser embedded in prolog. In New Generation Computing, volume 1, pages 145--158.

No context found.

Matsumoto,Y. et.al.: BUP-A Bottom-UP Parser Embedded in Prolog, NEW Generation Computing, 1, 2, 145-158(1983).

No context found.

Y. Matsumoto, H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi, and H. Yasukawa. Bup: A bottom-up parser embedded in prolog. In New Generation Computing, volume 1, pages 145--158, 1983. 20

No context found.

Y.Matusumoto, H.Tanaka, H.Hirakawa, H.Miyoshi, H.Yasukawa, "BUP: a bottom-up parser embedded in Prolog" in: New generation Computing , 1(2):145-158, 1983.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC