K. M. Schimpf and J. H. Gallier. Tree pushdown automata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30(1):25--40, 1985. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Alternating Two-Way AC-Tree Automata - Goubault-Larrecq, Verma (2002) (Correct)
....is the key to define upper approximations of various sets of ground atoms, e.g. success sets. This can be adapted to the AC case, yielding formulae in the decidable class of Section 6; for lack of space, details are left to the reader. Do not confuse pushdown processes with pushdown automata [39], which recognize the strictly larger class of context free tree languages. The idea of generalizing tree automata to recognize languages of terms modulo an equational theory is then natural, and a canonical choice of theory is that of one associative commutative (AC) symbol . This has been ....
K. M. Schimpf and J. H. Gallier. Tree pushdown automata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30(1):25--40, 1985.
Alternating Two-Way AC-Tree Automata - Goubault-Larrecq, Verma (2002) (Correct)
....(e.g. values of variables in the states of a Prolog program where some CTL formula holds [7] This can be adapted to the AC case, yielding formulae in the decidable class of Section 5; for lack of space, we leave the details to the reader. Do not mistake pushdown processes for pushdown automata [37], which recognize the strictly larger class of context free tree languages. The idea of generalizing tree automata to recognize languages of terms modulo an equational theory is then natural, and a canonical choice of theory is that of one associative commutative (AC) symbol . This has been ....
K. M. Schimpf and J. H. Gallier. Tree pushdown automata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30(1):25--40, Feb. 1985.
Tree-Adjoining Grammars - Joshi, Schabes (1997) (47 citations) (Correct)
....Tree Adjoining Grammars 9 ffl the set of paths of all the trees in the tree set of a given TAG, P(T (G) is a context free language; P(T (G) is a CFL ffl the tree sets of TAG are equivalent to the tree sets of linear indexed languages. Hence, linear versions of Schimpf Gallier tree automaton [Schimpf and Gallier1985] are equivalent to T (TAG) ffl for every TAG, G, the tree set of G, T (G) is recognizable in polynomial time, in the worst case in O(n 3 ) time, where n is the number of nodes in a tree t 2 T (G) We now give two examples to illustrate some properties of tree adjoining grammars. Example ....
K. M. Schimpf and J. H. Gallier. 1985. Tree pushdown automata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30:25--39.
Toward a Lexicalized Grammar for Interlinguas - Voss, Dorr (1995) (3 citations) (Correct)
....160 C. VOSS AND B. DORR A, introducing a new edge between unchanged trees. In Figure 10, the Path type tree connects to a lexical IL form of run. These operations can all be formulated as context free tree rewrite rules involving the operations of tree replacement and tree composition (as in (Schimpf and Gallier, 1985)) modified as needed for complex nodes with type checking. 28 Context free tree grammars also provide a way of formalizing the derivational history trees for pivot IL forms discussed above. In simplified terms, we can define the set of lexical IL forms (nodes in the derivational history trees) ....
Schimpf, K. and J. Gallier. 1985. Tree Pushdown Automata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30:25--40.
The Relevance of Recognizable Sets - Sarkar (1995) (Correct)
....of program schemes where they appear as unravellings of program flow. Courcelle [4] is a survey paper of results in this area. Other extensions of the results in this paper are to the tree sets of the indexed languages (or, IL) where it is well known that CFL ae IL ae CSL. Schimpf and Gallier [17] introduce Recognizable Sets Derivation tree sets of CFGs Rabin Sets Recognizable SnS Section 4 Section 2 Section 4 Buchi Automata Buchi R. Sets S1S Section 3 Figure 6: Results covered in the paper. an extension to tree automata termed as tree pushdown automata which addresses this issue. ....
K. M. Schimpf and J. H. Gallier. Tree pushdown automata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30:25--39, 1985.
The Equivalence of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Tree-to-Graph.. - Engelfriet, Vogler (1998) (2 citations) (Correct)
.... stack transducers [DG81] high level tree transducers [EV88] context free hypergraph based syntax directed translation schemes [EH92] and top down tree to graph transducers [EV94] Members of the second class are, e.g. bottom up tree transducers [Tha73, Eng75, GS84] and tree pushdown automata [SG85]. Members of the third class are, e.g. attribute grammars [Knu68] affix grammars [Kos71] tree walking automata [AU71] checking tree pushdown transducers [ERS80] attributed tree transducers [Ful81] nested stack tree to string transducers [EV86] attribute coupled grammars [Gie88] higher ....
K. M. Schimpf and J. H. Gallier. Tree pushdown automata. J. Comput. System Sci., 30:25--40, 1985.
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