File size: 75,526 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 | {
"paper_id": "P92-1010",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:12:08.030114Z"
},
"title": "Reasoning with Descriptions of Trees *",
"authors": [
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rogers",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Delaware Newark",
"location": {
"postCode": "19716",
"region": "DE",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "In this paper we introduce a logic for describing trees which allows us to reason about both the parent and domination relationships. The use of domination has found a number of applications, such as in deterministic parsers based on Description theory (Marcus, Hindle & Fleck, 1983), in a compact organization of the basic structures of Tree-Adjoining Grammars (Vijay-Shanker & Schabes, 1992), and in a new characterization of the adjoining operation that allows a clean integration of TAGs into the unification-based framework (Vijay-Shanker, 1992) Our logic serves to formalize the reasoning on which these applications are based.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P92-1010",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "In this paper we introduce a logic for describing trees which allows us to reason about both the parent and domination relationships. The use of domination has found a number of applications, such as in deterministic parsers based on Description theory (Marcus, Hindle & Fleck, 1983), in a compact organization of the basic structures of Tree-Adjoining Grammars (Vijay-Shanker & Schabes, 1992), and in a new characterization of the adjoining operation that allows a clean integration of TAGs into the unification-based framework (Vijay-Shanker, 1992) Our logic serves to formalize the reasoning on which these applications are based.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Motivation Marcus, Hindle, and Fleck (1983) have introduced Description Theory (D-theory) which considers the structure of trees in terms of the domination relation rather than the parent relation. This forms the basis of a class of deterministic parsers which build partial descriptions of trees rather than the trees themselves. As noted in (Marcus, Hindle & Fleck, 1983; Marcus, 1987) , this approach is capable of maintaining Marcus' deterministic hypothesis (Marcus, 1980) in a number of cases where the original deterministic parsers fail.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 43,
"text": "Marcus, Hindle, and Fleck (1983)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 373,
"text": "(Marcus, Hindle & Fleck, 1983;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 387,
"text": "Marcus, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 477,
"text": "(Marcus, 1980)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A motivating example is the sentence: I drove my aunt from Peoria's car. The difficulty is that a deterministic parser must attach the NP \"my aunt\" to the tree it is constructing before evaluating the PP. If this can only be done in terms of the parent relation, the NP will be attached to the VP as its object. It is not until the genitive marker on \"Peoria's\" is detected that the correct attachment is clear. The D-theory parser avoids the trap by making only the judgment that the VP dominates the NP by a path of length at least one. Subsequent refinement can either add intervening components or not. Thus in this case, when \"my aunt\" ends up as part of the determiner of the object rather than the object itself, it is not inconsistent with its original placement. It is still dominated by the VP, just not immediately. When the analysis is complete, a tree, the standard referent, can be extracted from the description by taking immediate domination as the parent relation. *Tlfis work is supported by NSF grant IRI-9016591",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In other examples given in (Marcus, Hindle &; Fleck, 1983) the left-of (linear precedence) relation is partially specified during parsing, with individuals related by \"left-of or equals\" or \"left-of or dominates\". The important point is that once a relationship is asserted, it is never subsequently rescinded. The D-theory parser builds structures which are always a partial description of its final product. These structures are made more specific, as parsing proceeds, by adding additional relationships.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 45,
"text": "(Marcus, Hindle &;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 58,
"text": "Fleck, 1983)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our understanding of the difficulty ordinary deterministic parsers have with these constructions is that they are required to build a structure covering an initial segment of the input at a time when there are multiple distinct trees that are consistent with that segment. The D-theory parsers succeed by building structures that contain only those relationships that are common to all the consistent trees. Thus the choice between alternatives for the relationships on which the trees differ is deferred until they are distinguished by the input, possibly after semantic analysis.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A similar situation occurs when Tree-Adjoining Grammars are integrated into the unification-based framework. In TAGs, syntactic structures are built up from sets of elementary trees by the adjunction operation, where one tree is inserted into another tree in place of one of its nodes. Here the difficulty is that adjunction is non-monotonic in the sense that there are relationships that hold in the trees being combined that do not hold in the resulting tree. In (Vijay-Shanker, i992), building on some of the ideas from D-theory, a version of TAG is introduced which resolves this by manipulating partial descriptions of trees, termed quasi-trees. Thus an elementary structure for a transitive verb might be the quasi-tree a' rather than the tree a ( Figure I) . In a ~ the separation represented by the dotted line between nodes referred to by vpl and vp2 denotes a path of length greater than or equal to zero. Thus a' captures just those relationships which are true in a and in all trees derived from a by adjunction at VP. In this setting trees are extracted from quasi-trees by taking what is termed a circumscriplive reading, where each pair of nodes in which one dominates the other by a path that is possibly zero is identified.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 754,
"end": 763,
"text": "Figure I)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This mechanism can be interpreted in a manner similar to our interpretation of the use of partial",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "S /k NP VP v NP (3t s : Figure 1. Quasi-trees s/7 NP VP '~x Vp,~S vP2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "descriptions in D-theory parsers. We view a tree in which adjunction is permitted as the set of all trees which can be derived from it by adjunction. That set is represented by the quasi-tree as the set of all relationships that are common to all of its members.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The connection between partial descriptions of trees and the sets of trees they describe is made explicit in (Vijay-Shanker & Schabes, 1992) . Here quasi-trees are used in developing a compact representation of a Lexicalized TAG grammar. The lexicon is organized hierarchically. Each class of the hierarchy is associated with that set of relationships between individuals which are common to all trees associated with the lexical items in the class but not (necessarily) common to all trees associated with items in any super-class. Thus the set of trees associated with items in a class is characterized by the conjunction of the relationships associated with the class and those inherited from its super-classes. In the case of transitive verbs, figure 2, the relationships in al can be inherited from the class of all verbs, while the relationships in a2 are associated only with the class of transitive verbs and its sub-classes.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 140,
"text": "(Vijay-Shanker & Schabes, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The structure a' of figure 1 can be derived by combining a2 with al along with the assertion that v2 and Vl name the same object. In any tree described by these relationships either the node named vpl must dominate vp~ or vice versa. Now in al, the relationship \"vpl dominates vl\" does not itself preclude vpx and vl from naming the same object. We can infer, however, from the fact that they are labeled incompatibly that this is not the case. Thus the path between them is at least one. From a2 we have that the path between vp2 and v2 is precisely one. Thus in all cases vpl must dominate vp2 by a path of length greater than or equal to zero. Hence the dashed line in a '.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The common element in these three applications is the need to manipulate structures that partially describe trees. In each case, we can understand this as a need to manipulate sets of trees. The structures, which we can take to be quasi-trees in each case, represent these sets of trees by capturing 73 the set of relationships that are common to all trees in the set. Thus we are interested in quasi-trees not just as partial descriptions of individual trees, but as a mechanism for manipulating sets of trees.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Reasoning, as in the LTAG example, about the structures described by combinations of quasi-trees requires some mechanism for manipulating the quasi-trees formally. Such a mechanism requires, in turn, a definition of quasi-trees as formal structures. While quasi-trees were introduced in (Vijay-Shanker, 1992), they have not been given a precise definition. The focus of the work described here is a formal definition of quasi-trees and the development of a mechanism for manipulating them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In the next section we develop an intuitive understanding of the structure of quasi-trees based on the applications we have discussed. Following that, we define the syntax of a language capable of expressing descriptions of trees as formulae and introduce quasi-trees as formal structures that define the semantics of that language. In section 4 we establish the correspondence between these formal models and our intuitive idea of quasi-trees. We then turn to a proof system, based on semantic tableau, which serves not only as a mechanism for reasoning about tree structures and checking the consistency of their descriptions, but also serves to produce models of a given consistent description. Finally, in section 7 we consider mechanisms for deriving a representative tree from a quasi-tree. We develop one such mechanism, for which we show that the tree produced is the circumscriptive reading in the context of TAG, and the standard referent in the context of D-theory. Due to space limitations we can only sketch many of our proofs and have omitted some details. The omitted material can be found in (Rogers & Vijay-Shanker, 1992 ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1108,
"end": 1137,
"text": "(Rogers & Vijay-Shanker, 1992",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "72",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Quasi-Trees In this section, we use the term relationship to informally refer to any positive relationship between individuals which can occur in a tree, \"a is the parent of b\" for example. We will say that a tree satisfies a relationship if that relationship is true of the individuals it names in that tree. It's clear, from our discussion of their applications, that quasi-trees have a dual nature --as a set of trees and as a set of relationships. In formalizing them, our fundamental idea is to identify those natures. We will say that a tree is (partially) described by a set of relationships if every relationship in the set is true in the tree. A set of trees is then described by a set of relationships if each tree in the set is described by the set of relationships. On the other hand, a set of trees is characterized by a set of relationships if it is described by that set and if every relationship that is common to all of the trees is included in the set of relationships. This is the identity we seek; the quasi-tree viewed as a set of relationships characterizes the same quasitree when viewed as a set of trees.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "NP VP ~ % v 1 'x~, v",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Clearly we cannot easily characterize arbitrary sets of trees. As an example, our sets of trees will be upward-closed in the sense that, it will contain every tree that extends some tree in the set, ie: that contains one of the trees as an initial sub-tree. Similarly quasi-trees viewed as sets of relationships are not arbitrary either. Since the sets they characterize consist of trees, some of the structural properties of trees will be reflected in the quasi-trees. For instance, if the quasi-tree contains both the relationships '% dominates b\" and \"b dominates c\" then every tree it describes will satisfy \"a dominates c\" and therefore it must contain that relationship as well. Thus many inferences that can be made on the basis of the structure of trees will carry over to quasi-trees. On the other hand, we cannot make all of these inferences and maintain any distinction between quasi-trees and trees. Further, for some inferences we will have the choice of making the inference or not. The choices we make in defining the structure of the quasi-trees as a set of relationships will determine the structure of the sets of trees we can characterize with a single quasi-tree. Thus these choices will be driven by how much expressive power the application needs in describing these sets. Our guiding principle is to make the quasi-trees as tree-like as possible consistent with the needs of our applications. We discuss these considerations more fully in (Rogers &5 Vijay-Shanker, 1992) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1462,
"end": 1493,
"text": "(Rogers &5 Vijay-Shanker, 1992)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "One inference we will not make is as follows: from \"a dominates b\" infer either \"a equals b\" or, for 74 some a' and b', \"a dominates a', a' is the parent of b', and b' dominates b\". In structures that enforce this condition path lengths cannot be left partially specified. As a result, the set of quasi-trees required to characterize s' viewed as a set of trees, for instance, would be infinite.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Similarly, we will not make the inference: for all a, b, either \"a is left-of b\", \"b is left-of a\", \"a dominates b\", or \"b dominates a\". In these structures the left-of relation is no longer partial, ie: for all pairs a, b either every tree described by the quasitree satisfies \"a is left-of b\" or none of them do. This is not acceptable for D-theory, where both the analyses of \"pseudo-passives\" and coordinate structures require single structures describing sets including both trees in which some a is left-of b and others in which the same a is either equal to or properly dominates that same b (Marcus, Hindle & Fleck, 1983) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 599,
"end": 629,
"text": "(Marcus, Hindle & Fleck, 1983)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Finally, we consider the issue of negation. If a tree does not satisfy some relationship then it satisfies the negation of that relationship, and vice versa. For quasi-trees the situation is more subtle. Viewing the quasi-tree as a set of trees, if every tree in that set fails to satisfy some relationship, then they all satisfy the negation of that relationship. Hence the quasi-tree must satisfy the negated relationship as well. On the other hand, viewing the quasi-tree as a set of relationships, if a particular relationship is not included in the quasi-tree it does not imply that none of the trees it describes satisfies that relationship, only that some of those trees do not. Thus it may be the case that a quasi-tree neither satisfies a relationship nor satisfies its negation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Since trees are completed objects, when a tree satisfies the negation of a relationship it will always be the case that the tree satisfies some (positive) relationship that is incompatible with the first. For example, in a tree \"a does not dominate b\" iff \"a is left-of b\", \"b is left-of a\", or \"b properly dominates a\". Thus there are inferences that can be drawn from negated relationships in trees that may be incorporated into the structure of quasi-trees. In making these inferences, we dispense with the need to include negative relationships explicitly in the quasi-trees. They can be defined in terms of the positive relationships. The price we pay is that to characterize the set of all trees in which \"a does not dominate b\", for instance, we will need three quasi-trees, one characterizing each of the sets in which \"a is left-of b\", \"b is left-of a\", and % properly dominates a\". Our atomic formulae are t ,~ u, t \u00a2+ u, t <* u, t -< u, and t ~ u, where t, u \u2022 K are terms. Literals are atomic formulae or their negations. Well-formedformulae are generated from atoms and the logical connectives in the usual fashion.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We use t, u, v to denote terms and \u00a2, \u00a2 to denote wffs. R denotes any of the five predicates.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Models Quasi-trees as formal structures are in a sense a reduced form of the quasi-trees viewed as sets of relationships. They incorporate a canonical subset of those relationships from which the remaining relationships can be deduced. Definition 1 A model is a tuple (H,I, 7 ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 268,
"end": 275,
"text": "(H,I, 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "3.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "At least one normal, consistent quasi-tree (that consisting of only a root node) satisfies all of these conditions simultaneously. Thus they are consistent. It is not hard to exhibit a model for each condition in which that condition fails while all of the others hold. Thus the conditions are independent of each other.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "It is normal iff RCx for all x # y \u2022 H, either (~, y) \u00a2 79) or (y, ~) \u00a2 7).",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Trees are distinguished from (ordinary) quasitrees by the fact that 79 is the reflexive, transitive closure of P, and the fact that the relations 79, 79, ,4, \u00a3 are maximal in the sense that they cannot be consistently extended. Note that TC1 implies that .A M --(79M)+ as well.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "It is normal iff RCx for all x # y \u2022 H, either (~, y) \u00a2 79) or (y, ~) \u00a2 7).",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is easy to verify that a quasi-tree meets these conditions iff (H M, 79M) is the graph of a tree as commonly defined (Aho, Hopcroft & Ullman, 1974) . In addition we require that ZM(k) be defined for all k occurring in the formula.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 150,
"text": "(Aho, Hopcroft & Ullman, 1974)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "It is normal iff RCx for all x # y \u2022 H, either (~, y) \u00a2 79) or (y, ~) \u00a2 7).",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "It is easy to verify that for all quasi-trees M",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Satisfaction",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "(3t, u, R)[M ~ t R u,-~t R u] ==~ M inconsistent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Satisfaction",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "If 2: M is surjective then the converse holds as well. It is also not hard to see that if T is a tree 4 Characterization We now show that this formalization is complete in the sense that a consistent quasi-tree as defined characterizes the set of trees it describes. Recall that the quasi-tree describes the set of all trees which satisfy every literal formula which is satisfied by the quasi-tree. It characterizes that set if every literal formula which is satisfied by every tree in the set is also satisfied by the quasi-tree. The property of satisfying every formula which is satisfied by the quasi-tree is captured formally by the notion of subsumption, which we define initially as a relationship between quasi-trees. We now claim that any quasi-tree Q is subsumed by a quasi-tree M iff it is described by M. Lemma 1 If M and Q are normal, consistent quasi-trees and 3 M is surjective, then M E Q iff for all formulae \u00a2, M ~ \u00a2 ~ Q ~ \u00a2. The proof in the forward direction is an easy induction on the structure of \u00a2 and does not depend either on normality or surjectiveness of I M. The opposite direction follows from the fact that, since Z M is surjective, there is a model M' in which/~M' is the set of equivalence classes wrt ~ in the domain of Z M, such that M E M~ E Q-",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Satisfaction",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The next lemma allows us, in many cases, to assume that a given quasi-tree is normal. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Satisfaction",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We can now state the central claim of this section, that every consistent quasi-tree characterizes the set of trees which it subsumes. The proof follows from two lemmas. The first establishes that the set of quasi-trees subsumed by some quasi-tree M is in fact characterized by it. The second extends the result to trees. Their proofs are in (Rogers & Vijay-Shanker, 1992 (Beth, 1959; Fitting, 1990) are used to prove validity by means of refutation. We are interested in satisfiability rather than validity. Given E we wish to build a model of E if one exists. Thus we are interested in the cases where the tableau succeeds in constructing a model.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 342,
"end": 371,
"text": "(Rogers & Vijay-Shanker, 1992",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 384,
"text": "(Beth, 1959;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 399,
"text": "Fitting, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "vM}.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The distinction between these uses of semantic tableau is important, since our mechanism is not suitable for refutational proofs. In particular, it cannot express \"some model fails to satisfy \u00a2\" except as \"some model satisfies -\u00a2\". Since our logic is non-classical the first is a strictly weaker condition than the second. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "vM}.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our inference rules fall into three groups. The first two, figures 3 and 4, are standard rules for propositional semantic tableau extended with equality (Fitting, 1990) . The third group, figure 5, embody the properties of quasi-trees.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 168,
"text": "(Fitting, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inference Rules",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "The --,,~ rule requires the introduction of a new name into the tableau. To simplify this, tableau are carried out in a language augmented with a countably infinite set of new names from which these are drawn in a systematic way.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inference Rules",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "The following two lemmas establish the correctness of the inference rules in the sense that no rule increases the set of models of any branch nor eliminates all of the models of a satisfiable branch. Lemma 5 Suppose S' is derived from S in some tableau by some sequence of rule applications. Suppose M is a model, then:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inference Rules",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "M~S'::~M~S.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inference Rules",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "This follows nearly directly from the fact that all of our rules are non-strict, ie: the branch to which an inference rule is applied is a subset of every branch introduced by its application. Lemma 6 If S is a branch of some configuration of a tableau and ,S' is the set of branches resulting from applying some rule to S, then if there is a 77 consistent quasi-tree M such that M ~ S, then for some 5;~ E S' there is a consistent quasi-tree M' such that M' ~ S~. We sketch the proof. Suppose M ~ S. For all but --,,a it is straightforward to verify M also satisfies at least one of the S~. For ~,~, suppose M fails to satisfy either u ,~* t or -,t ,~* u. Then we claim some quasi-tree satisfies the third branch of the conclusion. This must map the new constant k to the witness for the rule. M has no such requirement, but since k does not occur in S, the value of 2: M(k) does not affect satisfaction of S. Thus we get an appropriate M' by modifying z M' to map k correctly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inference Rules",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "Corollary 1 If there is a closed tableau for \u00a2 then no consistent quasi-tree satisfies \u00a2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inference Rules",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "No consistent quasi-tree satisfies a closed set of formulae. The result then follows by induction on the length of the tableau.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inference Rules",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "We now turn to the conditions for a branch to be sufficiently complete to fully specify a quasi-tree. In essence these just require that all formulae have been expanded to atoms, that all substitutions have been made and that the conditions in the definition of quasi-trees are met.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constructing Models",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Saturated Branches Definition 7 A set of sentences S is downward saturated iff for all formulae \u00a2, \u00a2, and terms t, u, v: 1-Is CVCES=v. 117 tl ~ ul,t2 ~, uz E S =~ tl ,~* t2 E S ~ ul ,~* u2 E S, tl ,~+ t2 E S =\u00a2, ul ,~+ u2 H9 t~uES~t, ~* uES 111, o t ~ u E S =C, t , ~* u E S or ~u , ~* t E S 11, , t, ~* u, z t , ~\" u, u , ~* v E S ~ t , ~* v E S H*3 t , ~* v, u , ~* v E S ~ t , ~* u E S or u , ~* t E S H, \u00a2 t ES H, 5 t , ~+ u E S ~ t , ~* u, ~u , ~* t E S H, 6 t , ~+ u, s, ~* t, u, ~* vES ~ s, ~+ v~S H*7 ~t , ~* u E S or u .~* t E S H, 8 t , ~ u E S ::C, t , ~+ u -1, 9 t ,a v E S :----~ u -4 v E S or v -4 u E S or u ,~* t E S or v ,~* u E S H2o \",t ,~ u E S ::~ u ,~* t E S or-~t ,~* u E S or t ,~+ w, w ,~+ u t , ~* s, u , v , ~ + t, v , v , ~ + t, v , H26 ~t-4 uE S=\u00a2,",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 120,
"text": "\u00a2, \u00a2, and terms t, u, v:",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 221,
"text": "117 tl ~ ul,t2 ~, uz E S =~ tl ,~* t2 E S ~ ul ,~* u2 E S, tl ,~+ t2 E S =\u00a2, ul ,~+ u2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 233,
"text": "H9 t~uES~t,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 245,
"text": "~* uES 111,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 261,
"text": "o t ~ u E S =C,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 265,
"text": "t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 282,
"text": "~* u E S or ~u ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 295,
"text": "~* t E S 11,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 297,
"text": ",",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 300,
"text": "t,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 306,
"text": "~* u,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 312,
"text": "z t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 318,
"text": "~\" u,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 322,
"text": "u ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 337,
"text": "~* v E S ~ t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 354,
"text": "~* v E S H*3 t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 360,
"text": "~* v,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 364,
"text": "u ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 379,
"text": "~* v E S ~ t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 380,
"end": 395,
"text": "~* u E S or u ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 407,
"text": "~* t E S H,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 417,
"text": "\u00a2 t ES H,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 423,
"text": "5 t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 438,
"text": "~+ u E S ~ t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 439,
"end": 444,
"text": "~* u,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 445,
"end": 449,
"text": "~u ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 450,
"end": 461,
"text": "~* t E S H,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 462,
"end": 467,
"text": "6 t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 473,
"text": "~+ u,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 476,
"text": "s,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 482,
"text": "~* t,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 483,
"end": 485,
"text": "u,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 497,
"text": "~* vES ~ s,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 498,
"end": 513,
"text": "~+ v~S H*7 ~t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 540,
"text": "~* u E S or u .~* t E S H,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 546,
"text": "8 t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 559,
"text": "~ u E S ::C,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 563,
"text": "t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 568,
"text": "~+ u",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 716,
"text": "-1, 9 t ,a v E S :----~ u -4 v E S or v -4 u E S or u ,~* t E S or v ,~* u E S H2o \",t ,~ u E S ::~ u ,~* t E S or-~t ,~* u E S or t ,~+ w, w ,~+ u",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 717,
"end": 720,
"text": "t ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 721,
"end": 726,
"text": "~* s,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 727,
"end": 730,
"text": "u ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 731,
"end": 734,
"text": "v ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 735,
"end": 741,
"text": "~ + t,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 742,
"end": 745,
"text": "v ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 749,
"text": "v ,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 750,
"end": 756,
"text": "~ + t,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 757,
"end": 760,
"text": "v ,",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "6.1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "E S, tl ~ t2 E S ==~ u 1 <l u 2 ~ S, tl -< t2 E S =\u00a2. Ul -.4 u2 E S, tl ~ t2 E S ~ ua ,~ u2 E S. t118",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u00a2ES orCES 1-13 -',(\u00a2 V \u00a2) E S =\u00a2, \",\u00a2 E S and \",\u00a2 E S I-I 4 C A C E S =~ ff E S and C E S 1-I6 t ,~ t E S for all terms t occurring in S",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "u -4 t E S or t ,~* u E S or u ,~* t E S.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "E S, for some term w H2x t -4 u E S ~ -~t ,~* u, -~u ,~* t, --,u -4 t E S",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The next lemma (essentially Hintikka's lemma) establishes the correspondence between saturated branches and quasi-trees. Lemma 7 For every consistent downward saturated set of formulae S there is a consistent quasitree M such that M ~ S. For every finite consistent downward saturated set of formulae, there is a such a quasi-tree which is finite.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "E S, for some term w H2x t -4 u E S ~ -~t ,~* u, -~u ,~* t, --,u -4 t E S",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Again, we sketch the proof. Consider the set T(S) of terms occurring in a downward saturated set S. I-I6 and I-/7 assure that ~ is reflexive and substitutive. Sincet ~u,u~v E S=~t ~v E S, and u~u,u,~vE S~v~ u E Sby substitution of v for (the first occurrence of) u, it is transitive and symmetric as well. Thus ~ partitions T(S) into equivalence classes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "E S, for some term w H2x t -4 u E S ~ -~t ,~* u, -~u ,~* t, --,u -4 t E S",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Define the model H as follows: Since each of the conditions C1 through Cx2 corresponds directly to one of the saturation conditions, it is easy to verify that H satisfies Cq. It is equally easy to confirm that H is both consistent and normal.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "E S, for some term w H2x t -4 u E S ~ -~t ,~* u, -~u ,~* t, --,u -4 t E S",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "u n = 7\"(s)/~,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "E S, for some term w H2x t -4 u E S ~ -~t ,~* u, -~u ,~* t, --,u -4 t E S",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We claim that \u00a2 E S =\u00a2-H ~ \u00a2. As is usual for versions of Hintikka's lemma, this is established by an induction on the structure of \u00a2. Space prevents us from giving the details here.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "78",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For the second part of the lemma, if the set of formulae is finite, then the set of terms (and hence the set of equivalence classes) is finite.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "78",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Since all of our inference rules are non-strict, if a rule once applies to a branch it will always apply to a branch. Without some restriction on the application of rules, tableau for satisfiable sets of formulae will never terminate. What is required is a control strategy that guarantees that no rule applies to any tableau more than finitely often, but that will always find a rule to apply to any open branch that is not downward saturated. The last condition in effect requires all equality rules to be applied before any new constant is introduced. It prevents the introduction of a formula involving a new constant if an equivalent formula already exists or if it is possible to derive one using only the equality rules. We now argue that this definition of applies does not terminate any branch too soon. Lemma 8 If no inference rule applies to an open branch S of a configuration, then S is downward saturated.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Saturated Tableau",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "This follows directly from the fact that for each of H1 through H26, if the implication is false there is a corresponding inference rule which applies. \" 5:,t ~ u,-.t <1* u [ 5:,t # u,-~u <1* t r'. S, t <1\" u, u <1\" v * (transitivity) 5:~ t <1\" U~ U <1\" V~ t <1\" V <it 5:, t .~* V~ U <1\" V 5:, t <1\" v, u .~* v, t ,~* u [ 5:, t ,~* v, u .~* v, u <1\" t <1~ (branches linearly ordered)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 197,
"text": "\" 5:,t ~ u,-.t <1* u [ 5:,t # u,-~u <1* t r'.",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Saturated Tableau",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "5:~ --,t <1\" u ---1<1\" 5:, -~t <1* u, t -4 u [ 5:,-~t<1\" u,u-4t [ S, \"-,t <1* u, u <1 +t 5:, t <1 + u 5:, t ,~+ u, s <1\" t, u <1\" v 5:,t<1 + u, t <1* u, --,u <1* t <1+1 5:,t<1 + u, s <1* t, u <1* v, s <1 + v ~1+ 2 5:, -,t <1 + u 5:t t <1 u -1<1 + <11 5:, -~t <1 + u, -~t 4* u I 5:,-.t<1 + u, u <1* t 5:, t <1u, t <1 + u 5:, t <1v <12 5:,t<1v, u-4v [ 5:,t<1v, v-4u I 5:,t<1v, u<1*t [ 5:,t<1v, v<1* u any term u occurring in 5:.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 398,
"text": "[ 5:,-~t<1\" u,u-4t [ S, \"-,t <1* u, u <1 +t 5:, t <1 + u 5:, t ,~+ u, s <1\" t, u <1\" v 5:,t<1 + u, t <1* u, --,u <1* t <1+1 5:,t<1 + u, s <1* t, u <1* v, s <1 + v ~1+ 2 5:, -,t <1 + u 5:t t <1 u -1<1 + <11 5:, -~t <1 + u, -~t 4* u I 5:,-.t<1 + u, u <1* t 5:, t <1u, t <1 + u 5:, t <1v <12 5:,t<1v, u-4v [ 5:,t<1v, v-4u I 5:,t<1v, u<1*t [ 5:,t<1v, v<1* u",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Saturated Tableau",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "S~ ~t <J u \"n<1 S,-.t <1u, u <1* t [ S,-.t ~ u,-~t <1* u [ 5:, \".t <1 u, t <1 + k, k <1 + u k new name 5:, t -4 U S, t -4 U, t <1* 8, U <1\" V -<a \"42 5:,t -4 u, ~t <1\" u, ~u <1\" t, ~U -4 t 5:~t -4 u,t <1\" s~u <1\" V,s -4 V 5:, t -4 u, v <1* t -<a 5:, t -4 u, v ,~* t, v -4 u [ 5:, t -4 u, v ,~* t, v <1+ t, v <1+ u 5:, t -4 u, v <1* u 5:~ t -4 U, v'~* u, t -4 v [ 5: , t -4 U , U -4 V -<t 5:~ t -4 U~ V \"~* U~ V <1 + t~ V <1+ U 5:, \"~t -4 u S , t .-4 u , u -4 v , t -4 v \"44 ,5',--t-~u,u-~t [ S,--,t-4u, t<1*u [ S,--,t-4u , u<1*t Figure 5 . Tree Rules -,-<",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 91,
"text": "S,-.t <1u, u <1* t [ S,-.t ~ u,-~t <1* u [ 5:, \".t <1 u, t <1 + k, k <1 + u",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 520,
"text": "5:,t -4 u, ~t <1\" u, ~u <1\" t, ~U -4 t 5:~t -4 u,t <1\" s~u <1\" V,s -4 V 5:, t -4 u, v <1* t -<a 5:, t -4 u, v ,~* t, v -4 u [ 5:, t -4 u, v ,~* t, v <1+ t, v <1+ u 5:, t -4 u, v <1* u 5:~ t -4 U, v'~* u, t -4 v [ 5: , t -4 U , U -4 V -<t 5:~ t -4 U~ V \"~* U~ V <1 + t~ V <1+ U 5:, \"~t -4 u S , t .-4 u , u -4 v , t -4 v \"44 ,5',--t-~u,u-~t [ S,--,t-4u, t<1*u [ S,--,t-4u",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 529,
"end": 537,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Saturated Tableau",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "We use names rather than constants to clarify the link to description theory.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The additional condition excludes \"non-standard\" models which include components not connected to the root by a finite sequence of immediate domination links.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "Proposition 2 (Termination) All tableau for finite sets of formulae can be extended to tableau in which no rule applies to the final configuration. This follows from the fact that the size of any tableau for finite sets of formulae has a finite upper bound. The proof is in (Rogers & Vijay-Shanker, 1992) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 274,
"end": 304,
"text": "(Rogers & Vijay-Shanker, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "annex",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A saturated tableau for a finite set of formulae exists iff there is a consistent quasi-tree which satisfies E. Proof:The forward implication (soundness) follows from lemma 7. Completeness follows from the fact that if E is satisfiable there is no closed tableau for E (corollary 1), and thus, by proposition 2 and lemma 8, there must be a saturated tableau for E.[] 7Extracting Trees from Quasi-trees Having derived some quasi-tree satisfying a set of relationships, we would like to produce a \"minimal\" representative of the trees it characterizes. In section 3.1 we define the conditions under which a quasi-tree is a tree. Working from those conditions we can determine in which ways a quasi-tree M may fail to be a tree, namely:\u2022 L M and/or 7) M may be partial, ie: for some t,u, U ~: (t -~ uV-~t -~ u) or U ~ (t ,~*The case of partial L: M is problematic in that, while it is possible to choose a unique representative, its choice must be arbitrary. For our applications this is not significant since currently in TAGs left-of is fully specified and in parsing it is always resolved by the input. Thus we make the assumption that in every quasi-tree M from which we need to extract a tree, left-of will be complete. That is, for all terms t,u:Suppose M ~ u ,~* t and M ~: (t 4\" u V-~t ,~* u), and that zM(u) = x and zM(t) = y. In D-theory, this case never arises, since proper domination, rather than domination, is primitive. It is clear that the TAG applications require that x and y be identified, ie: (y, x) should be added to/)m. Thus we choose to complete 7) M by extending it. Under the assumption that /: is complete this simply means: if M ~ -~t ,~* u, 7) M should be extended such that M ~ t ,~* u. That M can be extended in this way consistently follows from lemma 3. That the result of completing ~)M in this way is unique follows from the fact that, under these conditions, extending \"D M does not extend either ,A M or ~M. The details can be found in (Rogers & Vijay-Shanker, 1992 ).In the resulting quasi-tree domination has been resolved into equality or proper domination. To arrive at a tree we need only to expand pM such that (,pM)* .: ~)M. In the proof of lemma 4 we show that this will be the case in any quasi-tree T closed under:The second of these conditions is our mechanism for completing/)M. The first amounts to taking immediate domination as the parent relation -precisely the mechanism for finding the standard referent. Thus the tree we extract is both the circumscriptive reading of (Vijay-Shanker, 1992) and the standard referent of (Marcus, Hindle & Fleck, 1983) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1971,
"end": 2000,
"text": "(Rogers & Vijay-Shanker, 1992",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 2573,
"end": 2603,
"text": "(Marcus, Hindle & Fleck, 1983)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Proposition 3 (Soundness and Completeness)",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"V"
],
"last": "Aho",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Hopcroft",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Ullman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1974,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aho, A. V., Hopcroft, J. E., & Ullman, J. D. (1974). The Design and Analysis of Computer Algo- rithms. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The Foundations of Mathematics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Beth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1959,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Beth, E. W. (1959). The Foundations of Mathe- matics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "First-order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fitting",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fitting, M. (1990). First-order Logic and Auto- mated Theorem Proving. New York: Springer- Verlag.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marcus, M. P. (1980). A Theory of Syntactic Recog- nition for Natural Language. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Deterministic parsing and description theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marcus, M. P. (1987). Deterministic parsing and description theory. In P. Whitelock, M. M. Wood, H. L. Somers, R. Johnson, & P. Ben- nett (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications. Academic Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Talking about talking about trees",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "D-Theory",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 21st AnnuaiMeeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the 21st AnnuaiMeeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "A formalization of partial descriptions of trees",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rogers",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Dept. of Comp. and Info. Sci",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rogers, J. & Vijay-Shanker, K. (1992). A formal- ization of partial descriptions of trees. Techni- cal Report TR92-23, Dept. of Comp. and Info. Sci., University of Delaware, Newark, DE.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Using descriptions of trees in a tree-adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Vijay-Shanker, K. (1992). Using descriptions of trees in a tree-adjoining grammar. Computa- tional Linguistics. To appear.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Structure sharing in lexicalized tree-adjoining grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vijay-Shanker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schabes",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COL-ING'92)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Vijay-Shanker, K. & Schabes, Y. (1992). Structure sharing in lexicalized tree-adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 16th International Con- ference on Computational Linguistics (COL- ING'92), Nantes.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Structure Sharing in a Representation of Elementary Structures"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "built up from the symbols: K --non-empty countable set of names, 1 r --a distinguished element of K, the root <1, ~+, ,~*, --< --two place predicates, parent, proper domination, domination, and left-of respectively, --equality predicate, A, V, -~ --usual logical connectives (,), [, ] --usual grouping symbols"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "y)\u2022.4 and (w,x),(y, z) \u2022 79 ::~ (w, ~) \u2022 A, c~ (=, y) \u2022 19 ~ (z, y) \u2022 A c8 (z, z) And meeting the additional condition: for every x,z \u2022 U the set B=z = {Y I (x,Y),(Y,Z) \u2022 79} is finite, ie: the length of path from any node to any other is finite. 2 A quasi-tree is consistent iff CC~ (x,y) \u2022 A ~ (y,x) \u00a2 79, CC2 (z, y) \u2022 \u00a3 =:, (=, y) \u00a2 79, (y, =) \u00a2 79, and (y, =) \u00a2 z:."
},
"FIGREF3": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Definition 3 A consistent, normal quasi-tree M is a tree iff Tel 79M = (7~M)*, TC2 for all pairs (x, y) \u2022 U M X l~ M,exactly one of the following is true:"
},
"FIGREF4": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "The semantics of the language in terms of the models is defined by the satisfaction relation between models and formulae. Definition 4 A model M satisfies a formula \u00a2 (M ~ \u00a2) as follows: u),z~(t)) \u2022 v ~, (z~(t),Z~(u)) \u2022 z: ~, (ZM(u), :z:M(t)) \u2022 z: ~, or (z~(t), =), (=,z~(u)) \u2022 A ~, for some x \u2022 l~M ; ~(\u00a2V\u00a2) iffM~-~\u00a2 andM~'~\u00a2."
},
"FIGREF5": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Definition 5 Subsumption. Suppose M = (l~M,~ M 7)M,'DM,.AM,f-.M) and t 14 ,Z ,7 ) ,7) ,,4 ,\u00a3 ) are consistent quasi-trees, then M subsumes M z (M ~ M I) iff there is a function h : lA M ~ 14 M' such that: 76 zM'(t) = h(7:M(t)), (x, y) e 7)M =V (h(x), h(y)) e 7)M' (x, y) e V M ~ (h(z), h(y)) E 7 )M', (x, y) E .A M =v (h(x), h(y)) e .A M', (x, y) e \u00a3M ~ (h(x),h(y)) e \u00a3M'."
},
"FIGREF6": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Lemma 2 For every consistent quasi-tree M, there is a normal, consistent quasi-tree M ~ such that M E M~, and for all normal, consistent quasitree M', M E M\" ::\u00a2. M ~ E M'. The lemma is witnessed by the quotient of M with respect to S M, where sM = { (x, y) I (x, y), (y, x) e"
},
"FIGREF7": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Suppose M is a consistent quasitree. For all literals \u00a2 M ~ \u00a2 \u00a2~ (VT, tree)[M E T ::~ T ~ \u00a2]"
},
"FIGREF8": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "by consistency, \u00a2== by completeness of trees) \u00a2V -~(3Q, consistent q-t)[M E Q and Q ~ -~\u00a2] (==~ by lemma 4, \u00a2= since T is a quasi-tree) (::~ by lemma 3, \u00a2=: by lemma 1) O Semantic Tableau Semantic tableau as introduced by Beth"
},
"FIGREF9": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Definition 6 Semantic Tableau: A branch is a set, S, of formulae. A configuration is a collection, {S1,...,S~}, of branches. A tableau is a sequence, (C1,..., Cnl, of configurations where each Ci+~ is a result of the application of an inference rule to Ci. If s is an inference rule, (Ci\\{S}) U {sl,..., s',} is the result of applying the rule to G iff z eG. A tableau for ~, where E is a set of formulae, is a tableau in which C1 = {E}. A branch is closed iff (9\u00a2)[{\u00a2,--,\u00a2} C 5']. A configuration is closed iff each of its branches is closed, and a tableau is closed iff it contains some closed configuration. A branch~ configuration, or tableau that is not closed is open."
},
"FIGREF10": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Figure 3. Elementary Rules"
},
"FIGREF11": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "1"
},
"FIGREF13": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "denotes the result of substituting u for any or all occurrences oft in \u00a2."
},
"FIGREF14": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Figure 4. Equality Rules"
},
"TABREF3": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": "EQs such that for each of the Cj, \u00a2{t/a, ul/Vl,~2/v2,...} E S. Ul/Vl, U2/V2,...} denotes the result of uniformly substituting t for a, ulfor vl, etc., in \u00a2.)",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Definition 8 Let EQs be the reflexive, symmetric,</td></tr><tr><td>transitive closure of { (t, u) l t ~ u e S}.</td></tr><tr><td>An inference rule, I, applies to some branch S</td></tr><tr><td>of a configuration C iff</td></tr><tr><td>\u2022 S is open</td></tr><tr><td>\u2022 S \u2022 {Si I Si results from application of I to S}</td></tr><tr><td>\u2022 if I introduces a new constant a occurring in</td></tr><tr><td>formulae Cj(a) E Si, there is no term t and</td></tr><tr><td>pairs (ul, va), (u2, v2), . . . E (Where \u00a2{t/a,</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"html": null
}
}
}
} |