[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: Joe English <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 10:05:30 -0800
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> I'm curious as to the collective wisdom wrt the usual (in
> computational linguistics) way of checking the worst-case complexity
> of grammar formalisms: can you encode 3-SAT in TREX, RELAX,
> If you can, worst-case complexity is exponential.
TREX and RELAX have a decision procedure ("does document D
conform to schema S") that is O(N) in the size of the input
and worst-case polynomial in the size of the schema.
I can't think of anything in Schematron that's worse than
polynomial time - it mostly boils down to evaluating a bunch
of XPath expressions, and there's no recursion.
> 3-SAT is: given an expression in conjunctive normal form, where every
> conjunct contains exactly 3 terms consisting of a possibly negated
> variable, is there a binding of all the variables rendering the whole
> For example:
> (a v b v ~c) ^ (~b v d v ~e) ^ (~a v c v e) ^ (~c v ~d v ~e)
> a=1 b=0 c=1 d=0 e=1
> satisfies this.
> Turn this into a language either explicitly (i.e. with an attribute
> for negation) or implicitly (use absence for negation) and then try to
> write a (T|R|S) schema. If you can, assertions about parsers are
> beside the point, worst-case complexity is exponential in (n,m) where
> is the number of terms and m is the number of variables.
I'm not sure what this would prove. First, the encoding procedure
E : "3-SAT instance" -> "Schema" would have to take polynomial
time and space for this to mean much. Also, checking a document
instance against the schema would only answer the (much easier) question
"does this particular set of bindings satisfy the formula", not
"does _any_ set of bindings satisfy the formula".
For TREX and RELAX, the latter question does have a decision
procedure (not sure about Schematron). For RELAX, the decision
procedure "does any document match this schema" is O(M) in
the size of the schema. (In fact, it's probably O(1) -- I
believe the answer is always "yes" in the case of RELAX.)
The satisfiability algorithm for TREX *is* worst-case
exponential, due to <concur>, <interleave>, and <notAllowed>;
however this doesn't say anthing about the time complexity of
the validation algorithm (which is what TREX is _usually_
- Re: Blowout
- From: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <email@example.com>
- Re: Blowout
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Henry S. Thompson)