Scharpa is a Scala implementation of active chart parsing with context-free grammars.
The implementation is loosely based on Peter Hancox's courses on Natural Language Processing in Prolog, but the closest reference is this paper. This covers generalisation to allow different agenda processing policies and directional strategies. Our implementation also makes some recourse to this course.
Scharpa is not intended as a wide-coverage, robust, or high-performance parser; rather, it is an implementation of an efficient and flexible algorithm for dealing with formal languages and limited-domain natural language. In particular, the bottom-up features of chart parsing are useful where complete parses cannot be recovered.
Parsing is the process of deriving a phrase-structure analysis of some input text according to a given grammar. This project considers only context-free grammars, with rules in Backus-Naur Form:
LHS --> RHS1, RHS2, ..., RHSnHere, there is a single symbol on the left-hand side (LHS) that can be expanded into a (non-empty) sequence of symbols on the right-hand side (RHS). Each RHSi from the right-hand side can act as the left-hand-side of another rule in the grammar.
A prototypical example of such a grammar is:
S --> NP VP
NP --> DET N
DET --> "the"
N --> "cat"
VP --> V
V --> "sat"and parsing the sentence "the cat sat" would yield the following phrase-structure analysis (warning: S-expressions follow):
(S (NP (DET "the") (N "cat")) (VP (V "sat")))The convention here is that words -- or "leaf" nodes -- are represented as double-quoted strings, and appear exclusively in the RHS of rules. The remaining nodes are "non-terminals", which appear on both the RHS and LHS of grammar rules.
Parsing can be viewed as a search through the space of possible analyses for the one (or many) that best explain the observed sentence. Of course, it's entirely possible that the given grammar doesn't describe what might intuitively appear to be a perfectly valid sentence.
The parsing as search viewpoint is important for what follows. There are a few reasons of particular relevance here.
First, context-free grammars allow recursive rules of the form A --> A B, which could cause a naïve top-down search to enter infinite left recursion.
Second, a common mechanism for searching through a space of possibilities is to use backtracking to consider alternative expansions, which can lead to wasteful recomputation.
Third, depending on the domain, the precise formal analysis of a sentence may not be possible to derive, but partial structures would be a useful fallback position. Many standard parsing algorithms don't make it easy to retrieve these partial analyses.
Finally, some common techniques for controlling standard state-space search are applicable to the parsing problem, such as changing how we explore new nodes.
In our system, the grammar is represented as a Grammar type, which comprises:
- a
Set[Rule], where eachRuleis a rule in the grammar (form described above) - a special top rule, which provides the root symbol of any syntactic analysis, stored as a
TopRule.
Chart parsing is a dynamic programming technique for building a parse structure according to a given grammar. It attempts to build a chart for an input sentence, where the chart is a set of partially-applied rules from the grammar, called arcs. Arcs are defined as having:
- a starting index within the sentence
- an ending index within the sentence
- (thus) a contiguous subsequence of "covered" words
- a rule, which is being applied.
The chart grows over time through a process of extension: existing arcs are tested to see if they can cover some more of the sentence, and if so, a new arc is added to the chart, covering this extra information. Importantly, arcs are never removed from the graph; they are extended to produce new arcs. This is the basis of dynamic programming: the knowledge we have gleaned so far is retained and never thrown away.
Arcs fall into one of two states:
- Active: the arc's rule can cover more symbols, so can still be extended;
- Passive: all of the arc's rule can cover more symbols, so can still be extended;
These states dictate how a particular arc may be used to extend the chart.
Our system defines types for Chart and Arc. It goes further to distinguish subtypes of Arc for words (WordArc) and partially-applied rules (RuleArc). The algorithm for parsing is encapsulated by the ChartParser type.
Chart parsers can be customised to search through hypothesised analyses in a chosen order. Standard state-space search uses an agenda to control the order in which hypotheses are examined. The agenda is an ordered sequence of Arcs, where the first will be examined next. New Arcs are added to the agenda, and the resulting sequence determines the overall search policy.
The ChartParser is agnostic to search order, so leaves a abstract method:
def nextAgenda(old: Seq[Arc], additions: Seq[Arc]): Seq[Arc]Two naïve agenda implementations are provided: DepthFirstChartParser and BreadthFirstChartParser.
There are two major strategies for parsing:
- top-down starts with a special rule in the grammar, called the top node, and attempts to expand it to meet the words of the sentence.
- bottom-up starts with the words of the sentence, and attempts to find rules that cover them until it reaches the top-node.
These strategies are relevant when initialising the Chart and Agenda, and when expanding an Arc from the agenda. The chart parsing algorithm is agnostic to the strategies, so our ChartParser type leaves unspecified two methods:
def initialise(grammar: Grammar)(sentence: Seq[String]): State
def generateNewArcs(grammar: Grammar)(arc: Arc): Set[Arc]Two existing strategies are provided: BottomUpChartParser and TopDownChartParser.
See the tests for examples of how to construct a simple grammar and apply the parser.
// construct a grammar
val the = SimpleRule("Det", "the")
val cat = SimpleRule("N", "cat")
val dog = SimpleRule("N", "dog")
val sat = SimpleRule("V", "sat")
val np = SimpleRule("NP", "Det", "N")
val vp = SimpleRule("VP", "V")
val s = SimpleRule("S", "NP", "VP")
val rules = Set[Rule](the, cat, dog, sat, np, vp, s)
val top = TopRule("S")
val grammar = new Grammar(rules, top)
// build a parser - this one is bottom-up, breadth first
val parser = new BottomUpChartParser with BreadthFirstChartParser {}
// apply to a sentence
val chart = parser.parse(grammar)(Seq("the", "cat", "sat"))
// select only passive nodes matching complete parses
val complete = ChartParser.passiveNodes(chart, top.lhs)
// print S-expression readouts for complete nodes
complete.map(ChartParser.readout(_)).foreach(println)
// print the entire chart
println("=== Complete chart ===")
chart.chart.foreach(println)
println("======================")Definite Clause Grammar (DCG) Notation
DCG notation is a short-hand for grammar construction used in Prolog.
Scharpa provides two DCG shortcuts that are Prolog-inspired:
'V --> "sat" // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('V), Leaf("sat"))
'N --> "cat" // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('N), Leaf("cat"))
'N --> ("cat") // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('N), Leaf("cat"))
'N --> ("Granny", "Smith") // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('N), Leaf("Granny"), Leaf("Smith"))'S ==> ('NP, 'VP) // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('S), NonTerm('NP), NonTerm('VP))
'NP ==> ('Det, 'N) // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('NP), NonTerm('Det), NonTerm('N))
'NP ==> 'N // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('NP), NonTerm('N))
'NP ==> ('N) // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('NP), NonTerm('N))
'VP ==> 'V // translated: SimpleRule(NonTerm('VP), NonTerm('V))You're on your own: use SimpleRule directly.
See the tests for more examples of DCG notation.
Sometimes, it's overkill to specify lots of grammar rules for broad classes of Strings that could be better described by a pattern of some kind. An example might be numbers, which can be compactly described by regular expressions. Scharpa provides a little help for you here, in the form of RuleGenerators.
A RuleGenerator can be used to
This flexibility comes at a price, however, and RuleGenrators should be used with caution. If the symbols and rules of the grammar are known in advance, it is possible to make certain optimisations for rule-lookup, but these optimisations do not apply in the more general case of rule-generation. You have been warned...