Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Syntax.DependencyGrammar.Formal.NonProjective

Mildly Non-Projective Dependency Structures #

@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006} @cite{kuhlmann-2013} @cite{mueller-2013}

Formalizes the structural theory of non-projectivity from:

Core Concepts #

Five structural constraints on dependency trees, ordered by restrictiveness:

projective ⊂ planar ⊂ well-nested ⊂ unrestricted

Key Results #

Bridges #

Two dependencies cross iff their spans overlap without containment. (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, implicit in Definition 4)

Equations
  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For

    All non-projective (crossing) dependencies in a tree.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Whether a specific dependency crosses other arcs in the tree.

      Equations
      Instances For

        Whether a tree has any non-projective dependencies.

        Equations
        Instances For

          A filler-gap dependency is a non-projective dependency modelling extraction.

          In DG, wh-fronting creates crossing arcs — the analogue of:

          • Minimalism: Internal Merge (movement)
          • HPSG: SLASH feature propagation + Head-Filler discharge
          • CCG: function composition for extraction
          Instances For
            def DepGrammar.linked (deps : List Dependency) (a b : ) :

            Whether two positions are linked by an edge (in either direction).

            Equations
            Instances For

              A dependency tree is planar if its edges can be drawn above the sentence without crossing. Formally: no nodes a < b < c < d with linked(a,c) ∧ linked(b,d).

              (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, Definition 4; traced to @cite{melcuk-1988})

              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For

                Two subtrees interleave if there exist nodes l₁, r₁ in T₁ and l₂, r₂ in T₂ such that l₁ < l₂ < r₁ < r₂. (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, Definition 8)

                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Two nodes are disjoint if neither dominates the other — i.e., neither appears in the other's projection.

                  Equations
                  Instances For

                    A dependency tree is well-nested if no two disjoint subtrees interleave. (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, Definition 8)

                    Equivalent to: no sibling nodes u, v have blocks ū₁, ū₂ of u and v̄₁, v̄₂ of v such that ū₁ < v̄₁ < ū₂ < v̄₂ (@cite{kuhlmann-2013}, Lemma 9).

                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      The span of an edge (i, j): the interval [min(i,j), max(i,j)].

                      Equations
                      Instances For

                        The degree of an edge e: the number of connected components in the subgraph induced by span(e) whose root is NOT dominated by head(e). (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, Definition 9)

                        Edge degree measures intervening "foreign" material within an arc's span.

                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          Edge degree of a tree: max edge degree over all edges. (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, Definition 9) Edge degree 0 ⟺ projective.

                          Equations
                          Instances For

                            Relaxed well-formedness allowing non-projective dependencies. Drops the projectivity constraint from isWellFormed.

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              Non-projective well-formedness implies unique heads and acyclicity.

                              Projective well-formedness implies non-projective well-formedness.

                              Figure 3 examples: gap degree, edge degree, well-nestedness #

                              @cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006} Figure 3a: gd=0, ed=0, well-nested. 6 nodes, edges form nested (projective) structure. j(0) ← 4(root) i(1) ← 0 2 ← 1, 3 ← 1, 4 ← 1 → 5

                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For

                                @cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006} Figure 3b: gd=1, ed=1, well-nested. Node i has projection [2, 3, 6] — one gap at (3, 6). 1 ← 0(root), 2 ← 1, 3 ← 2, 4 ← 1 → 5, 2 → 6

                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                Instances For

                                  @cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006} Figure 3c: gd=2, ed=1, NOT well-nested. Nodes i and j have interleaving projections. i at 1: projection includes {2, 4}; j at 2: includes {3, 5} These interleave: 2 < 3 < 4 < 5.

                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                  Instances For

                                    Minimal crossing tree: arcs 0→2 and 1→3 cross.

                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    Instances For

                                      Cross-serial dependencies (@cite{kuhlmann-2013}, Figure 1) #

                                      The canonical motivation for non-projectivity. In Dutch, verb–argument dependencies cross ("cross-serial"), producing a non-projective tree. In German, the same dependencies nest, producing a projective tree.

                                      Dutch: dat Jan₁ Piet₂ Marie₃ zag₁ helpen₂ lezen₃ German: dass Jan₁ Piet₂ Marie₃ lesen₃ helfen₂ sah₁

                                      Dutch cross-serial: "dat Jan Piet Marie zag helpen lezen" Dependencies: zag→Jan, helpen→Piet, lezen→Marie These cross: zag(4)→Jan(1) spans helpen(5)→Piet(2).

                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      Instances For

                                        German nested: "dass Jan Piet Marie lesen helfen sah" Same dependencies, but verbs are in reverse order → nested, projective.

                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For

                                          Projectivity #

                                          Gap degree and block-degree (Core/Basic.lean) #

                                          Planarity #

                                          Well-nestedness #

                                          Projective ⟺ gap degree 0: a tree is projective iff no node's projection has any gaps. (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, Definition 3 + Definition 7)

                                          Projective ⟺ block-degree 1: every node has exactly one block. Requires at least one word (blockDegree of empty tree is 0, not 1).

                                          Proof: projective ↔ gap degree 0 (Theorem 1). When gap degree = 0, every gapDegreeAt = 0, so by blocks_length = gaps_length + 1, every blockDegreeAt = 1, so foldl max 0 = 1.

                                          theorem DepGrammar.blockDegree_eq_gapDegree_succ (deps : List Dependency) (root : ) :
                                          blockDegreeAt deps root = gapDegreeAt deps root + 1

                                          Block-degree = gap degree + 1 for non-empty projections. (@cite{kuhlmann-2013}, §7.1 footnote 2)

                                          theorem DepGrammar.projective_implies_planar (t : DepTree) (hwf : t.WF) (hacyc : isAcyclic t = true) (hproj : isProjective t = true) :

                                          Projective ⊂ planar (for well-formed trees): every projective tree with unique heads and no cycles is planar. (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, §3.5: projectivity implies no crossing edges)

                                          The hasUniqueHeads precondition is necessary: without it, a node can have two heads, and the resulting multi-headed graph can be projective (all projections are intervals) yet non-planar (edges cross).

                                          Counterexample without hasUniqueHeads: 4 nodes, edges (0,1), (0,2), (1,2), (1,3). Node 2 has two heads (0 and 1). All projections are intervals, but linked(0,2) and linked(1,3) cross.

                                          The isAcyclic precondition is necessary: without it, hasUniqueHeads allows cycles (e.g., edges (1,2),(2,1) with root=0), and the dominance antisymmetry argument fails.

                                          Proof: by contrapositive. If ¬planar, there exist a < b < c < d with edges linking a–c and b–d. Each edge endpoint pair shares a projection (the head's). Projectivity makes that projection an interval. The interval containing {a, c} must contain b; the interval containing {b, d} must contain c. With unique heads, dominates_to_parent lifts the intermediate dominance to the other edge's head, creating a dominance cycle v→w→v. By dominates_antisymm (acyclicity), v = w, contradicting v < w.

                                          Planar ⊂ well-nested (for well-formed trees): every planar tree with unique heads is well-nested. (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, Theorem 1)

                                          Proof: by contrapositive. If ¬wellNested, there exist disjoint subtrees u, v whose projections interleave: l₁ < l₂ < r₁ < r₂ with l₁, r₁ ∈ π(u) and l₂, r₂ ∈ π(v). By interleaving_not_planar, this forces crossing edges, contradicting planarity.

                                          Dutch cross-serial witnesses the gap: non-projective yet well-nested. (@cite{kuhlmann-nivre-2006}, §4: 99.89% of treebank data is well-nested)

                                          The minimal crossing tree witnesses: not well-nested and not planar.

                                          Non-projective dependencies → gap degree ≥ 1. Contrapositive of projective_iff_gapDegree_zero.

                                          Dutch cross-serial is non-projective but well-nested with gap degree 1. This exemplifies K&N's key finding: the vast majority of non-projective structures in treebanks are well-nested with low gap degree.

                                          German nested is fully projective (gap degree 0), confirming that the nested verb order avoids crossing dependencies.