1 / 50

RCD

RCD. Inconsistency and Ranking. Timestamp: July 25, 2005. What we know about Inconsistency. A set of ERCs A is inconsistent, unsatisfiable by any ranking, If and only if it contains a subset X such that f X  L+. What we know about Inconsistency.

ingo
Download Presentation

RCD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. RCD Inconsistency and Ranking Timestamp: July 25, 2005

  2. What we know about Inconsistency • A set of ERCs A is inconsistent, unsatisfiable by any ranking, • If and only if it contains a subset X such that f X L+

  3. What we know about Inconsistency A set of ERCs A is inconsistent, unsatisfiable by any ranking, if and only if it contains a subset X such that f X L+ ● E.g. X = (e, W, L), (e, L, W) f X = (e, L, L)

  4. What we know about Inconsistency A set of ERCs A is inconsistent, unsatisfiable by any ranking, if and only if it contains a subset X such that f X L+ E.g. X = (e, W, L), (e, L, W) f X = (e, L, L) ●C2 cannot both dominate and be dominated by C3.

  5. Perils of Nonexistence • Q: given a set A of ERCs, is it consistent? • If not, then you don’t have a grammar.

  6. Perils of Nonexistence • Q: given a set of ERCs, is it consistent? • If not, then you don’t have a grammar. • Your constraints may be wrong

  7. Perils of Nonexistence • Q: given a set of ERCs, is it consistent? • If not, then you don’t have a grammar. • Your constraints may be wrong • You may be missing a constraint

  8. Perils of Nonexistence • Q: given a set of ERCs, is it consistent? • If not, then you don’t have a grammar. • Your constraints may be wrong • You may be missing a constraint • Your structures may be wrong

  9. Perils of Nonexistence • Q: given a set of ERCs, is it consistent? • If not, then you don’t have a grammar. • Your constraints may be wrong • You may be missing a constraint • Your structures may be wrong • Your underlying forms may be wrong

  10. Perils of Nonexistence • Q: given a set of ERCs, is it consistent? • If not, then you don’t have a grammar. • Your constraints may be wrong • You may be missing a constraint • Your structures may be wrong • Your underlying forms may be wrong • Your whole theory may be wrong

  11. Finding Inconsistency • Inconsistency might be well hidden. • X may be a proper subset of A, whose elements are scattered far and wide amid any listing you have of A. • The Knuckledragger Algorithm. • List all the subsets of A • Fuse each one • Stop if one fuses to L+. A is inconsistent. • If you make it all the way through, A is consistent.

  12. 2n grows fast • The number of subset of A is 2n, for |A|=n, • In the example we ended on last time, we ultimately had 17 ERCs in the basic set • 217 = 131, 072 • Even with the 6 ERCs we reduced it to, we have • 26 = 64 & we only need check 63 !

  13. A Better Way • Ask this Q instead: • in A , which ERCs cannot possibly belong to such X? • If we can answer this easily, we get the following: • Inconsistency Detection (ID) Algorithm.(sketch) 1. Remove from A all ERCs not possibly members of an inconsistent subset. Call the result A'. 2. If there are no removable ERCs, A is inconsistent ! 3. If there are some, then reapply the algorithm to A'. 4. If A is eventually evacuated, by reapplication, it’s consistent.

  14. An Analogy • How do we find the evil gang in the big crowd?

  15. Yo soy un hombre sincero • How do we find the evil gang in the big crowd? • First, remove all the obvious good guys (or neutrals) who certainly can’t be gang members. • If you can’t remove anybody, the whole crowd is the gang. • If you did remove some, then re-examine the remaining smaller crowd for good guys whose presence was previously hidden. Remove them. • Continue in this fashion, until either the whole crowd is gone (consistency) or you’ve reached an irreducible collection, a badly interacting gang which collectively threatens the moral health of the polity.

  16. By Their Fusions Shall You Know Them • Recursive Inconsistency Detection (RID) Algorithm. • Fuse all of A to form the derived ERC fA. • Consider any constraint Ck that has W in fA. Consider any ERCs αj that have W in Ck. These are entirely safe. ■ They give only W to the fusion of any subset of A. ● Remove them & start again. 3. If recursive removal removes all of A, it’s consistent. . If not, then not.

  17. For Example

  18. For Example

  19. For Example ERC α is good to go.

  20. Starting Over

  21. Starting Over

  22. Starting Over ERCs β,γ are good to go.

  23. Yet Again

  24. Yet Again ERC δ is good to go.

  25. The Empty Nest ● All ERCs accounted for. ■ A is consistent. It is free of inconsistent subsets. .

  26. A Similar Looking Case

  27. Step 1 ERC α is good to go

  28. Step 2 But ERCs β,γ,δ fuse to L+

  29. Step 2 Game Over! B is inconsistent. ■ And we’ve easily found an inconsistent subset of B.

  30. RCD: Ranking from RID • We can easily determine that A is consistent, when it is. • But we’d like to know more, on the constraint side. • Consistent ERC set = There is a ranking that works • Q: Can you show me one (at least one)?

  31. Memories • RID generates the necessary information to find a ranking. • We need merely remember it. • One formulation: keep the fusions.

  32. A’s fusional history under RID

  33. A’s fusions - Stratified

  34. A’sfusions - Stratified Any linear ordering that respects the strata will work!

  35. Recursive Constraint Demotion • We can achieve the same effect directly by taking the additional, ranking step while processing the ERC set. • This gives us Tesar’s Recursive Constraint Demotion

  36. RCD RCD • Fuse all of A, yielding fA. • Form a new Stratum of constraints from allconstraints yielding W or e in fA. Place it just below the lowest Stratum we have. • Remove all ERCs supplying W to the constraints in that stratum (just as in RID) to yield A'. • Ending condition. If all ERCs are gone, place any remaining constraints a new, bottom stratum. • Proceed recursively with A'.

  37. For Example

  38. RCD – First Round Fuse all.

  39. RCD – First Round Identify the lucky constraints.

  40. RCD – First Round Strafify.

  41. RCD – First Round Remove all ERCs satisfied by the new Stratum.

  42. RCD – Second Round Fuse all.

  43. RCD – Second Round Identify the lucky constraints. Stratify.

  44. RCD – Second Round Remove the newly solved ERCs.

  45. RCD – Third Round Fuse all. Identify. Stratify.

  46. RCD – Third Round Remove solved ERC

  47. RCD – Fourth Round Stratify ERCless constraint as bottom.

  48. What RCD Gives • Sufficiency. From the stratified hierarchy so produced, one may generate a ranking that works, if one exists. • Not necessity. Stratification loses information. You know that at least ONE of the constraints is a stratum must dominate the constraints in a lower strata, • But you don’t which, or whether several will do equally well. • RCD is a greedy algorithm, in that it stratifies constraints as soon as possible, putting them in the highest stratal position they can occupy.

  49. What RCD gives • Efficiency. At the cost of losing some info about necessary rankings, RCD proceeds with tremendous efficiency. No more rounds than there are constraints, and each round a small number of simple steps. • RCD asks: what can I rank?, not: what must I rank? • Inconsistency detection. As with RID, it will be the case that RCD fails to evacuate an inconsistent ERC. • Historically, RID is a stripped down version of RCD (Tesar 1995, Tesar & Smolensky 2000).

  50. Challenge ! • Consider all linearizations of an RCD stratified hierarchy, attained by linearizing each stratum independently, with these unified so as to retain stratal domination. • Show that it can easily be the case that not all legitimate grammars allowed by the underlying ERC set are produced by this linearization method. • Hint. You can show this with an ERC set containing just one ERC.

More Related