grammar-inference

This is an implementation of Buszkowski and Penn's RG algorithm (1990) for AB grammars (classical categorial grammars). Given a set of positive examples (i.e., correct sentences), it infers the grammar that generated those sentences.

Here's an example from Moot and Retoré (2000); consider the following sentences:

[\ₑ [/ₑ a man ] swims ]
[\ₑ [/ₑ a fish ] [\ₑ swims fast ] ]

We represent such a derivation with missing types with the Derivation type defined in Derivation.hs. These look like follows:

example1 :: Derivation
example1 = Node Backslash None
             (Node Slash None (Leaf None "a") (Leaf (AtomicType Noun) "man"))
             (Leaf None "swims")

example2 :: Derivation
example2 = Node Backslash None
             (Node Slash None (Leaf None "a") (Leaf None "fish"))
             (Node Backslash None (Leaf None "swims") (Leaf None "fast"))

We simply call learn on the list containing these examples. In the case that the examples unify, the grammar is returned as a HashMap String [Type].

You can build with stack build and run these examples with stack exec infer. If you want to see the generated unification problem as well, run stack exec infer -- --verbose. This gives the following output:

I will attempt to unify the following constraints
--------------------------------------------------
swims: x5, (x1 \ S)
a: (x4 / x6), (x1 / N)
fish: x6
man: N
fast: (x5 \ (x4 \ S))

Solution
--------------------------------------------------
swims: (x1 \ S)
a: (x1 / N)
fish: N
man: N
fast: ((x1 \ S) \ (x1 \ S))

References

Buszkowski, W., & Penn, G. (1990). Categorial grammars determined from linguistic data by unification. Studia Logica, 49(4), 431-454.

Retoré, C. (2000). The logic of categorial grammars. Lecture notes, ESSLLI, 2000, 68. Chicago