Context-free language

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

In formal language theory, a context-free language (CFL), also called a Chomsky type-2 language, is a language generated by a context-free grammar (CFG).

Context-free languages have many applications in programming languages, in particular, most arithmetic expressions are generated by context-free grammars.

Background

Context-free grammar

Different context-free grammars can generate the same context-free language. Intrinsic properties of the language can be distinguished from extrinsic properties of a particular grammar by comparing multiple grammars that describe the language.

Automata

The set of all context-free languages is identical to the set of languages accepted by pushdown automata, which makes these languages amenable to parsing. Further, for a given CFG, there is a direct way to produce a pushdown automaton for the grammar (and thereby the corresponding language), though going the other way (producing a grammar given an automaton) is not as direct.

Examples

An example context-free language is $L=\{a^{n}b^{n}:n\geq 1\}$ , the language of all non-empty even-length strings, the entire first halves of which are $a$ 's, and the entire second halves of which are $b$ 's. $L$ is generated by the grammar $S\to aSb~|~ab$ . This language is not regular. It is accepted by the pushdown automaton $M=(\{q_{0},q_{1},q_{f}\},\{a,b\},\{a,z\},\delta ,q_{0},z,\{q_{f}\})$ where $\delta$ is defined as follows:^{[note 1]}

{\begin{aligned}\delta (q_{0},a,z)&=(q_{0},az)\\\delta (q_{0},a,a)&=(q_{0},aa)\\\delta (q_{0},b,a)&=(q_{1},\varepsilon )\\\delta (q_{1},b,a)&=(q_{1},\varepsilon )\\\delta (q_{1},\varepsilon ,z)&=(q_{f},\varepsilon )\end{aligned}}

Unambiguous CFLs are a proper subset of all CFLs: there are inherently ambiguous CFLs. An example of an inherently ambiguous CFL is the union of $\{a^{n}b^{m}c^{m}d^{n}|n,m>0\}$ with $\{a^{n}b^{n}c^{m}d^{m}|n,m>0\}$ . This set is context-free, since the union of two context-free languages is always context-free. But there is no way to unambiguously parse strings in the (non-context-free) subset $\{a^{n}b^{n}c^{n}d^{n}|n>0\}$ which is the intersection of these two languages.^[1]

Dyck language

The language of all properly matched parentheses is generated by the grammar $S\to SS~|~(S)~|~\varepsilon$ .

Properties

Context-free parsing

The context-free nature of the language makes it simple to parse with a pushdown automaton.

Determining an instance of the membership problem; i.e. given a string $w$ , determine whether $w\in L(G)$ where $L$ is the language generated by a given grammar $G$ ; is also known as recognition. Context-free recognition for Chomsky normal form grammars was shown by Leslie G. Valiant to be reducible to Boolean matrix multiplication, thus inheriting its complexity upper bound of O(n^2.3728596).^[2]^{[note 2]} Conversely, Lillian Lee has shown O(n^3−ε) Boolean matrix multiplication to be reducible to O(n^3−3ε) CFG parsing, thus establishing some kind of lower bound for the latter.^[3]

Practical uses of context-free languages require also to produce a derivation tree that exhibits the structure that the grammar associates with the given string. The process of producing this tree is called parsing. Known parsers have a time complexity that is cubic in the size of the string that is parsed.

Formally, the set of all context-free languages is identical to the set of languages accepted by pushdown automata (PDA). Parser algorithms for context-free languages include the CYK algorithm and Earley's Algorithm.

A special subclass of context-free languages are the deterministic context-free languages which are defined as the set of languages accepted by a deterministic pushdown automaton and can be parsed by a LR(k) parser.^[4]

See also parsing expression grammar as an alternative approach to grammar and parser.

Closure properties

The class of context-free languages is closed under the following operations. That is, if L and P are context-free languages, the following languages are context-free as well:

the union $L\cup P$ of L and P^[5]
the reversal of L^[6]
the concatenation $L\cdot P$ of L and P^[5]
the Kleene star $L^{*}$ of L^[5]
the image $\varphi (L)$ of L under a homomorphism $\varphi$ ^[7]
the image $\varphi ^{-1}(L)$ of L under an inverse homomorphism $\varphi ^{-1}$ ^[8]
the circular shift of L (the language $\{vu:uv\in L\}$ )^[9]
the prefix closure of L (the set of all prefixes of strings from L)^[10]
the quotient L/R of L by a regular language R^[11]

Nonclosure under intersection, complement, and difference

The context-free languages are not closed under intersection. This can be seen by taking the languages $A=\{a^{n}b^{n}c^{m}\mid m,n\geq 0\}$ and $B=\{a^{m}b^{n}c^{n}\mid m,n\geq 0\}$ , which are both context-free.^{[note 3]} Their intersection is $A\cap B=\{a^{n}b^{n}c^{n}\mid n\geq 0\}$ , which can be shown to be non-context-free by the pumping lemma for context-free languages. As a consequence, context-free languages cannot be closed under complementation, as for any languages A and B, their intersection can be expressed by union and complement: $A\cap B={\overline {{\overline {A}}\cup {\overline {B}}}}$ . In particular, context-free language cannot be closed under difference, since complement can be expressed by difference: ${\overline {L}}=\Sigma ^{*}\setminus L$ .^[12]

However, if L is a context-free language and D is a regular language then both their intersection $L\cap D$ and their difference $L\setminus D$ are context-free languages.^[13]

Decidability

In formal language theory, questions about regular languages are usually decidable, but ones about context-free languages are often not. It is decidable whether such a language is finite, but not whether it contains every possible string, is regular, is unambiguous, or is equivalent to a language with a different grammar.

The following problems are undecidable for arbitrarily given context-free grammars A and B:

Equivalence: is $L(A)=L(B)$ ?^[14]
Disjointness: is $L(A)\cap L(B)=\emptyset$ ?^[15] However, the intersection of a context-free language and a regular language is context-free,^[16]^[17] hence the variant of the problem where B is a regular grammar is decidable (see "Emptiness" below).
Containment: is $L(A)\subseteq L(B)$ ?^[18] Again, the variant of the problem where B is a regular grammar is decidable,^{[citation needed]} while that where A is regular is generally not.^[19]
Universality: is $L(A)=\Sigma ^{*}$ ?^[20]
Regularity: is $L(A)$ a regular language?^[21]
Ambiguity: is every grammar for $L(A)$ ambiguous?^[22]

The following problems are decidable for arbitrary context-free languages:

Emptiness: Given a context-free grammar A, is $L(A)=\emptyset$ ?^[23]
Finiteness: Given a context-free grammar A, is $L(A)$ finite?^[24]
Membership: Given a context-free grammar G, and a word $w$ , does $w\in L(G)$ ? Efficient polynomial-time algorithms for the membership problem are the CYK algorithm and Earley's Algorithm.

According to Hopcroft, Motwani, Ullman (2003),^[25] many of the fundamental closure and (un)decidability properties of context-free languages were shown in the 1961 paper of Bar-Hillel, Perles, and Shamir^[26]

Languages that are not context-free

The set $\{a^{n}b^{n}c^{n}d^{n}|n>0\}$ is a context-sensitive language, but there does not exist a context-free grammar generating this language.^[27] So there exist context-sensitive languages which are not context-free. To prove that a given language is not context-free, one may employ the pumping lemma for context-free languages^[26] or a number of other methods, such as Ogden's lemma or Parikh's theorem.^[28]

Notes

^ meaning of $\delta$ 's arguments and results: $\delta (\mathrm {state} _{1},\mathrm {read} ,\mathrm {pop} )=(\mathrm {state} _{2},\mathrm {push} )$
^ In Valiant's paper, O(n^2.81) was the then-best known upper bound. See Matrix multiplication#Computational complexity for bound improvements since then.
^ A context-free grammar for the language A is given by the following production rules, taking S as the start symbol: S → Sc | aTb | ε; T → aTb | ε. The grammar for B is analogous.

References

^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 100, Theorem 4.7.
^ Valiant, Leslie G. (April 1975). "General context-free recognition in less than cubic time" (PDF). Journal of Computer and System Sciences. 10 (2): 308–315. doi:10.1016/s0022-0000(75)80046-8.
^ Lee, Lillian (January 2002). "Fast Context-Free Grammar Parsing Requires Fast Boolean Matrix Multiplication" (PDF). J ACM. 49 (1): 1–15. arXiv:cs/0112018. doi:10.1145/505241.505242. S2CID 1243491. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2003-04-27.
^ Knuth, D. E. (July 1965). "On the translation of languages from left to right". Information and Control. 8 (6): 607–639. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90426-2.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 131, Corollary of Theorem 6.1.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 142, Exercise 6.4d.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 131-132, Corollary of Theorem 6.2.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 132, Theorem 6.3.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 142-144, Exercise 6.4c.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 142, Exercise 6.4b.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 142, Exercise 6.4a.
^ Stephen Scheinberg (1960). "Note on the Boolean Properties of Context Free Languages" (PDF). Information and Control. 3 (4): 372–375. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(60)90965-7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-11-26.
^ Beigel, Richard; Gasarch, William. "A Proof that if L = L1 ∩ L2 where L1 is CFL and L2 is Regular then L is Context Free Which Does Not use PDA's" (PDF). University of Maryland Department of Computer Science. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-12-12. Retrieved June 6, 2020.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 203, Theorem 8.12(1).
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 202, Theorem 8.10.
^ Salomaa (1973), p. 59, Theorem 6.7
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 135, Theorem 6.5.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 203, Theorem 8.12(2).
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 203, Theorem 8.12(4).
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 203, Theorem 8.11.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 205, Theorem 8.15.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 206, Theorem 8.16.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 137, Theorem 6.6(a).
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979, p. 137, Theorem 6.6(b).
^ John E. Hopcroft; Rajeev Motwani; Jeffrey D. Ullman (2003). Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison Wesley. Here: Sect.7.6, p.304, and Sect.9.7, p.411
^ ^a ^b Yehoshua Bar-Hillel; Micha Asher Perles; Eli Shamir (1961). "On Formal Properties of Simple Phrase-Structure Grammars". Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung. 14 (2): 143–172.
^ Hopcroft & Ullman 1979.
^ "How to prove that a language is not context-free?".

Works cited

Hopcroft, John E.; Ullman, Jeffrey D. (1979). Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley. ISBN 9780201029888.
Salomaa, Arto (1973). Formal Languages. ACM Monograph Series.