Advertisement

Sādhanā

, 43:134 | Cite as

Error tolerance for the recognition of faulty strings in a regulated grammar using fuzzy sets

  • Ajay Kumar
  • Nidhi Kalra
  • Sunita Garhwal
Article

Abstract

To overcome the limitations of context-free and context-sensitive grammars, regulated grammars have been proposed. In this paper, an algorithm is proposed for the recognition of faulty strings in regulated grammar. Furthermore, depending on the errors and certainty, it is decided whether the string belongs to the language or not based on string membership value. The time complexity of the proposed algorithm is O(|G R 2 |·|w|), where |GR| represents the number of production rules and |w| is the length of the input string, w. The reader is provided with numerical examples by applying the algorithm to regularly controlled and matrix grammar. Finally, the proposed algorithm is applied in the Hindi language for the recognition of faulty strings in regulated grammar as a real-life application.

Keywords

Fuzzy regulated grammar fuzzy sets Chomsky normal form regularly controlled grammar matrix grammar 

Notes

Acknowledgements

One of the authors, Nidhi Kalra was supported under Visvesvaraya PhD Scheme Fellowship by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India.

References

  1. 1.
    Dassow J and Păun G 1989 Regulated rewriting in Formal Language Theory (1st ed)., Berlin, Heidelberg: SpringerCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dassow J 2004 Grammars with regulated rewriting. In: Martin-vide C, Mitrana V and Paun G (Eds.) Formal Languages and Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 249–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meduna A and Zemek P 2014 Regulated Grammars and Automata (1st ed). New York: SpringerCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Senay H 1992 Fuzzy command grammars for intelligent interface design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 22(5): 1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hopcroft J E, Motwani R and Ullman J D 2006 Introduction to automata theory, languages and computation (3rd ed). Boston: Addison-WesleyMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steimann F and Adlassnig K P 1994 Clinical monitoring with fuzzy automata. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 61(1): 37–42MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giles C L, Omlin C W and Thornber K K 1999 Equivalence in knowledge representation: automata, recurrent neural networks, and dynamical fuzzy systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 87(9):1623–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zadeh L A 2004 A note on web intelligence, world knowledge and fuzzy logic. Data and Knowledge Engineering 50(3): 291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DePalma G F and Yau S S 1975 Fractionally fuzzy grammars with application to pattern recognition. In: Zadeh L A, Fu K S, Tanaka K and Shimura M (Eds.) Fuzzy Sets and their Application to Cognitive and Decision Processes. New York: Academic Press, pp. 329–351Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qiu D 2007 Automata theory based on quantum logic: Reversibilities and pushdown automata. Theoretical Computer Science 386(1–2): 38–56MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bělohlávek R 2002 Determinism and fuzzy automata. Information Sciences 143(1–4): 205–209MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ignjatović J, Ćirić M and Bogdanović S 2008 Determinization of fuzzy automata with membership values in complete residuated lattices. Information Sciences 178(1): 164–180MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schneider M, Lim H and Shoaff W 1992 The utilization of fuzzy sets in the recognition of imperfect strings. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 49(3): 331–337MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Inui M, Shoaff W, Fausett L and Schneider M 1994 The recognition of imperfect strings generated by fuzzy context sensitive grammars. Fuzzy sets and systems 62(1): 21–29MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ginsburg S and Spanier E H 1968 Control sets on grammars. Math. Systems Theory 2(2): 159–177MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cremers A and Mayer O 1973 On matrix languages. Information and Control 23(1): 86–96MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Solar P 2014 Deep Pushdown Transducers and State Translation Schemes. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference STUDENT EEICT, Brno University of Technology, 24 April, pp. 264–268Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kasai T 1970 An hierarchy between context-free and context-sensitive languages. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 4(5): 492–508MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zemek P 2013 One-sided random context grammars: Established results and open problems. In: Proceedings of the 19th Conference STUDENT EEICT, Brno University of Technology, 25 April, pp. 222–226Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van der Walt A P J 1970 Random context grammars. In: Proceedings IFIP Congress. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 66–68Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meduna A and Zemek P 2014 One-sided random context grammars with a limited number of right random context rules. Theoretical Computer Science 516: 127–132MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meduna A 1990 Generalized forbidding grammars. International Journal of Computer Mathematics 36(1–2): 31–38CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meduna A and Zemek P 2013 Generalized one-sided forbidding grammars. International Journal of Computer Mathematics 90(2): 172–182MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meduna A and Zemek P 2012 One-sided forbidding grammars and selective substitution grammars. International Journal of Computer Mathematics 89(5): 586–596MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kleijn H C M 1983 Selective Substitution Grammars Based on Context-Free Productions. Ph.D. Thesis, Leiden University, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kleijn H C M 1987 Basic ideas of selective substitution grammars. In: Kelemenova A and Kelemen J (Eds.) Trends Techniques and Problems in Theoretical Computer Science. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 75–95Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalra N and Kumar A 2017 Deterministic Deep Pushdown Transducer and its Parallel Version. The Computer Journal 61(1): 63–73MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kalra N and Kumar A 2016 Fuzzy state grammar and fuzzy deep pushdown automaton. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 31(1): 249–258CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garhwal S and Jiwari R 2016 Parallel fuzzy regular expression and its conversion to epsilon-free fuzzy automaton. The Computer Journal 59(9):1383–1391CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee E T and Zadeh L A 1969 Note on fuzzy languages. Information Sciences 1(4): 421–434MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Asveld P R J 2005 Fuzzy context-free languages. Part 1: generalized fuzzy context-free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science 347(1): 167–190MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Asveld P R J 2005 Fuzzy context-free languages. Part 2: Recognition and parsing algorithms. Theoretical Computer Science 347(1): 191–213MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhanga J, Williams S O and Wang H 2017 Intelligent computing system based on pattern recognition and data mining algorithms. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2017.10.010 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bag S, Tiwari M K and Chan F T S 2017 Predicting the consumer’s purchase intention of durable goods: An attribute-level analysis. Journal of Business Research.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.031
  35. 35.
    Zadeh L A 1965 Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8(3): 338–353MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lange M and Leiß H 2009 To CNF or not to CNF? An efficient yet presentable version of the CYK algorithm. Informatica Didactica 8: 2008–2010Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentThapar Institute of Engineering & TechnologyPatialaIndia

Personalised recommendations