Ambiguity in Grammars and Languages

In the grammar

1. E I
2. E E+E
3. E EE
4. E (E)

the sentential form E + E E has two deriva-
tions:
E E+E E+EE
and
E EE E+EE
This gives us two parse trees:
E E

E + E E * E

E * E E + E

(a) (b)
167
The mere existence of several derivations is not
dangerous, it is the existence of several parse
trees that ruins a grammar.

Example: In the same grammar

5. I a
6. I b
7. I Ia
8. I Ib
9. I I0
10. I I1
the string a + b has several derivations, e.g.

E E+E I +E a+E a+I a+b

and

E E+E E+I I +I I +ba+b

However, their parse trees are the same, and
the structure of a + b is unambiguous.
168
Definition: Let G = (V, T, P, S) be a CFG. We
say that G is ambiguous is there is a string in
T that has more than one parse tree.

If every string in L(G) has at most one parse

tree, G is said to be unambiguous.

Example: The terminal string a + a a has two

parse trees:

E E

E + E E * E

I E * E E + E I

a I I I I a

a a a a

(a) (b)

169
 Removing Ambiguity From Grammars

Good news: Sometimes we can remove ambi-

guity by hand

Bad news: There is no algorithm to do it

More bad news: Some CFLs have only am-

biguous CFGs

We are studying the grammar

E I | E + E | E E | (E)
I a | b | Ia | Ib | I0 | I1

There are two problems:

1. There is no precedence between * and +

2. There is no grouping of sequences of op-

erators, e.g. is E + E + E meant to be
E + (E + E) or (E + E) + E.

170
Solution: We introduce more variables, each
representing expressions of same binding strength.

1. A factor is an expresson that cannot be

broken apart by an adjacent * or +. Our
factors are

(a) Identifiers

(b) A parenthesized expression.

2. A term is an expresson that cannot be bro-

ken by +. For instance a b can be broken
by a1 or a1. It cannot be broken by +,
since e.g. a1 + a b is (by precedence rules)
same as a1 + (a b), and a b + a1 is same
as (a b) + a1.

3. The rest are expressions, i.e. they can be

broken apart with * or +.

171
Well let F stand for factors, T for terms, and E
for expressions. Consider the following gram-
mar:

1. I a | b | Ia | Ib | I0 | I1
2. F I | (E)
3. T F |T F
4. E T |E+T

Now the only parse tree for a + a a will be

E + T

T T * F

F F I

I I a

a a
172
Why is the new grammar unambiguous?

Intuitive explanation:

A factor is either an identifier or (E), for

some expression E.

The only parse tree for a sequence

f1 f2 fn1 fn
of factors is the one that gives f1 f2 fn1
as a term and fn as a factor, as in the parse
tree on the next slide.

An expression is a sequence

t1 + t2 + + tn1 + tn
of terms ti. It can only be parsed with
t1 + t2 + + tn1 as an expression and tn as
a term.
173
 T

T * F

T * F
. .
.
T

T * F

174
 Leftmost derivations and Ambiguity

The two parse trees for a + a a

E E

E + E E * E

I E * E E + E I

a I I I I a

a a a a

(a) (b)
give rise to two derivations:
E E+E I +E a+E a+EE
lm lm lm lm
a+I E a+aE a+aI a+aa
lm lm lm lm

and
E E E E +E E I +E E a+E E
lm lm lm lm
a+I E a+aE a+aI a+aa
lm lm lm lm

175
In General:

One parse tree, but many derivations

Many leftmost derivation implies many parse

trees.

Many rightmost derivation implies many parse

trees.

Theorem 5.29: For any CFG G, a terminal

string w has two distinct parse trees if and only
if w has two distinct leftmost derivations from
the start symbol.

176
Sketch of Proof: (Only If.) If the two parse
trees differ, they have a node a which dif-
ferent productions, say A X1X2 Xk and
B Y1Y2 Ym. The corresponding leftmost
derivations will use derivations based on these
two different productions and will thus be dis-
tinct.

(If.) Lets look at how we construct a parse

tree from a leftmost derivation. It should now
be clear that two distinct derivations gives rise
to two different parse trees.

177
 Inherent Ambiguity

A CFL L is inherently ambiguous if all gram-

mars for L are ambiguous.

Example: Consider L =

{anbncmdm : n 1, m 1}{anbmcmdn : n 1, m 1}.

A grammar for L is

S AB | C
A aAb | ab
B cBd | cd
C aCd | aDd
D bDc | bc

178
Lets look at parsing the string aabbccdd.

S S

A B C

a A b c B d a C d

a b c d a D d

b D c

b c

(a) (b)

179
From this we see that there are two leftmost
derivations:

S AB aAbB aabbB aabbcBd aabbccdd

lm lm lm lm lm

and

S C aCd aaDdd aabDcdd aabbccdd

lm lm lm lm lm

It can be shown that every grammar for L be-

haves like the one above. The language L is
inherently ambiguous.

180