pith. sign in

arxiv: 2407.18220 · v2 · submitted 2024-07-25 · 💻 cs.FL · cs.CY· cs.PL

Detecting and Explaining (In-)equivalence of Context-Free Grammars

Marko Schmellenkamp , Thomas Zeume , Sven Argo , Sandra Kiefer , Cedric Siems , Fynn Stebel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 23:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.FL cs.CYcs.PL
keywords context-free grammarsequivalence checkinggrammar transformationscanonizationeducational datasetsformal languagesundecidability
0
0 comments X

The pith

A framework decides and explains equivalence for many context-free grammars collected from education systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a scalable framework for deciding whether two context-free grammars generate the same language, proving the result, and explaining differences when they exist. Although equivalence is undecidable in general, the framework succeeds on a large share of grammars drawn from real educational datasets by blending several techniques. A sympathetic reader would care because the method supports automatic checking and feedback for student work in teaching formal languages.

Core claim

The authors present a framework that decides, proves, and explains (in-)equivalence of context-free grammars. It introduces an abstract grammar transformation language to identify equivalent grammars as well as sufficiently similar inequivalent grammars, combines this with theory-based comparison algorithms for a large class of context-free languages, and uses a graph-theory-inspired grammar canonization to efficiently identify isomorphic grammars. An implementation handles a large portion of large datasets collected within educational support systems.

What carries the argument

An abstract grammar transformation language that identifies equivalent and similar inequivalent grammars, paired with theory-based comparison algorithms and graph-theory-inspired canonization.

If this is right

  • Educational support systems can automatically verify whether student grammars match reference ones.
  • Explanations can be produced for why two grammars are equivalent or inequivalent.
  • Large collections of practical grammars become feasible to compare despite the general undecidability result.
  • Canonization allows efficient detection of isomorphic grammars as a first filter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same combination of transformation and canonization steps could be tested on grammars arising in compiler construction or natural language processing.
  • Extending the abstract transformation language might cover additional grammar classes that appear in programming language definitions.
  • If the method scales further, it could support interactive tools that let learners explore small changes to a grammar and see the effect on equivalence.

Load-bearing premise

The grammars appearing in the educational datasets fall within the scope of the abstract grammar transformation language and the theory-based comparison algorithms for a large class of context-free languages.

What would settle it

Applying the implemented framework to a fresh collection of educational context-free grammars and finding that it processes only a small fraction would show the practical claim does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2407.18220 by Cedric Siems, Fynn Stebel, Marko Schmellenkamp, Sandra Kiefer, Sven Argo, Thomas Zeume.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the high-level architecture of our f [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a scalable framework for deciding, proving, and explaining (in-)equivalence of context-free grammars. We present an implementation of the framework and evaluate it on large data sets collected within educational support systems. Even though the equivalence problem for context-free languages is undecidable in general, the framework is able to handle a large portion of these datasets. It introduces and combines techniques from several areas, such as an abstract grammar transformation language to identify equivalent grammars as well as sufficiently similar inequivalent grammars, theory-based comparison algorithms for a large class of context-free languages, and a graph-theory-inspired grammar canonization that allows to efficiently identify isomorphic grammars.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scalable framework for deciding, proving, and explaining (in-)equivalence of context-free grammars. It combines an abstract grammar transformation language to identify equivalent and similar inequivalent grammars, theory-based comparison algorithms for a large class of context-free languages, and a graph-theory-inspired grammar canonization for identifying isomorphic grammars. An implementation is evaluated on large datasets from educational support systems, with the claim that it handles a large portion of these datasets despite the general undecidability of CFG equivalence.

Significance. If the coverage and correctness claims hold, the work could provide useful practical tools for automated support in teaching context-free grammars. The approach integrates established results from formal language theory and graph algorithms without introducing free parameters or ad-hoc fitting. However, the lack of quantitative evaluation data and explicit scope definition limits the ability to assess real-world impact or reproducibility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central empirical claim that the framework 'is able to handle a large portion of these datasets' is unsupported by any quantitative results (e.g., success rates, number of grammars processed, or failure cases), which is load-bearing for the paper's main contribution.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract / Evaluation: the paper does not specify the precise class of context-free languages addressed by the 'theory-based comparison algorithms for a large class' (e.g., LR(k), deterministic, bounded derivation height) nor provides any breakdown of what fraction of the educational datasets fall inside versus outside that class, so the 'large portion' claim does not follow from the described techniques.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could more clearly distinguish the roles of the three combined techniques and indicate whether the canonization step is used for equivalence or only for isomorphism detection.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our contributions. We address the major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the abstract and evaluation sections.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central empirical claim that the framework 'is able to handle a large portion of these datasets' is unsupported by any quantitative results (e.g., success rates, number of grammars processed, or failure cases), which is load-bearing for the paper's main contribution.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract's claim would benefit from explicit quantitative support. The evaluation section reports results on the educational datasets, including the number of grammars processed and cases handled by each component. We will revise the abstract to include key figures such as success rates and dataset sizes to make the claim self-contained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract / Evaluation: the paper does not specify the precise class of context-free languages addressed by the 'theory-based comparison algorithms for a large class' (e.g., LR(k), deterministic, bounded derivation height) nor provides any breakdown of what fraction of the educational datasets fall inside versus outside that class, so the 'large portion' claim does not follow from the described techniques.

    Authors: The theory-based algorithms apply to decidable subclasses including grammars with bounded derivation height and deterministic context-free languages. We will revise the abstract and evaluation to explicitly name this class and add a breakdown of dataset fractions handled by these algorithms versus the transformation language and canonization components. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in framework or empirical claims

full rationale

The paper presents a framework that combines an abstract grammar transformation language, theory-based comparison algorithms for a large class of context-free languages, and graph-theory-inspired canonization. These rest on established formal-language theory and graph algorithms. The central empirical claim that the framework handles a large portion of educational datasets follows from direct evaluation on collected data rather than any self-referential fitting, parameter tuning, or reduction of results to inputs by construction. No load-bearing steps invoke self-citations or ansatzes that collapse the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger is minimal because only the abstract is available; the work relies on the standard undecidability result and established algorithms without introducing new free parameters or entities.

axioms (1)
  • standard math The equivalence problem for context-free languages is undecidable in general.
    Classic result from computability theory invoked to motivate the practical approach.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5653 in / 1077 out tokens · 22012 ms · 2026-05-23T23:39:31.479924+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Automated Grading of DFA Con- structions

    “Automated Grading of DFA Con- structions. ” In: IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Con ference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, August 3-9,

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    by Francesca Rossi

    Ed. by Francesca Rossi. IJCAI/AAAI, 1976–1982. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI13/paper/view/6759. Andrea L. Beach, Charles Henderson, and Noah Finkelstein

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    Tech- nical Report. cra.org. (2017). Retrieved Mar. 9, 2021 from http://cra.org/data/generation-cs. Carles Creus and Guillem Godoy

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-319-08918-8_10

    /i.sc/s.sc/b.sc/n.sc: 978-3-319- 08918-8. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-319-08918-8_10 . Loris D’Antoni, Martin Helfrich, Jan Křetínský, Emanuel Ramneantu, and M aximilian Weininger

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08918-8_10

  5. [5]

    Automata Tutor v3

    “Automata Tutor v3. ” In: Computer Aided Verification – 32nd International Conferenc e, CA V 2020, Proceedings, Part II(Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science). Ed. by Shuvendu K. Lahiri and Chao Wang. Vol. 12225.Springer, 3–14. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-030-53291-8\_1 . Loris D’Antoni, Dileep Kini, Rajeev Alur, Sumit Gulwani, Mahesh Viswanath an, and Bj...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53291-8 2020

  6. [6]

    Comput.- Hum

    “How Can Automatic Feedback Help Students Construct Automata?” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22, 2, pp. 9:1–9:24. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1145/2723163. Gaetano Geck, Artur Ljulin, Sebastian Peter, Jonas Schmidt, FabianVehlken, and Thomas Zeume

    work page doi:10.1145/2723163

  7. [7]

    Introduction to Iltis: an interactive, web-based system for teaching logic

    “Introduction to Iltis: an interactive, web-based system for teaching logic. ” In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE 2018 . ACM, 141–146. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1145/3197091.3197095. Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V

    work page doi:10.1145/3197091.3197095 2018

  8. [8]

    Empfehlungen für Bachelor- und Master-Programme im Studie nfach Informatik an Hochschulen. gi.de. Empfehlungen der Gesellschaft für Informatik. (2016).Retrieved Mar. 9, 2021 fromhttps://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/2351 Seymour Ginsburg and Edwin H. Spanier

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Bounded Algol-Like Lang uages

    “Bounded Algol-Like Lang uages. ” Transactions of the American Mathemat- ical Society, 113, 2, 333–368. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.2307/1994067. Eric Gramond and Susan H. Rodger

    work page doi:10.2307/1994067

  10. [10]

    by Jane Prey and Robert E

    Ed. by Jane Prey and Robert E. Noonan. ACM, 336–340. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1145/299649.299800. Julien Grange, Fabian Vehlken, Nils Vortmeier, and Thomas Zeume. 20

    work page doi:10.1145/299649.299800

  11. [11]

    GI-Fachtagung Informatik und Schule, INFOS 2019 (LNI). Ed. by Arno Pasternak. Vol. P-288. Gesellschaft für Informatik, 211–220. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.18420/inf os2019-c6. John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman

    work page doi:10.18420/inf 2019

  12. [12]

    On the Equivalence, Containment, and Covering Problems for the Regular and Context-Free Languages

    “ On the Equivalence, Containment, and Covering Problems for the Regular and Context-Free Languages. ”J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 12, 2, 222–268. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1016/S0022-0000(76)80038-4 . Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and IEEE Computer Society

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-0000(76)80038-4

  13. [13]

    Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA

    Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines fo r Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science . Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. /i.sc/s.sc/b.sc/n.sc: 9781450323093. Tommi Junttila and Petteri Kaski

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Conflict Propagation and Com ponent Recursion for Canonical Labeling

    “Conflict Propagation and Com ponent Recursion for Canonical Labeling. ” In: Theory and Practice of Algorithms in (Computer) Systems – First Int ernational ICST Conference, TAPAS 2011, Rome, Italy, April 18–20,

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-642-19754-3\_16

    Springer, 151–162. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-642-19754-3\_16 . Tommi Junttila and Petteri Kaski

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19754-3

  16. [16]

    Engineering an efficient canonical l abeling tool for large and sparse graphs

    “Engineering an efficient canonical l abeling tool for large and sparse graphs. ” In: Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments and the Fourth Workshop on Analytic Algorithms and Combinatorics . Ed. by David Applegate, Gerth Stølting Brodal, Daniel Panario, and R obert Sedgewick. SIAM, 135–149. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1137/1.978...

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611972870.13

  17. [17]

    Recovering grammar relatio nships for the Java Language Specification

    “Recovering grammar relatio nships for the Java Language Specification. ” Softw. Qual. J., 19, 2, 333–378. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/s11219-010-9116-5 . Josje Lodder and Bastiaan Heeren

    work page doi:10.1007/s11219-010-9116-5

  18. [18]

    A Teaching Tool for Proving Equivalences between Logical Formulae

    “A Teaching Tool for Proving Equivalences between Logical Formulae. ” In: Tools for Teaching Logic, 154–161. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-642-21350-2\_18 . Josje Lodder, Bastiaan Heeren, and Johan Jeuring

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21350-2

  19. [19]

    A pilot study of the use of LogEx, lessons learned

    “A pilot study of the use of LogEx, lessons learned. ”CoRR, abs/1507.03671. http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03671 arXiv: 1507.03671. Ravichandhran Madhavan, Mikaël Mayer, Sumit Gulwani, and Viktor Kuncak

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Automating grammar comparison

    “Automating grammar comparison. ” In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2015). Association for Computing Machinery, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 183–200. /i.sc/s.sc/b.sc/n.sc: 9781450336895. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1145/2814270.2814304. David McAllester

    work page doi:10.1145/2814270.2814304 2015

  21. [21]

    Grammar rewriting

    “Grammar rewriting. ” In: Automated Deduction—CADE-11 . Ed. by Deepak Kapur. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 124–138. /i.sc/s.sc/b.sc/n.sc: 978-3-540-47252-0. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/3-540-55602-8_160 . Jens Michaelis

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-55602-8_160

  22. [22]

    Transforming Linear Context-Free Rewriting Syst ems into Minimalist Grammars

    “Transforming Linear Context-Free Rewriting Syst ems into Minimalist Grammars. ” In: Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Ed. by Philippe de Groote, Glyn Morrill, and Christian Retoré. Spr inger Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 228–244. /i.sc/s.sc/b.sc/n.sc: 978-3-540-48199-7. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/3-540-48199-0_14 . Leonardo de Moura an...

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-48199-0_14

  23. [23]

    Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver

    “Z3: An Efficient SMT Sol ver. ” In: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems . Ed. by C. R. Ramakrishnan and Jakob Rehof. Springer Berlin Heidelbe rg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 337–340. /i.sc/s.sc/b.sc/n.sc: 978-3-540-78800-3. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 . Rohit J. Parikh. Oct

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24

  24. [24]

    On Context-Free Languages

    “On Context-Free Languages. ” J. ACM, 13, 4, (Oct. 1966), 570–581. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1145/321356.321364. Mojżesz Presburger

    work page doi:10.1145/321356.321364 1966

  25. [25]

    Teaching automata theory with JFLAP

    “Teaching automata theory with JFLAP. ” SIGACT News, 30, 4, 53–56. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1145/337885.337896. Philipp Rümmer

    work page doi:10.1145/337885.337896

  26. [26]

    A Constraint Sequent Calculus for First-Ord er Logic with Linear Integer Arithmetic

    “A Constraint Sequent Calculus for First-Ord er Logic with Linear Integer Arithmetic. ” In: Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, 15th International Conference, LPAR 2008, Doha, Qatar, November 22- 27,

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-540-89439-1_20

    Springer, 274–289. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/978-3-540-89439-1_20 . Marko Schmellenkamp, Fabian Vehlken, and Thomas Zeume

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89439-1_20

  28. [28]

    On the Complexity of Equational Horn Clauses

    “ On the Complexity of Equational Horn Clauses. ” In: Automated Deduction - CADE-20, 20th International Confere nce on Automated Deduction, Tallinn, Estonia, July 22-27, 2005, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Ed. by Robert Nieuwenhuis. Vo l

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/11532231\_25

    Springer, 337–352. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1007/11532231\_25. Chenhao Zhang, Jason D. Hartline, and Christos Dimoulas

    work page doi:10.1007/11532231

  30. [30]

    Kar p: a language for NP reductions

    “Kar p: a language for NP reductions. ” In: PLDI ’22: 43rd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, San Diego, CA, USA, June 13 - 17, 2022 . Ed. by Ranjit Jhala and Isil Dillig. ACM, 762–776. /d.sc/o.sc/i.sc: 10.1145/3519939.3523732. 28 Schmellenkamp et al. A FULL DATA OF EV ALUATION We provide full data for ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3519939.3523732 2022

  31. [31]

    solution language all equiv

    A.1 General data and unrecognized clusters ex. solution language all equiv. inequiv. unrecognized # #can. # #can. # #can. #clus. Ia1 { /u1D44E/u1D456/u1D44F/u1D457/u1D44E/u1D458/u1D44F/u1D459| /u1D456, /u1D457, /u1D458, /u1D459≥ 0∧ /u1D456+ /u1D457= /u1D458+ /u1D459} /u1D446→ /u1D44E/u1D446/u1D44F| /u1D43F| /u1D445; /u1D43F→ /u1D44F/u1D43F/u1D44F| /u1D435...

    work page 1947