MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365211599 · doi:10.1145/3591269

flap: A Deterministic Parser with Fused Lexing

2023· article· en· W4365211599 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Yallop, Ningning Xie, Neel Krishnaswami

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeIsaac Newton TrustEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceSecurity tokenParsingParser combinatorProgramming languageContext (archaeology)LR parserModularity (biology)AmbiguityInterface (matter)Theoretical computer scienceParallel computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lexers and parsers are typically defined separately and connected by a token stream. This separate definition is important for modularity and reduces the potential for parsing ambiguity. However, materializing tokens as data structures and case-switching on tokens comes with a cost. We show how to fuse separately-defined lexers and parsers, drastically improving performance without compromising modularity or increasing ambiguity. We propose a deterministic variant of Greibach Normal Form that ensures deterministic parsing with a single token of lookahead and makes fusion strikingly simple, and prove that normalizing context free expressions into the deterministic normal form is semantics-preserving. Our staged parser combinator library, flap, provides a standard interface, but generates specialized token-free code that runs two to six times faster than ocamlyacc on a range of benchmarks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207