SD-Rule Transaction Details: 2014 to 2015
The detail transaction of SD-Rules are described as below:
- Baseline of candidate SD-Rule count:
- 2014 baseline collects 107 SD-Rules.
- 2015 baseline collects 120 SD-Rules, by adding 15 new SD-Rules from 107 collected Sd-Rules in 2014. Two of them are duplciates because they are child-rules (120 = 107 + 15 - 2)
- The baseline set is processed to removed duplicates of parent-child relationship.
In 2015, 19 child-rules from 120 baseline SD-Rules set are remove to have 101 unique SD-Rules, (120 - 19 = 101).
- Good SD-Rules count in Optimal Set:
- 2014 has 73 good rules while 2015 has 76 food rules in optimate set:
- All 73 good SD-Rules in 2014 are good rules in 2015. They could be identical, or replaced by the parent-rules or child-rules.
- From the evaluation, 11 of 15 new rules are good. Why is the total number of good SD-Rule only increased by 3 (from 73 to 76), not 84 (73 + 11)? It is because:
- 4 of new rules are parent-rules of 4 existing rules (+0).
- 2 of new rules are parent-rules of 4 exsiting rules (-2).
- 5 new rules have no parent-child relationshion with existing rule (+5)
- So, tolal change is 5-2 = 3.
This involved complicated child-parent rules situation, please see SD-Rule rank mapping for details. They are summarized as detail below:
Type | 2014 | 2015 | Details
|
---|
No Change | 65 | 65 | ...
|
Parent-1-Child | 4 | 4 |
2014 | 2015
|
---|
02: ability$|noun|able$|adj | 09: ility$|noun|le$|adj
| 08: ic$|adj|ically$|adv | 15: $|adj|ally$|adv
| 21: ency$|noun|ent$|adj | 19: cy$|noun|t$|adj
| 55: ion$|noun|ional$|adj | 70: $|noun|al$|adj
|
|
Parent-2-Child | 4 | 2 |
2014 | 2015
|
---|
16: ance$|noun|ant$|adj 18: ence$|noun|ent$|adj | 18: nce$|noun|nt$|adj
| 10: ate$|verb|ation$|noun 63: se$|verb|sion$|noun | 20: e$|verb|ion$|noun
|
|
New in 2015 | 0 | 5 |
- 02:
se$|verb|zation$|noun
- 03:
sation$|noun|ze$|verb
- 45:
e$|verb|ing$|noun
- 61:
al$|adj|us$|noun
- 67:
es$|noun|ic$|adj
|
|
Total | 73 | 76 |
|
- The following table shows the transcation on the 15 new propsoed SD-Rules in 2015.
Computer Generated SD-Rules
|
---|
ID | Proposed New Rule | Source | Results | Rank & Rule 2015 | Rank & Rule 2014 | Type | Count Change | Accu. Count
|
---|
01-CG1 | se$|verb|zation$|noun | nomD | Good | 02: se$|verb|zation$|noun | None | New in 2015 | +1 | 74
|
02-CG2 | sation$|noun|ze$|verb | nomD | Good | 03: sation$|noun|ze$|verb | None | New in 2015 | +1 | 75
|
03-CG3 | ility$|noun|le$|adj | nomD | Good | 09: ility$|noun|le$|adj | 02: ability$|noun|able$|adj | Parent-1-Child | +0 | 75
|
04-CG4 | $|adj|ally$|adv | orgD | Good | 15: $|adj|ally$|adv | 08: ic$|adj|ically$|adv | Parent-1-Child | +0 | 75
|
05-CG5 | nce$|noun|nt$|adj | nomD | Good | 18: nce$|noun|nt$|adj
| 16: ance$|noun|ant$|adj
18: ence$|noun|ent$|adj | Parent-2-child | -1 | 74
|
06-CG6 | cy$|noun|t$|adj | nomD | Good | 19: cy$|noun|t$|adj | 21: ency$|noun|ent$|adj | Parent-1-Child | +0 | 74
|
07-CG7 | e$|verb|ion$|noun | nomD | Good | 20: e$|verb|ion$|noun
| 10: ate$|verb|ation$|noun
63: se$|verb|sion$|noun | Parent-2-Child | -1 | 73
|
08-CG8 | c$|adj|s$|noun | orgD | Good | 43: ic$|adj|is$|noun | 41: ic$|adj|is$|noun | Child | +0 | 73
|
Expert-Suggested SD-Rules
|
---|
09-ES1 | e$|verb|ing$|noun | Experts | Good | 45: e$|verb|ing$|noun | None | New in 2015 | +1 | 74
|
10-ES2 | al$|adj|us$|noun | Experts | Good | 61: al$|adj|us$|noun | None | New in 2015 | +1 | 75
|
11-ES3 | es$|noun|ic$|adj | Experts | Good | 67: es$|noun|ic$|adj | None | New in 2015 | +1 | 76
|
|
12-ES4 | $|noun|ize$|verb | Experts | Bad | 78: $|noun|ize$|verb | None | New | +0 | 76
|
13-ES5 | es$|noun|ic$|noun | Experts | Bad | 101: es$|noun|ic$|noun | None | New | +0 | 76
|
14-ES6 | ian$|adj|ia$|noun | Experts | Good | 57: a$|noun|an$|adj | 53: a$|noun|an$|adj | Duplicated-Child | +0 | 76
|
15-ES7 | ian$|noun|ia$|noun | Experts | Bad | 99: a$|noun|an$|noun | 93: a$|noun|an$|noun | Duplicated-Child | +0 | 76
|
- In the evaluation process, we removed two proposed new rules (ES-6 and ES-7) because they are child rules of existing rules. After the normalization (alphabetic order and use root-parent-rule), they are duplicated rules. Thus, we did not anlyze the parent-child hierachy on these two rules. Should we analyze them in the future releses?
- In our process, we only analyze parent-child hierachy for those SD-Rules has parent-child relationship co-exist in the collected set because it is very expensive. Shoule we modify the processes as:
- Normalize all SD-Rules to it's root-parent-rule.
- Analyze parent-child-hieracy for all SD-Rules.
in 2015, we have 14 parents rules. If we modify to this process, there will be 101 parents rules, very expensive!!
- 2015 has 10 more root parent rules.
The conclusion is the optimized set of SD-Rules is very steady as we expected. Does this imply that Lexicon is a good representative subset of general English?