3 Results

3.1 Lexical coverage
3.2 Error coverage
3.3 Suggestion adequacy

Below we give the results of testing. A number of tables are provided to show the performance of the two products with respect to the various coverage sub-attributes and error types. For each of the three functionality attributes, however, we have also provided one general table giving overall measures of both products for comparison purposes.

3.1 Lexical coverage

Common word coverage: open classes Product: System A
Class interval (no. of words)	Relative frequency	Total no. of words	No. of words recognised	Percentage of words recognised
1-189	48	189	186	98
190-1732	21	1543	1527	99
1733-6780	13	5048	4698	93

Using the relative frequencies of each class as weights, the weighted mean score is:

48 * 98 + 21 * 99 + 13 * 93 / 48 + 21 + 13 = 97

Common word coverage: open classes Product: System B
Class interval (no. of words)	Relative frequency	Total no. of words	No. of words recognised	Percentage of words recognised
1-189	48	189	189	100
190-1732	21	1543	1533	99
1733-6780	13	5048	4783	95

Using the relative frequencies of each class as weights, the weighted mean score is:

48 * 100 + 21 * 99 + 13 * 95 / 48 + 21 + 13 = 99

Common word coverage: closed classes

Product: System A

Total no. of words

No. of words recognised

Percentage of words recognised

748

736

Common word coverage: closed classes

Product: System B

Total no. of words

No. of words recognised

Percentage of words recognised

748

746

100

Coverage of loan words

Product: System A

Total no. of words

No. of words recognised

Percentage of words recognised

135

Coverage of loan words

Product: System B

Total no. of words

No. of words recognised

Percentage of words recognised

135

The results obtained for lexical coverage are summed up below in a more concise form, disregarding information on the number of words contained in the various lists, and giving the weighted mean as total percentage score for common word coverage:

Lexical coverage
Product	Common words (open classes) weighted mean %	Common words (closed classes) simple %	Loan words simple %
System A	97	98	39
System B	99	100	51

3.2 Error coverage

The first two tables below show the results obtained relative to the various corruption rules. Note that, for the reasons explained earlier, results for rule 2 have been omitted. In the third table, the rules have been grouped according to more general error types, so that a more concise view of the two products' performance can be provided. The error types referred to here are defined in D12: note, in particular, that the category "errors in loan words" subsumes a variety of different spelling errors occurring in relation to certain letter combinations that are especially difficult for Danish writers. The error type should not be confused with the coverage sub-attribute "loan words".

Error coverage Product: System A
Error types	No. of errors generated	No. of errors signalled	% of errors signalled
1. rer > re	16	16	100
3. et > ed	235	235	100
4. VrV > VV	445	445	100
5. VrC > VC	907	902	99
6. nd > n	682	671	98
7. r > rd	1142	1142	100
8. k > g	1063	1061	100
9. ce > se	58	58	100
10. ch > sj	14	14	100

Error coverage Product: System B
Error types	No. of errors generated	No. of errors signalled	% of errors signalled
1. rer > re	16	12	75
3. et > ed	235	235	100
4. VrV > VV	445	440	99
5. VrC > VC	907	857	94
6. nd > n	682	630	92
7. r > rd	1142	1130	99
8. k > g	1063	1025	96
9. ce > se	58	58	100
10. ch > sj	14	14	100

Error coverage
Product	Errors related to letter r (1) %	Other suffixation errors (3) %	Silent letters (4-7) %	Letter substitution (8) %	Errors in loan words (9-10) %
System A	100	100	99	100	100
System B	75	100	96	96	100

3.3 Suggestion adequacy

The tables below give figures on suggestion adequacy. The first two show the behaviour of the two products with respect to the various corruption rules. The third one is a more concise table, which abstracts away from error type.

Suggestion adequacy Product: System A
Error types	No. of errors signalled	1st sugg. correct		Correct sugg. among 2nd-4th		Correct sugg. not among first 4		No sugg. offered
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
1. rer > re	16	3	19	13	81	0	0	0	0
3. et > ed	235	45	19	188	80	2	1	0	0
4. VrV > VV	445	329	74	78	18	6	1	32	7
5. VrC > VC	902	731	81	107	12	18	2	46	5
6. nd > n	671	447	67	142	21	53	8	29	4
7. r > rd	1142	1052	92	28	3	3	0	59	5
8. k > g	1061	806	76	138	13	49	5	68	6
9. ce > se	58	36	62	16	28	2	3	4	7
10. ch > sj	14	1	7	1	7	3	22	9	64

Suggestion adequacy Product: System B
Error types	No. of errors signalled	1st sugg. correct		Correct sugg. among 2nd-4th		Correct sugg. not among first 4		No sugg. offered
		No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
1. rer > re	12	2	17	7	58	3	25	0	0
3. et > ed	235	3	1	79	34	153	65	0	0
4. VrV > VV	440	309	70	63	14	47	11	21	5
5. VrC > VC	857	610	71	132	15	77	9	38	5
6. nd > n	630	433	69	104	16	68	11	25	4
7. r > rd	1130	960	85	93	8	36	3	41	4
8. k > g	1025	849	83	80	8	64	6	34	3
9. ce > se	58	48	83	6	10	1	2	3	5
10. ch > sj	14	10	72	1	7	0	0	3	21

Suggestion adequacy
Product	No. of errors signalled	1st sugg. correct (%)	Correct sugg. among 2nd-4th (%)	Correct sugg. not among 2nd-4th (%)	No sugg. offered
System A	4544	76	16	3	5
System B	4401	73	13	10	4