Results of Applying Recursive Constraint Demotion to TurkishWithIyor.txt

4-04-2019, 9:17 a.m.

OTSoft 2.5, release date 1/17/2017

1. Result

A ranking was found that generates the correct outputs.

Stratum | Constraint Name | Abbreviation
Stratum #1 | Max(rd) | Max(rd)
Stratum #2 | Agree back | Agr bk
| RoLo | RoLo
Stratum #3 | Agree round | Agr rd
Stratum #4 | No left(round) | No L(rd)
Stratum #5 | Dep(+rd) | Dep(+rd)

2. Tableaux

/[ o ] /: | Max(rd) | RoLo | Agr bk | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ o ] |

* |

[ a ] | *! |  |  |  |  |

/[ o ] A/: | Max(rd) | RoLo | Agr bk | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ o ] a |

* |

*

[ o ] e |  | * | *! | * |  |
[ o ] o |  | **! |  |  |  |

/[ o ] I/: | Max(rd) | RoLo | Agr bk | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ o ] u |

* |

[ o ] i- |  | * |  | *! |  |
[ o ] i |  | * | *! | * |  |

/[ o ] I yor/: | Max(rd) | RoLo | Agr bk | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ o ] u yor |

** |

*

*

[ o ] i- yor |  | ** |  | *!* |  |

/[ a ] I yor/: | Max(rd) | RoLo | Agr bk | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ a ] i- yor |

* |

*

[a ] u yor |  | * |  | * | *! | *

/[ e ] I yor/: | Max(rd) | RoLo | Agr bk | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ e ] i yor |

* |

*

*

[ e ] u yor |  | * | * | * | *! | *
[ e ] U yor |  | * | * | * | *! | *
[ e ] i yer | *! |  |  |  |  |

/[ u ] I a/: | Max(rd) | RoLo | Agr bk | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ u ] u a |

*

*

[ u ] i- a |  |  |  | * | *! |

3. Status of Proposed Constraints: Necessary or Unnecessary

Constraint | Status
Agree back | Necessary
Agree round | Necessary
RoLo | Necessary
Max(rd) | Necessary
No left(round) | Necessary
Dep(+rd) | Not necessary (but included to show Faithfulness violations of a winning candidate)

4. Ranking Arguments, based on the Fusional Reduction Algorithm

This run sought to obtain the Skeletal Basis, intended to keep each final ranking argument as pithy as possible.

Original set of ERCs

Index | ERC | Reason
1 | eeeLWe | for /[ o ] /, [ o ] >> [ a ]
2 | eLeWee | for /[ o ] A/, [ o ] a >> [ o ] o
3 | eWLeeL | for /[ o ] I yor/, [ o ] u yor >> [ o ] i- yor
4 | LLeLWe | for /[ e ] I yor/, [ e ] i yor >> [ e ] i yer
5 | eeLeeW | for /[ u ] I a/, [ u ] u a >> [ u ] i- a

Recursive ranking search

Recursive search has now reached this location in the search tree: 1

Fusion of this ERC set is: LLLLWL

The following ERCs form the total information-loss residue:

eLeWee
eWLeeL
eeLeeW

Fusion of total residue: eLLWeL

Skeletal basis of the fusion: LeeLWe

LeeLWe includes at least one L and thus is not entailed by eLLWeL.

Thus it may be retained in the Skeletal Basis of ERCs.

Recursive search has now reached this location in the search tree: 1, 5

Current set of ERCs is based on constraint #5, Max(rd)

Working with the following ERC set:

eLeWee
eWLeeL
eeLeeW

Fusion of this ERC set is: eLLWeL

The following ERCs form the total information-loss residue:

eWLeeL
eeLeeW

Fusion of total residue: eWLeeL

Skeletal basis of the fusion: eLeWee

eLeWee includes at least one L and thus is not entailed by eWLeeL.

Thus it may be retained in the Skeletal Basis of ERCs.

Recursive search has now reached this location in the search tree: 1, 5, 4

Current set of ERCs is based on constraint #4, RoLo

Working with the following ERC set:

eWLeeL
eeLeeW

Fusion of this ERC set is: eWLeeL

The following ERCs form the total information-loss residue:

eeLeeW

Fusion of total residue: eeLeeW

Skeletal basis of the fusion: eWeeeL

eWeeeL includes at least one L and thus is not entailed by eeLeeW.

Thus it may be retained in the Skeletal Basis of ERCs.

Recursive search has now reached this location in the search tree: 1, 5, 4, 2

Current set of ERCs is based on constraint #2, Agr rd

Working with the following ERC set:

eeLeeW

Fusion of this ERC set is: eeLeeW

The following ERCs form the total information-loss residue:

eeLeeW has a null residue and thus may be retained in the Skeletal Basis of ERCs.

5. Ranking argumentation: Final result

The following set of ERCs forms the Skeletal Basis for the ERC set as a whole, and thus encapsulates the available ranking information.

LeeLWe | Must dominate these constraints
eLeWee |
eWeeeL |
eeLeeW |

The final rankings obtained are as follows:

Max(rd) >> { Agr bk, RoLo } | Must dominate these constraints
RoLo >> Agr rd |
Agr rd >> No L(rd) |
No L(rd) >> Dep(+rd) |

6. Mini-Tableaux

The following small tableaux may be useful in presenting ranking arguments. They include all winner-rival comparisons in which there is just one winner-preferring constraint and at least one loser-preferring constraint. Constraints not violated by either candidate are omitted.

/[ o ] /: | Max(rd) | RoLo
☞ [ o ] |

*

[ a ] | * |

/[ o ] A/: | RoLo | Agr rd
☞ [ o ] a | *

*

[ o ] o | ** |

/[ o ] I yor/: | RoLo | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ o ] u yor | **

*

*

[ o ] i- yor | ** | * * |  |

/[ e ] I yor/: | Max(rd) | RoLo | Agr bk | Agr rd
☞ [ e ] i yor |

* |

*

*

[ e ] i yer | * |  |  |

/[ u ] I a/: | Agr rd | No L(rd) | Dep(+rd)
☞ [ u ] u a | *

*

[ u ] i- a | * | * |