# Candidate Term Boundary Conflict Reduction Method for Chinese Geological Text Segmentation
## 4 Experiments and Discussion  
### Data and Evaluation Indicators  
To avoid contingency, three geological reports were used in this study to verify the segmentation effect of the HFCR algorithm. Experimental datasets include the Rencun Geological Report (hereinafter referred to as Rencun), the Xiaoshan Geological and Mineral Report (referred to as Xiaoshan), and the Geological and Mineral Results Report in Zhenfeng and Funing areas of Nanpanjiang Metallogenic Area (referred to as Nanpanjiang). This kind of report is the summative material of geological work, which has abundant reserves in the whole geological field and is very easy to obtain. It can be used as the representative data set for the task of geological text segmentation.  
The evaluation system of CWS mainly contains four widely used indicators, namely Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F-score. Accuracy is the proportion of correct cases to all cases. Precision is the proportion of correct segmentations to all segmentation cases. Recall  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Conflict** & **Side** & **Candidate Term 1** & **Information Entropy 1** & **Candidate Term 2** & **Information Entropy 2** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{same-starting-point inclusive} & \multirow{3}{*}{right} & [PERSON] (Mesoproterozoic) & \multirow{3}{*}{0.27} & [PERSON] (n.Mesoproterozoic) & \multirow{3}{*}{3.24} \\  & & [PERSON] & & [PERSON] (Zanhuang) & \multirow{3}{*}{5.27} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{same-ending-point inclusive} & \multirow{3}{*}{left} & [PERSON] (sandy shale) & \multirow{3}{*}{2.86} & [PERSON] (quality shale) & \multirow{3}{*}{1.35} \\  & & [PERSON] & & [PERSON] (with gravel layer) & \multirow{3}{*}{1.00} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{inner inclusive} & \multirow{3}{*}{both} & [PERSON] (ligo) & \multirow{3}{*}{(0.82, 0.53)} & [PERSON] (Majaoi Foundation) & \multirow{3}{*}{(4.89, 3.87)} \\  & [PERSON] (quartz) & & [PERSON] (alternate with quartz) & \multirow{3}{*}{(0.91, 2.25)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{intersecting} & \multirow{3}{*}{connected} & [PERSON] (grey) & \multirow{3}{*}{(7.74, 3.30)} & [PERSON] (color middle) & \multirow{3}{*}{(2.13, 1.40)} \\  & & [PERSON] (office No.) & & [PERSON] (event) & \multirow{3}{*}{(2.16, 1.49)} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: High-degree-of-freedom priority strategy based on information entropy.  
Figure 4: Logic visualization of intersecting conflict.  
is the proportion of correct segmentations to the actual segmentation cases. F-value is a comprehensive indicator with a compromise between Precision and Recall. Usually, the F-value is also called the F1-value when \(\beta\) is 1. In this study, the comprehensive index F1-value is used as the judgment of the effect of word segmentation.  
In this study, the evaluation of segmentation performance is focused on determining whether the segmentation operation of geological text is correct or not. In particular, it should be noted that our standard text may be slightly different from other studies due to no uniform scheme in the field of CWS in terms of the understanding of lexical terms. Our judgment criterion is that the segmentation constitutes the boundary of a correct term with a full meaning.