I hope this message leads to some consensus. I think, unless there is a more
concise or particularly innovative way to look at it, it looks like a good
definition for false positive to me (as well as false negative and the s:n)
Some one put a pointer to this message !-)
On Monday, March 31, 2003 9:38 PM, Alan DeKok
[SMTP:aland(_at_)freeradius(_dot_)org]
wrote:
Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
As others have pointed out, there is a genuine technical ambiguity in
"false positive." Is it RD/TOTAL or RD/SPAM? (for RD=rejected but
desired by recipient, TOTAL=total mail of all sorts whether rejected
or not, and SPAM=whatever that means).
As an absolute number, false positive should be easy to define. "I
went through my 'spam' folder, and I decided that 3 messages should
not have been put there."
As a ratio or percentage, false positives are taken relative to the
desired signal, not to the total data, or to the noise. So we have:
MAIL = number of emails you want to be marked as ok (not spam)
JUNK = number of emails you want to be marked as spam
MARKED = number of emails actually marked as ok
SPAM = number of emails actually marked as spam
FP = false positives (number of "MAIL" in "SPAM", which should
have been in "MARKED")
FN = false negatives (number of "MAIL" in "MARKED", which should
have been in "SPAM")
The ratio of false positives = FP / MAIL
The ratio o false negatives = FN / MAIL
MARKED = MAIL - FP + FN
SPAM = JUNK + FP - FN
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg