[Spambayes] SpamBayes and TREC
kirebrow at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 21 02:46:52 CET 2005
This is interesting! Please keep us updated on your research!
From: Tony Meyer [mailto:tameyer at ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:26 PM
To: Erik Brown
Cc: spambayes at python.org
Subject: Re: [Spambayes] SpamBayes and TREC
> How did SpamBayes perform in the TREC 2005 testing? Do you have any
For a start, you can see the information here: http://
At some point during the registration process TREC latched on to
"Massey University" (where I was working at the time, but completely
uninvolved with SpamBayes) as my 'organisation name', so you may see
that in some of the results. Just substitute "SpamBayes" for "Massey
University" wherever you see it.
I'll make my notebook paper available when I have a chance, and (once
it's done) my proceedings paper.
In brief, SpamBayes did better than I expected (towards the bottom of
the top ten) considering that it is designed to classify as ham/
unsure/spam, not ham/spam, and considering that I didn't make any
special effort to change options, etc (in fact, it seems that the
best variant of SpamBayes was the out-of-the-box one), nor did I put
any effort into determining what the single cutoff should be.
What surprised me the most was that the train-on-everything variant
seems to have performed the best. I'm still looking into this; I
hope to have more details by the time the proceedings paper is finished.
Please always include the list (spambayes at python.org) in your replies
(reply-all), and please don't send me personal mail about SpamBayes.
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~tameyer/writing/reply_all.html explains this.
More information about the SpamBayes