[spambayes-dev] Reduced training test results

T. Alexander Popiel popiel at wolfskeep.com
Sat Dec 27 01:43:13 EST 2003

In message:  <LNBBLJKPBEHFEDALKOLCCEIPIAAB.tim.one at comcast.net>
             "Tim Peters" <tim.one at comcast.net> writes:
>[T. Alexander Popiel]
>> Also of significant interest is that the classifier doesn't seem
>> to decay as badly over time.  With training on everything, the
>> unsure rate in particular (and fn to a much lesser extent) goes
>> up significantly after about 200 days worth of traffic,
>That's peculiar.  Did you try this with different starting dates, and find
>that "about 200 days" was invariant across starting dates -- or did you try
>a single starting date, and note that something funny happened about 200
>days after that single starting date.  I think the latter, in which case
>it's natural to speculate that something significant changed around then in
>your ham and/or spam mix.

It was in fact the latter, and I'm just now prepping for spinning my
dataset by 80 and 160 days to revalidate.  Even odder things are
happening at specific times in the expiry stuff, and I want to see if
it's specific real times, or time after training commences...

- Alex

More information about the spambayes-dev mailing list