[spambayes-dev] Incremental training results

[T. Alexander Popiel]

In message:  <1ED4ECF91CDED24C8D012BCF2B034F1304677816 at its-xchg4.massey.ac.nz>
             "Tony Meyer" <tameyer at ihug.co.nz> writes:
>> Well, I don't...  I guess I wasn't paying attention that day. 
>>  :-( I don't understand what's different between each of the 
>> graphs or what they purport to measure.  Can you provide a 
>> little background?
>
>Hopefully Alex's post did some of this.  My new and improved results are at
>the same place the old ones were:
>
><http://www.massey.ac.nz/~tameyer/research/spambayes/incremental.html>
>
>There's some more explanation there, too, so it should be somewhat clearer
>what the graphs are telling me (and hopefully what they are telling me is
>what they mean <wink>).

Looks like good analysis to me.  However, I'm still slightly confused
by only one apparent run for each regime; I'd anticipate one run for
each set excluded (and thus multiple instances of each of the lines
on the corrected, nonedge, etc. graphs).

For your data, it might be valuable to make balanced_corrected allow
a 3:1 ratio in favor of ham, but only a 2:3 ratio in favor of spam.
Further, it might be easier to isolate the balancing effects from the
mistake-correction effects if you made a balanced_perfect regime, too.

- Alex