I am guessing this is on the new naivebayes package. I would like to check
the data and compare against the old implementation if its a bug.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]>wrote:

>
> On Oct 11, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Robin Anil wrote:
>
> > Could be due to the way normalization is done.
>
> In what part of the process?
>
> > How is CNB performing?
>
> It's better, like 40% correct, 60% wrong, but still not good.
>
> > Do
> > share the confusion matrices and per label precision.
>
> Usually on the order of 0.05 correct, 95% wrong.
>
> If I bring the --maxItemsPerLabel (PrepEmailVectorsDriver) down to about
> 1000, then I get better results, but still not better than guessing.  The
> main issue is that many of the mail archives have a ton of entries, but then
> a few only have less than 1000.    On the flip side, 1000 is not really
> enough training wise.  If I restrict down the input to mailing lists that
> have at least 10K items, then I get much better results.  Of course, this is
> expected.  The main issue is I don't understand why it would be picking the
> labels with the least amount of data.
>
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I was trying the Naive Bayes classifier via the build-asf-email.sh file
> I
> >> committed the other day on a data set that had a fairly significant
> >> variation in the number of messages per training label and am noticing
> >> (still need to validate more) that the label with the least number of
> >> examples is often dominating the results.  This seems counterintuitive
> to
> >> me.  I would have expected the largest set would have dominated the
> results.
> >> If I even out the number of items per label, than I get reasonable
> results.
> >> Any thoughts on what I am seeing?  If you are interested, I can share
> the
> >> details of the runs.
> >>
> >> -Grant
> >>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> Lucene Eurocon 2011: http://www.lucene-eurocon.com
>
>

Reply via email to