[spambayes-dev] Incremental training results

[Tony Meyer]

[Alex]
> 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).

I averaged them all out into a single line.  For some reason I thought this
was what the graphs on your website were like, and it made making the graph
easy :), but looking more closely (the stuff all makes more sense now that I
understand the incremental testing setup more!) I see that it's not.  I'll
do separate lines in future.

> 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.

Ok, I'll try that.

> Further, it might be easier to isolate the 
> balancing effects from the mistake-correction
> effects if you made a balanced_perfect regime, too.

I'll try this, too.  Thanks!

=Tony Meyer