On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:16:09 -0500, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nigel Frankcom wrote: >> >> Files redone... a little more informative this time round :-D >> >> http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam01.txt >> http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug1.txt >> >> http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam02.txt >> http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug2.txt >> >> http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam03.txt >> http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug3.txt >> >> http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/spam04.txt >> http://dev.blue-canoe.net/spam/debug4.txt >> >> > >Well, it looks like whatever caused spam01 to hit bayes_99 and spam03 to >hit bayes_80 is gone.. based on debug3, spam03 would now hit bayes_99 >more strongly than spam01 would. > >So whatever caused the slight bayes dropout has been trained out of your >system now.. It occurred to me after I did the debug I'd already trained the misses in. Thanks for taking a look though. Kind regards Nigel
