mahout-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LLR and negative correlation
Date Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:59:29 GMT
I use k_11 / (k_11 + k_12) > k_21 / (k_21 + k_22) for the sign.




On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlieu.7@gmail.com> wrote:

> perhaps something along the lines p(A and B) > p(notA and notB)?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlieu.7@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > i would be greatful for a hint for a following problem here in
> > cooccurrence analysis. It may be not most practical one but it appeared
> in
> > the test.
> >
> > The problem is that LLR tests for independence. As such, it would give
> > high scores for negatively correlated events too. E.g.  say countA = 91,
> > countB=91, countA&B=1, total = 213 produces sky-high llr of 139.33.
> > However, in this situations these events avoid each other (something we
> are
> > not looking for) rather than highly likely to co-occur (somethng we are
> > looking for).
> >
> > Is there a quick test to filter out negatively co-occuring events?
> >
> > thanks.
> > -d
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message