Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
According to several people on StackOverflow Bayesian filtering is better than Neural Networks for detecting spam.
According to the literature I’ve read that shouldn’t be the case. Please explain!
There is no mathematical proof or explanation that can explain why the applications of Neural Networks have not been as good at detecting spam as Bayesian filters. This does not mean that Neural Networks would not produce similar or better results, but the time it would take for one to tweak the Neural Network topology and train it to get even approximately the same results as a Bayesian filter is simply not justified. At the end of the day, people care about results and minimizing the time/effort achieving those results. When it comes to spam detection, Bayesian filters get you the best results with the least amount of effort and time. If the spam detection system using Bayesian filters detects 99% of the spam correctly, then there is very little incentive for people to spend a lot of time adjusting Neural Networks just so they can eek out an extra 0.5% or so.
It’s technically correct. If properly configured, a Neural Network would get as good or even better results than the Bayesian filters, but its the cost/benefit ratio that makes the difference and ultimately the trend.