The Naive Bayes Mystery: A classification detective story

Authors:
Adrien Jamain;David J. Hand
Affiliations:
Imperial College, Department of Mathematics, 180 Queen's Gate, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom;Imperial College, Department of Mathematics, 180 Queen's Gate, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom
Venue:
Pattern Recognition Letters
Year:
2005

Citing 6
Cited 1

A note on comparing classifiers

Pattern Recognition Letters
An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods for Constructing Ensembles of Decision Trees: Bagging, Boosting, and Randomization

Machine Learning
A comparison of discriminant procedures for binary variables

Computational Statistics & Data Analysis
On Comparing Classifiers: Pitfalls toAvoid and a Recommended Approach

Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
Bayes Optimal Instance-Based Learning

ECML '98 Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Machine Learning
An empirical comparison of pattern recognition, neural nets, and machine learning classification methods

IJCAI'89 Proceedings of the 11th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1

Generative models for ticket resolution in expert networks

Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.10

Visualization

Abstract

Many studies have been made to compare the many different methods of supervised classification which have been developed. While conducting a large meta-analysis of such studies, we spotted some anomalous results relating to the Naive Bayes method. This paper describes our detailed investigation into these anomalies. We conclude that a very large comparative study probably mislabelled another method as Naive Bayes, and that the Statlog project used the right method, but possibly incorrectly reported its provenance. Such mistakes, while not too harmful in themselves, can become seriously misleading if blindly propagated by citations which do not examine the source material in detail.