Message boards : Number Crunching : Calculating Accuracy % ?

 SortOldest firstNewest firstHighest rated posts first
Author Message
STE\/E

Joined: 5 Apr 13
Posts: 416
Combined Credit: 29,783,819
DNA@Home: 2,634,206
SubsetSum@Home: 735,231
Wildlife@Home: 26,414,382
Wildlife@Home Watched: 53,380,530s
Wildlife@Home Events: 9,349
Climate Tweets: 0
Images Observed: 0

Message 1465 - Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 10:33:34 UTC

Where am I going wrong on my figuring out how many Valid Video's it takes to raise your Accuracy % by .01%

Say I have 32000 Video's that I have watched (Which is what I have at this point) to me 3200 would be 10% & 320 would be 1% & 32 would be .1% ... So going by those figures it should only take 32 Correct (Valid) Video's to raise your Accuracy % by .1% or 3.2 Correct Video's to raise your Accuracy % by .01%

But I know that's wrong for some reason because I'm not exactly sure how many it takes for me to raise my Accuracy % by .01% but from what I'm seeing I'm guessing around 60-70 Correct video's without any Incorrect ones during that 60-70 Correct Ones to raise it by .01%

So why is my figuring so far off from the 3.2 to 60-70 ... ???

Senilix

Joined: 2 Feb 12
Posts: 96
Combined Credit: 8,073,607
DNA@Home: 106,112
SubsetSum@Home: 114,729
Wildlife@Home: 7,852,766
Wildlife@Home Watched: 7,118,967s
Wildlife@Home Events: 1,563
Climate Tweets: 5
Images Observed: 26

Message 1466 - Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 12:27:41 UTC - in response to Message 1465.

Let's say, you've watched 32000 videos with 960 invalids. This leads to a value of 3% inaccuracy (960 divided by 32000 = 0.03), which BTW is a very respectable number. Mine is 4.5% as you can see on the left.

How many videos X would you need to have watched, with still 960 invalids, to get an inaccuracy rate of 2.99%?
960 divided by X should evaluate to 0.0299. This gives you X = 32107.

So you'll need an astonishing number of another 107 videos to watch and successfully get validated, to increase your accuracy from 97% to 97.01% !!

Note that this is just the mathematically exact number needed to raise your accuracy by exactly 0.01. In reality the accuracy is rounded and a raise of 0.005 (= 54 more valids) would be enough to show your accurancy as 97.01%.

BTW The same math tells you that only 2 more invalids are needed to let your accuracy level drop from 97% to 96,99%.

Yup, it's easy to ruin ones accuracy, but very hard to improve it.

STE\/E

Joined: 5 Apr 13
Posts: 416
Combined Credit: 29,783,819
DNA@Home: 2,634,206
SubsetSum@Home: 735,231
Wildlife@Home: 26,414,382
Wildlife@Home Watched: 53,380,530s
Wildlife@Home Events: 9,349
Climate Tweets: 0
Images Observed: 0

Message 1467 - Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 12:54:29 UTC

Okay & Thanks ...

DoctorNow

Joined: 31 Jan 12
Posts: 328
Combined Credit: 2,333,912
DNA@Home: 94,617
SubsetSum@Home: 162,940
Wildlife@Home: 2,076,355
Wildlife@Home Watched: 1,977,485s
Wildlife@Home Events: 589
Climate Tweets: 128
Images Observed: 2,678

Message 1468 - Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 13:03:37 UTC - in response to Message 1466.

Let's say, you've watched 32000 videos with 960 invalids.

Actually, that isn't really exact. The % is based on the validated number of videos, so you have to subtract the unvalidated ones from the number of observations.
____________
Mod/Guru @ the german team BOINC@Heidelberg

Lemon

Joined: 10 May 13
Posts: 229
Combined Credit: 476,659
DNA@Home: 190,781
SubsetSum@Home: 225,957
Wildlife@Home: 59,921
Wildlife@Home Watched: 11,190,214s
Wildlife@Home Events: 0
Climate Tweets: 0
Images Observed: 0

Message 1470 - Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 13:07:42 UTC - in response to Message 1468.

Valid videos needed = (Invalid videos) * (Desired Percentage) / (1 - Desired Percentage)

STE\/E

Joined: 5 Apr 13
Posts: 416
Combined Credit: 29,783,819
DNA@Home: 2,634,206
SubsetSum@Home: 735,231
Wildlife@Home: 26,414,382
Wildlife@Home Watched: 53,380,530s
Wildlife@Home Events: 9,349
Climate Tweets: 0
Images Observed: 0

Message 1471 - Posted: 31 Aug 2013, 19:02:12 UTC

lol ... Okay Thank's Guy'z, it's all Greek to me anyway, back 50-55 Yr's ago when I went to High School Algebra & above wasn't a Prerequisite at School so I never learned that sort of stuff. None of the Job's I had after High School until I retired required any thing like that either so I had no reason to learn Advanced Math I guess you'd call it ...

I'm very good at regular math though & can do most regular math problems in my head quicker that most can do it on paper & was the reason I couldn't figure out why my figuring didn't work ... ;)

Message boards : Number Crunching : Calculating Accuracy % ?