No, mi era sfuggito! Grazie :) juan carlos On 06/09/2017 11:23, Stefano Quintarelli wrote:
JC, certo... avevi visto questo ? https://goo.gl/dOH5li ciao!, s.
On 06/09/2017 11:13, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote:
*100,000 false positives for every real terrorist: Why anti-terror algorithms don’t work
*by Timme Bisgaard Munk
/First Monday/, Volume 22, Number 9 - 4 September 2017
http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7126/6522 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i19.7126 / //Abstract/
Can terrorist attacks be predicted and prevented using classification algorithms? Can predictive analytics see the hidden patterns and data tracks in the planning of terrorist acts? According to a number of IT firms that now offer programs to predict terrorism using predictive analytics, the answer is yes. According to scientific and application-oriented literature, however, these programs raise a number of practical, statistical and recursive problems. In a literature review and discussion, this paper examines specific problems involved in predicting terrorism. The problems include the opportunity cost of false positives/false negatives, the statistical quality of the prediction and the self-reinforcing, corrupting recursive effects of predictive analytics, since the method lacks an inner meta-model for its own learning- and pattern-dependent adaptation. The conclusion is algorithms don’t work for detecting terrorism and is ineffective, risky and inappropriate, with potentially 100,000 false positives for every real terrorist that the algorithm finds.
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa