Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1022732" data-attributes="member: 32260">Let&#039;s forget about statistical arguments and simply use the proposed sample size calculator to calculate something useful from the last R-W AV-Comparatives test.[ATTACH=full]272589[/ATTACH]We are interested to find out if the differences between AVs in the blocked samples are statistically meaningful. As it was calculated by [USER=97327]@Max90[/USER] :[ATTACH=full]272590[/ATTACH]The sample size is 245 and the margin error is 5%. Let&#039;s use these values for further calculations. Avast scored with 626 samples (perfect result) so the margin error for Avast is 5/100 * 626 ~ 31 samples. The real result of Avast must lie somewhere in the interval 595-626. The result is highly disappointing because the worst AV scored 619 and also lies in this interval.So let&#039;s use this calculator to obtain the conclusion made by AV-Comparatives statistics, which says that the margin error for Avast is less than 2 samples.the margin error &lt; 2/626 ~ 0.319%[ATTACH=full]272595[/ATTACH]The number of samples should be 30101 which is 48 times more than the samples in the test. This sample size is also greater than samples in the two-year period in AV-Comparatives + AV-Test + SE Labs (7548 samples). So, if the AV-Comparatives guys are right, then they must use a very different statistical model.They have far more information about the samples, including the parameters mentioned by me in the previous posts. So, they can create an improved model to reduce the sample size.Post corrected.Previously I used 4 samples as a margin error for Avast, but the correct value is less than 2. Avast (first cluster) is well separated from Total Defense (second cluster) when:&quot;Avast blocked&quot; - error &gt; &quot;Total Defense blocked&quot; + error</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1022732, member: 32260"] Let's forget about statistical arguments and simply use the proposed sample size calculator to calculate something useful from the last R-W AV-Comparatives test. [ATTACH type="full" alt="1675256265545.png"]272589[/ATTACH] We are interested to find out if the differences between AVs in the blocked samples are statistically meaningful. As it was calculated by [USER=97327]@Max90[/USER] : [ATTACH type="full" alt="1675256525502.png"]272590[/ATTACH] The sample size is 245 and the margin error is 5%. Let's use these values for further calculations. Avast scored with 626 samples (perfect result) so the margin error for Avast is 5/100 * 626 ~ 31 samples. The real result of Avast must lie somewhere in the interval 595-626. The result is highly disappointing because the worst AV scored 619 and also lies in this interval. So let's use this calculator to obtain the conclusion made by AV-Comparatives statistics, which says that the margin error for Avast is less than 2 samples. the margin error < 2/626 ~ 0.319% [ATTACH type="full" alt="1675263376936.png"]272595[/ATTACH] The number of samples should be 30101 which is 48 times more than the samples in the test. This sample size is also greater than samples in the two-year period in AV-Comparatives + AV-Test + SE Labs (7548 samples). So, if the AV-Comparatives guys are right, then they must use a very different statistical model. They have far more information about the samples, including the parameters mentioned by me in the previous posts. So, they can create an improved model to reduce the sample size. Post corrected. Previously I used 4 samples as a margin error for Avast, but the correct value is less than 2. Avast (first cluster) is well separated from Total Defense (second cluster) when: "Avast blocked" - error > "Total Defense blocked" + error [/QUOTE]

Verification