Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Security Statistics and Reports
The best Home AV protection 2021-2022
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1022704" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>[USER=97327]@Max90[/USER],</p><p></p><p>The calculator depends only on 1 free parameter (Population Proportion) which is set to 50%. So, it calculates a very simple statistical model. When you want to tackle realistic data from AV tests, then there are some important free parameters that can significantly increase the fluctuations:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The sample prevalence (in the tested pule).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">How old are the samples (in the tested pule).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">How many missed samples are shared by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... AVs (total samples pule).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">How many missed samples are shared by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... AVs (tested samples pule).</li> </ol><p>So, the realistic statistical model for data with possible big fluctuations must include many free parameters. Such a statistical model does not exist yet (as far as I know). That is why do not use any concrete statistical model.</p><p>One can use a sample size calculator and known formulas, but there is no way to verify how the calculated result differs from the real one.</p><p></p><p>I know the AV-Comparatives article about statistically relevant sample size, but they do not use it in their statistical analysis for some reason. They use a clustering method instead, which gives the same results for the first awarded group as a random model from my thread:</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905376[/URL]</p><p></p><p>Here is how the clustering method works in practice:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]272588[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>The AVs from any particular cluster cannot be differentiated in the test due to experiment errors (mostly due to statistical fluctuations related to the test methodology). In this particular chart, 2/3 of all AVs are in the first cluster.</p><p></p><p>I will play a little with the calculator, but not for one test results but for two-year cumulative results. In two-year cumulative results the fluctuations are relatively smaller.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1022704, member: 32260"] [USER=97327]@Max90[/USER], The calculator depends only on 1 free parameter (Population Proportion) which is set to 50%. So, it calculates a very simple statistical model. When you want to tackle realistic data from AV tests, then there are some important free parameters that can significantly increase the fluctuations: [LIST=1] [*]The sample prevalence (in the tested pule). [*]How old are the samples (in the tested pule). [*]How many missed samples are shared by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... AVs (total samples pule). [*]How many missed samples are shared by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... AVs (tested samples pule). [/LIST] So, the realistic statistical model for data with possible big fluctuations must include many free parameters. Such a statistical model does not exist yet (as far as I know). That is why do not use any concrete statistical model. One can use a sample size calculator and known formulas, but there is no way to verify how the calculated result differs from the real one. I know the AV-Comparatives article about statistically relevant sample size, but they do not use it in their statistical analysis for some reason. They use a clustering method instead, which gives the same results for the first awarded group as a random model from my thread: [URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905376[/URL] Here is how the clustering method works in practice: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1675240425440.png"]272588[/ATTACH] The AVs from any particular cluster cannot be differentiated in the test due to experiment errors (mostly due to statistical fluctuations related to the test methodology). In this particular chart, 2/3 of all AVs are in the first cluster. I will play a little with the calculator, but not for one test results but for two-year cumulative results. In two-year cumulative results the fluctuations are relatively smaller. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
