Re: [R] e1071 SVM: Cross-validation error confusion matrix

2012-12-02 Thread Frank Harrell
What do you mean by accuracy? Proportion classified correctly is not a good index of accuracy if that's the problem. Frank rahul143 wrote > Hi, > > I ran two svm models in R e1071 package: the first without > cross-validation and the second with 10-fold cross-validation. > > I used the follow

Re: [R] e1071 SVM: Cross-validation error confusion matrix

2012-11-20 Thread Brian Feeny
responding to my own question, I see in ?svm man it states fitted() and predict() can do the same thing: # test with train data pred <- predict(model, x) # (same as:) pred <- fitted(model) On Nov 21, 2012, at 1:08 AM, signal wrote: > Did you ever receive a response to this? I did not see one

Re: [R] e1071 SVM: Cross-validation error confusion matrix

2012-11-20 Thread signal
Did you ever receive a response to this? I did not see one public. I would think that if your dataset was of a large enough size, that 10-fold validation would show an improvement over N:N. Also, any ideas if there is any difference really in using fitted() vs. predict() in your second step? I am