Comment by causalmodels
12 hours ago
Interesting direction but the 98.8% FPR in Table 1 seems like a dealbreaker. Anyone understand what's going on with the contradictory results between the text and tables?
12 hours ago
Interesting direction but the 98.8% FPR in Table 1 seems like a dealbreaker. Anyone understand what's going on with the contradictory results between the text and tables?
Well Figure 1 would also disagree. It shows a FPR of 47.5%.
From Sec 3, end of second to last paragraph
by program hash, and *bounds false positives via the chosen percentile and gap parameters.*
I believe this is a choice, though I think it is suspect that the FPR is pushed this high to get the TP results.
Disclaimer: I only gave this a very cursory skim so don't rely on me too much
> Empirically, CTVP attains very good detection rates with reliable false positives
A novel use of the word "reliable"? Jokes aside, either they mean the FPR as the opposite of what you'd expect, the table is not representative of their approach, or they're just... really optimistic?