False Positives and False Negatives
Test Says "Yes" ... or does it?
When you have a test that can say "Yes" or "No" (such as a medical test), you have to think:
- It could be wrong when it says "Yes".
- It could be wrong when it says "No".
It is like being told you did something when you didn't!
Or you didn't do it when you really did.
They each have a special name: "False Positive" and "False Negative":
|They say you did||They say you didn't|
|You really did||They are right!||"False Negative"|
|You really didn't||"False Positive"||They are right!|
Here are some examples of "false positives" and "false negatives":
- Airport Security: a "false positive" is when ordinary items such as keys or coins get mistaken for weapons (machine goes "beep")
- Quality Control: a "false positive" is when a good quality item gets rejected, and a "false negative" is when a poor quality item gets accepted. (A "positive" result means there IS a defect.)
- Antivirus software: a "false positive" is when a normal file is thought to be a virus
- Medical screening: low-cost tests given to a large group can give many false positives (saying you have a disease when you don't), and then ask you to get more accurate tests.
But many people don't understand the true numbers behind "Yes" or "No", like in this example:
Example: Allergy or Not?
Hunter says she is itchy. There is a test for Allergy to Cats, but this test is not always right:
- For people that really do have the allergy, the test says "Yes" 80% of the time
- For people that do not have the allergy, the test says "Yes" 10% of the time ("false positive")
Here it is in a table:
|Test says "Yes"||Test says "No"|
|Have allergy||80%||20% "False Negative"|
|Don't have it||10% "False Positive"||90%|
Question: If 1% of the population have the allergy, and Hunter's test says "Yes", what are the chances that Hunter really has the allergy?
Do you think 75%? Or maybe 50%?
A similar test was given to Doctors and most guessed around 75% ...
... but they were very wrong!
(Source: "Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities" by David M. Eddy 1982, which this example is based on)
There are three good ways to solve this: "Imagine a 1000", "Tree Diagrams" or "Bayes' Theorem", use which you prefer::
Try Imagining A Thousand People
When trying to understand questions like this, just imagine a large group (say 1000) and play with the numbers:
- Of 1000 people, only 10 really have the allergy (1% of 1000 is 10)
- The test is 80% right for people who have the allergy, so it will get 8 of those 10 right.
- But 990 do not have the allergy, and the test will say "Yes" to 10% of them,
which is 99 people it says "Yes" to wrongly (false positive)
- So out of 1000 people the test says "Yes" to (8+99) = 107 people
As a table:
|1% have it||Test says "Yes"||Test says "No"|
|Don't have it||990||99||891|
So 107 people get a "Yes" but only 8 of those really have the allergy:
8 / 107 = about 7%
So, even though Hunter's test said "Yes", it is still only 7% likely that Hunter has a Cat Allergy.
Why so small? Well, the allergy is so rare that those who actually have it are greatly outnumbered by those with a false positive.
As A Tree
Drawing a tree diagram can really help:
First of all, let's check that all the percentages add up:
0.8% + 0.2% + 9.9% + 89.1% = 100% (good!)
And the two "Yes" answers add up to 0.8% + 9.9% = 10.7%, but only 0.8% are correct.
0.8/10.7 = 7% (same answer as above)
And there is a special formula, too!
P(A|B) = P(A)P(B|A) P(A)P(B|A) + P(not A)P(B|not A)
It needs some explaining, so learn more about it at Bayes Theorem.
Lastly, let's look at one more example:
Extreme Example: Computer Virus
A computer virus spreads around the world, all reporting to a master computer.
The good guys capture the master computer and find that a million computers have been infected (but don't know which ones).
Governments decide to take action!
No one can use the internet until their computer passes the "virus-free" test. The test is 99% accurate (pretty good, right?) But 1% of the time it says you have the virus when you don't (a "false positive").
Now let's say there are 1000 million internet users.
- Of 1 million with the virus 99% of them get correctly banned = about 1 million
- But false positives are 999 million x 1% = about 10 million
So a total of 11 million get banned, but only 1 out of those 11 actually have the virus.
So if you get banned there is only a 9% chance you actually have the virus!
When dealing with false positives and false negatives (or other tricky probability questions) we can use these methods:
- Imagine you have 1000 (of whatever),
- Make a tree diagram, or
- Use Bayes' Theorem