." See also
L<"http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/battisfore.03.22.99.html">
for a simple but complete example of Bayes' Theorem.
In this case, we want to know the probability of a given category given a
certain string of words in a document, so we have:
P(words | cat) P(cat)
P(cat | words) = --------------------
P(words)
We have applied Bayes' Theorem because C is a difficult
quantity to compute directly, but C

and C

are accessible
(see below).
The greater the expression above, the greater the probability that the given
document belongs to the given category. So we want to find the maximum
value. We write this as
P(words | cat) P(cat)
Best category = ArgMax -----------------------
cat in cats P(words)
Since C

doesn't change over the range of categories, we can get rid
of it. That's good, because we didn't want to have to compute these values
anyway. So our new formula is:
Best category = ArgMax P(words | cat) P(cat)
cat in cats
Finally, we note that if C are the words in the document,
then this expression is equivalent to:
Best category = ArgMax P(w1|cat)*P(w2|cat)*...*P(wn|cat)*P(cat)
cat in cats
That's the formula I use in my document categorization code. The last
step is the only non-rigorous one in the derivation, and this is the
"naive" part of the Naive Bayes technique. It assumes that the
probability of each word appearing in a document is unaffected by the
presence or absence of each other word in the document. We assume
this even though we know this isn't true: for example, the word
"iodized" is far more likely to appear in a document that contains the
word "salt" than it is to appear in a document that contains the word
"subroutine". Luckily, as it turns out, making this assumption even
when it isn't true may have little effect on our results, as the
following paper by Pedro Domingos argues:
L<"http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/pedrod/mlj97.ps.gz">
=head1 SEE ALSO
Algorithm::NaiveBayes (3), AI::Classifier::Text(3)
=head1 BASED ON
Much of the code and description is from L.
=cut