Skip to content
Astera Technology

Compare alert thresholds by missed cases and false alarms

Evaluate two rules against labelled cases under an explicit missed-incident limit.

Keep reference labels independent

Synthetic labelled test set has five actionable incidents and 15 nonactionable cases. Rule L flags four incidents and six nonactionable cases. Rule H flags three incidents and one nonactionable case. Local selection permits at most one missed incident, then prefers fewer false alarms. Labels are fixed before comparing rules.

Threshold evaluation counts
RuleTP /FPFN /TN
L4 /61 /9
H3 /12 /14
Download editable CSV ↓

Count true and false outcomes

  1. Preserve the reference labels
  2. Compute misses from five
  3. Reject rules beyond miss limit

Do not relabel a missed incident as nonactionable to improve a score.

Which rule qualifies, and what is its precision?

Show the worked answer

L qualifies; H misses two and fails. L precision is 4/(4+6)=40%. Passing the miss limit does not mean low noise.

Choose against the supplied constraint

Filled decision checks
CaseDecisionReason
ChooseH for fewer false alarmsReject under policyTwo misses exceed one
ChooseLEligible with noise work remainingOne miss, six false alarms
Download editable CSV ↓

Retain the full confusion matrix. A later threshold change needs the same labelled cases and an explicit revised constraint, not only a shorter message list.

Related resources