{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03838383838383838, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.7011494252873565, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response to “Regulatory False Positives: True, False, or Uncertain?”

In his letter to the editor, Cox concludes that “most of the risks considered by Hansen et al. are uncertain, willingness to label such risks as ‘real’ without further investigation may help to explain why the authors identified so few false positives, even if more exist.” We disagree for a number of reasons. First of all, the purpose of our paper was not to identify real risks, but to identify false positives defined as: