Abstract

The use of email as a communication technology is now increasingly being exploited. Along with its progress, email spam problem becomes quite disturbing to email user. The resulting negative impacts make effective spam email detection techniques indispensable. A spam email detection algorithm or spam classifier will work effectively if supported by proper preprocessing steps (noise removal, stop words removal, stemming, lemmatization, term frequency). This research studies the effect of preprocessing steps on the performance of supervised spam classifier algorithms. Experiments were conducted on two widely used supervised spam classifier algorithms: Naïve Bayes and Support Vector Machine. The evaluation is performed on the Ling-spam corpus dataset and uses evaluation metrics: accuracy. The experimental results show that different preprocessing steps give different effects to different classifier.

Highlights

  • THE digital age and expansion of the World Wide Web (WWW) has resulted in a flood of communications and information on the internet

  • Pre-processing methods plays an important role in all classification tasks, including spam email detection

  • If used correctly, the pre-processing method will provide a significant increase in classification results

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

THE digital age and expansion of the World Wide Web (WWW) has resulted in a flood of communications and information on the internet. It is necessary to prepare the emails to be ready for analysis These pre-processing steps can affect the overall performance of the detection algorithm. The study of the effect of using various combinations of pre-processing steps on some spam detection algorithms is proposed in this paper. To evaluate the performance of the detection algorithm after the pre-processing step applied, we used Lingspam corpus – a publicly available collection of total messages from linguistic mailing lists. This is a balanced spam email dataset – the condition where equal instances for both classes: spam and ham.

LITERATURE REVIEW
PRE-PROCESSING METHODS IN EMAIL SPAM DETECTION
Noise Removal
Lemmatization
Term Frequency and TF-IDF
EXPERIMENTS
Dataset and Evaluation Metric
Compared Pre-processing Methods and Discussion
Findings
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call