Cited by 465Spam and Phishing DetectionText and Document Classification TechnologiesHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

An experimental comparison of naive Bayesian and keyword-based anti-spam filtering with personal e-mail messages

Open access
Androutsopoulos, Ion, Koutsias, John, Chandrinos, Konstantinos V., Spyropoulos, Constantine D.·2000·Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval

Abstract

The growing problem of unsolicited bulk e-mail, also known as “spam”, has generated a need for reliable anti-spam e-mail filters. Filters of this type have so far been based mostly on manually constructed keyword patterns. An alternative approach has recently been proposed, whereby a Naive Bayesian classifier is trained automatically to detect spam messages. We test this approach on a large collection of personal e-mail messages, which we make publicly available in “encrypted” form contributing towards standard benchmarks. We introduce appropriate cost-sensitive measures, investigating at the same time the effect of attribute-set size, training-corpus size, lemmatization, and stop lists, issues that have not been explored in previous experiments. Finally, the Naive Bayesian filter is compared, in terms of performance, to a filter that uses keyword patterns, and which is part of a widely used e-mail reader.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/345508.345569

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Employing keyword filtering and discriminative models may effectively prevent the inclusion of inappropriate data.

    “To mitigate these risks, employing keyword filtering and discriminative models may effectively prevent the inclusion of such inappropriate data [168, 169].”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [168]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Androutsopoulos, I., Koutsias, J., Chandrinos, K. V., & Spyropoulos, C. D.
Affiliations
National Centre of Scientific Research "Demokritos" (GR)
Venue
Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
Publisher
ACM
Published
2000-07
Pages
160-167
OpenAlex
W2085302848
Cited by
465
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 28
FWCI
7.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
spam filtering, naive Bayesian classifier, keyword-based filtering, training corpus size, lemmatization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review