Email Classification and Forensics Analysis using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emails are being used as a reliable, secure, and formal mode of communication for a long time. With fast and secure communication technologies, reliance on Email has increased as well. The massive increase in email data has led to a big challenge in managing emails. Emails so far can be classified and grouped based on sender, size, and date. However, there is a need to detect and classify emails based on the contents contained therein. Several approaches have been used in the past for content-based classification of emails as Spam or Non-Spam Email. In this paper, we propose a multi-label email classification approach to organize emails. An efficient classification method has been proposed for forensic investigations of massive email data (e.g., a disk image of an email server). This method would help the investigator in Email related crimes investigations. A comparative study of machine learning algorithms identified Logistic Regression as a method that achieves the highest accuracy compared to Naive Bayes, Stochastic Gradient Descent, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machine. Experiments conducted on benchmark data sets depicted that logistic Regression performs best, with an accuracy of 91.9% with bi-gram features.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".