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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".