Three-Way Decisions Versus Two-Way Decisions on Filtering Spam Email

  • Xiuyi JiaEmail author
  • Lin Shang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8449)


A three-way decisions solution and a two-way decisions solution for filtering spam emails are examined in this paper. Compared to two-way decisions, the spam filtering is no longer viewed as a binary classification problem, and each incoming email is accepted as a legitimate or rejected as a spam or undecided as a further-examined email in the three-way decisions. One advantage of the three-way decisions solution for spam filtering is that it can reduce the error rate of classifying a legitimate email to spam with minimum misclassification cost. The other one is that the solution can provide a more meaningful decision procedure for users while it is not restricted to a specific classifier. Experimental results on several corpus show that the three-way decisions solution can get a lower error rate and a lower misclassification cost.


Decision-theoretic rough set model Spam filtering Three-way decisions Two-way decisions 



This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61170180, and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation under Grant No. 2013M530259, and Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province under Grant No. 1202021C and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province under Grant No. BK20140800.


  1. 1.
    Androutsopoulos, I., Paliouras, G., Karkaletsis, V., Sakkis, G., Spyropoulos, C.D., Stamatopoulos, P.: Learning to filter spam e-mail: a comparison of a naive bayesian and a memory-based approach. In: 4th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pp. 1–13 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benevenuto, F., Magno, G., Rodrigues, T., Almeida, V.: Detecting spammers on twitter. In: 7th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carreras, X., Marquez, L.: Boosting trees for anti-spam email filtering. In: European Conference on Recent Advances in NLP (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chow, C.K.: On optimum recognition error and reject tradeoff. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 16(1), 41–46 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeBarr, D., Wechsler, H.: Spam detection using clustering, random forests, and active learning. In: 6th Conference on Email and Anti-Spam (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Domingos, P., Pazzani, M.: Beyond independence: conditions for the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier. In: 13th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 105–112 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drucker, H., Wu, D.H., Vapnik, V.N.: Support vector machines for spam categorization. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 10(5), 1048–1054 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elkan, C.: The foundations of cost-sensitive learning. In: 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 973–978 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiumara, G., Marchi, M., Pagano, R., Provetti, A., Spada, N.: A rule-based system for end-user e-mail annotations. In: 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Conference, pp. 102–108 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halder, S., Wei, C., Sprague, A.: Overview of existing methods of spam mining and potential usefulness of sender’s name as parameter for fuzzy string matching. ACEEE Int. J. Inf. Techonol. 1(1), 25–28 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H.: The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. 11(1), 130–133 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khonji, M., Jones, A., Iraqi, Y.: A study of feature subset evaluators and feature subset searching methods for phishing classification. In: 8th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Coference, pp. 135–144 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khorsi, A.: An overview of content-based spam filtering techniques. Informatica 31, 269–277 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Metsis, V., Androutsopoulos, I., Paliouras, G.: Spam filtering with naive bayes-which naive bayes? In: 3rd Conference on Email and Anti-Spam (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell, T.M.: Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pauker, S.G., Kassirer, J.P.: The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N. Engl. J. Med. 302, 1109–1117 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. 11, 341–356 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perez-Diaz, N., Ruano-Ordas, D., Mendez, J.R., Galvez, J.F., Fdez-Riverola, F.: Rough sets for spam filtering: selecting appropriate decision rules for boundary e-mail classification. Appl. Soft Comput. 12(11), 3671–3682 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sahami, M., Dumais, S., Heckerman, D., Horvitz, E.: A bayesian approach to filtering junk e-mail. In: Learning for Text Categorization-Papers from the AAAI Workshop, pp. 55–62 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schneider, K.M.: A comparison of event models for Naive Bayes anti-spam e-mail filtering. In: 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 307–314 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wei, C., Sprague, A., Warner, G., Skjellum, A.: Identifying new spam domains by hosting IPs: improving domain blacklisting. In: 7th Annual Collaboration, Electronic Messaging, Anti-Abuse and Spam Coference (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yao, Y.Y., Wong, S.K.M., Lingras, P.: A decision-theoretic rough set model. Methodol. Intell. Syst. 5, 17–24 (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yao, Y.Y.: Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Inf. Sci. 180, 341–353 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao, W., Zhu, Y.: An email classification scheme based on decision-theoretic rough set theory and analysis of email security. In: 2005 IEEE Region 10 TENCON, pp. 1–C6 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou, B., Yao, Y.Y., Luo, J.G.: A three-way decision approach to email spam filtering. In: 23th Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 28–39 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringNanjing University of Science and TechnologyNanjingChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory for Novel Software TechnologyNanjing UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations