6. Bayesian trigram filters
Bayesian techniques built on a word model work rather well. One disadvantage of the word model is that the number of "words" in e-mail is virtually unbounded. This fact may be counterintuitive -- it seems reasonable to suppose that you would reach an asymptote once almost all the English words had been included. From my prior research into full text indexing, I know that this is simply not true; the number of "word-like" character sequences possible is nearly unlimited, and new text keeps producing new sequences. This fact is particularly true of e-mails, which contain random strings in Message-IDs, content separators, UU and base64 encodings, and so on. There are various ways to throw out words from the model (the easiest is just to discard the sufficiently infrequent ones).
I decided to look into how well a much more starkly limited model space would work for a Bayesian spam filter. Specifically, I decided to use trigrams for my probability model rather than "words". This idea was not invented whole cloth, of course; there is a variety of research into language recognition/differentiation, cryptographic unicity distances of English, pattern frequencies, and related areas, that strongly suggest trigrams are a good unit.
There were several decisions I made along the way. The biggest choice was deciding what a trigram is. While this is somewhat simpler than identifying a "word", the completely naive approach of looking at every (overlapping) sequence of three bytes is non-optimal. In particular, considering high-bit characters -- although occurring relatively frequently in multi-byte character sets (in other words, CJK) -- forces a much bigger trigram space on us than does looking only at the ASCII range. Limiting the trigram space even further than to low-bit characters produces a smaller space, but not better overall results.
For my trigram analysis, I utilized only the most highly differentiating trigrams as message categorizers. But I arrived at the chosen numbers of "spam" and "good" trigrams only by trial and error. I also picked the cutoff probability for spam rather arbitrarily: I made an interesting discovery that no message in the "good" corpus was assigned a spam probability above .0071 other than two false positives in the .99 range. Lowering my cutoff from an initial 0.9 to 0.1, however, allowed me to catch a few more message in the "spam" corpus. For purposes of speed, I select no more than 100 "interesting" trigrams from each candidate message -- changing that 100 to something else can produce slight variations in the results (but not in an obvious direction).
View Spam filtering techniques DiscussionPage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page: Summary and Resources