Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT for Spam Email Detection
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.15537v2
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:49:09 GMT
- Title: Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT for Spam Email Detection
- Authors: Shijing Si, Yuwei Wu, Le Tang, Yugui Zhang, Jedrek Wosik,
- Abstract summary: This study attempts to evaluate ChatGPT's capabilities for spam identification in both English and Chinese email datasets.
We employ ChatGPT for spam email detection using in-context learning, which requires a prompt instruction and a few demonstrations.
We also investigate how the number of demonstrations in the prompt affects the performance of ChatGPT.
- Score: 9.585304538597414
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Email continues to be a pivotal and extensively utilized communication medium within professional and commercial domains. Nonetheless, the prevalence of spam emails poses a significant challenge for users, disrupting their daily routines and diminishing productivity. Consequently, accurately identifying and filtering spam based on content has become crucial for cybersecurity. Recent advancements in natural language processing, particularly with large language models like ChatGPT, have shown remarkable performance in tasks such as question answering and text generation. However, its potential in spam identification remains underexplored. To fill in the gap, this study attempts to evaluate ChatGPT's capabilities for spam identification in both English and Chinese email datasets. We employ ChatGPT for spam email detection using in-context learning, which requires a prompt instruction and a few demonstrations. We also investigate how the number of demonstrations in the prompt affects the performance of ChatGPT. For comparison, we also implement five popular benchmark methods, including naive Bayes, support vector machines (SVM), logistic regression (LR), feedforward dense neural networks (DNN), and BERT classifiers. Through extensive experiments, the performance of ChatGPT is significantly worse than deep supervised learning methods in the large English dataset, while it presents superior performance on the low-resourced Chinese dataset.
Related papers
- Exploring ChatGPT's Capabilities on Vulnerability Management [56.4403395100589]
We explore ChatGPT's capabilities on 6 tasks involving the complete vulnerability management process with a large-scale dataset containing 70,346 samples.
One notable example is ChatGPT's proficiency in tasks like generating titles for software bug reports.
Our findings reveal the difficulties encountered by ChatGPT and shed light on promising future directions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-11T11:01:13Z) - Chatbots Are Not Reliable Text Annotators [0.0]
ChatGPT is a closed-source product which has major drawbacks with regards to transparency, cost, and data protection.
Recent advances in open-source (OS) large language models (LLMs) offer alternatives which remedy these challenges.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-09T22:28:14Z) - ChatGPT Beyond English: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation of Large
Language Models in Multilingual Learning [70.57126720079971]
Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as the most important breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP)
This paper evaluates ChatGPT on 7 different tasks, covering 37 diverse languages with high, medium, low, and extremely low resources.
Compared to the performance of previous models, our extensive experimental results demonstrate a worse performance of ChatGPT for different NLP tasks and languages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-12T05:08:52Z) - To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection.
We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains.
Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z) - ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks [0.0]
We show that ChatGPT outperforms crowd-workers for several annotation tasks.
The per-annotation cost of ChatGPT is less than $0.003 -- about twenty times cheaper than MTurk.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-27T09:59:48Z) - Towards Making the Most of ChatGPT for Machine Translation [75.576405098545]
ChatGPT shows remarkable capabilities for machine translation (MT)
Several prior studies have shown that it achieves comparable results to commercial systems for high-resource languages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-24T03:35:21Z) - A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on
Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity [79.12003701981092]
We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks.
We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset.
ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-08T12:35:34Z) - Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot.
Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community.
It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.