mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating the Performance of ChatGPT for Spam Email Detection

arXiv 2402.15537 ↗First posted 23 Feb 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.CYcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 with (or without) 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. This study provides insights into the potential and limitations of ChatGPT for spam identification, highlighting its potential as a viable solution for resource-constrained language domains.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Feb 2024.

Builds on

18 of 45 references.

References · 18

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  4. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  5. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  6. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  7. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,371
  8. 2022What Can Transformers Learn In-Context? A Case Study of Simple Function Classescited by 700
  9. 2023Can ChatGPT Forecast Stock Price Movements? Return Predictability and Large Language Modelscited by 125
  10. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good Sentiment Analyzer? A Preliminary Studycited by 96
  11. 2023Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remarkcited by 54
  12. 2023ChatGraph: Interpretable Text Classification by Converting ChatGPT Knowledge to Graphscited by 27
6 more
  1. 2023Applying BERT and ChatGPT for Sentiment Analysis of Lyme Disease in Scientific Literaturecited by 26
  2. 2023A study on Prompt Design, Advantages and Limitations of ChatGPT for Deep Learning Program Repaircited by 26
  3. 2023Column Type Annotation using ChatGPTcited by 18
  4. 2023ChatAgri: Exploring Potentials of ChatGPT on Cross-linguistic Agricultural Text Classificationcited by 13
  5. 2022Email Spam Detection Using Hierarchical Attention Hybrid Deep Learning Methodcited by 3
  6. 2020Improving Opinion Spam Detection by Cumulative Relative Frequency Distributioncited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 2.

4 papers.