REVIEW 1 cited by
Spam-T5: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Few-Shot Email Spam Detection
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Spam-T5: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Few-Shot Email Spam Detection
read the original abstract
This paper investigates the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) in email spam detection by comparing prominent models from three distinct families: BERT-like, Sentence Transformers, and Seq2Seq. Additionally, we examine well-established machine learning techniques for spam detection, such as Na\"ive Bayes and LightGBM, as baseline methods. We assess the performance of these models across four public datasets, utilizing different numbers of training samples (full training set and few-shot settings). Our findings reveal that, in the majority of cases, LLMs surpass the performance of the popular baseline techniques, particularly in few-shot scenarios. This adaptability renders LLMs uniquely suited to spam detection tasks, where labeled samples are limited in number and models require frequent updates. Additionally, we introduce Spam-T5, a Flan-T5 model that has been specifically adapted and fine-tuned for the purpose of detecting email spam. Our results demonstrate that Spam-T5 surpasses baseline models and other LLMs in the majority of scenarios, particularly when there are a limited number of training samples available. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/jpmorganchase/emailspamdetection.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Measuring and Evaluating the Performance of Generative AI Models for Scam Detection
A new benchmark of 2,742 real scam messages shows top LLMs reach about 64-65% micro-F1 and generalize to an unseen 59,991-sample proprietary set better than a fine-tuned BERT.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.