Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Mona Mojdeh

dblp:07/5952 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 2 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Data mining · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Data mining › anomaly detection
spam detection
0.222010
Semi-supervised spam filtering using aggressive consistency learning · SIGIR 2010
Semi-supervised spam filtering: does it work? · SIGIR 2008
Data mining › text mining › text classification
email classification
0.122010
Semi-supervised spam filtering using aggressive consistency learning · SIGIR 2010
Semi-supervised spam filtering: does it work? · SIGIR 2008

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

local and global consistency · 0.1graph-based semi-supervised learning · 0.1transductive support vector machines · 0.1self-training · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Semi-supervised spam filtering using aggressive consistency learning
abstract
A graph based semi-supervised method for email spam filtering, based on the local and global consistency method, yields low error rates with very few labeled examples. The motivating application of this method is spam filters with access to very few labeled message. For example, during the initial deployment of a spam filter, only a handful of labeled examples are available but unlabeled examples are plentiful. We demonstrate the performance of our approach on TREC 2007 and CEAS 2008 email corpora. Our results compare favorably with the best-known methods, using as few as just two labeled examples: one spam and one non-spam.
Mona Mojdeh, Gordon V. Cormack
SIGIR1
2008 Semi-supervised spam filtering: does it work?
abstract
The results of the 2006 ECML/PKDD Discovery Challenge suggest that semi-supervised learning methods work well for spam filtering when the source of available labeled examples differs from those to be classified. We have attempted to reproduce these results using data from the 2005 and 2007 TREC Spam Track, and have found the opposite effect: methods like self-training and transductive support vector machines yield inferior classifiers to those constructed using supervised learning on the labeled data alone. We investigate differences between the ECML/PKDD and TREC data sets and methodologies that may account for the opposite results.
Mona Mojdeh, Gordon V. Cormack
SIGIR1