Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study presents a comparative analysis of classical machine learning classifiers for phishing email detection. Using a public dataset of 18,570 emails, we evaluate six widely used algorithms: Multinomial Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Classifier (SVC), Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting. The email text is preprocessed using standard NLP techniques (lowercasing, punctuation removal, tokenization, stop-word removal, and Porter stemming) and represented using Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) weighting. Models are evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and confusion matrices. The study also includes an exploratory analysis of the corpus, highlighting class-indicative terms, and discusses key limitations, such as the inadvertent removal of negation words by standard stop-word lists and the presence of HTML artifacts. The complete source code and dataset are openly available to ensure reproducibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sareena Bilal (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: