Advertisement

A Danger Theory Inspired Learning Model and Its Application to Spam Detection

  • Yuanchun Zhu
  • Ying Tan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6728)

Abstract

This paper proposes a Danger Theory (DT) based learning (DTL) model for combining classifiers. Mimicking the mechanism of DT, three main components of the DTL model, namely signal I, danger signal and danger zone, are well designed and implemented so as to define an immune based interaction between two grounding classifiers of the model. In addition, a self-trigger process is added to solve conflictions between the two grounding classifiers. The proposed DTL model is expected to present a more accuracy learning method by combining classifiers in a way inspired from DT. To illustrate the application prospects of the DTL model, we apply it to a typical learning problem — e-mail classification, and investigate its performance on four benchmark corpora using 10-fold cross validation. It is shown that the proposed DTL model can effectively promote the performance of the grounding classifiers.

Keywords

artificial immune system danger theory machine learning spam detection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Matzinger, P.: The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science’s STKE 296(5566), 301–305 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aickelin, U., Cayzer, S.: The danger theory and its application to artificial immune systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Immune Systems, pp. 141–148. Citeseer (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Secker, A., Freitas, A., Timmis, J.: A danger theory inspired approach to web mining. In: Timmis, J., Bentley, P.J., Hart, E. (eds.) ICARIS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2787, pp. 156–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aickelin, U., Bentley, P., Cayzer, S., Kim, J., McLeod, J.: Danger Theory: The Link between AIS and IDS? In: Timmis, J., Bentley, P.J., Hart, E. (eds.) ICARIS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2787, pp. 147–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aickelin, U., Greensmith, J.: Sensing danger: Innate immunology for intrusion detection. Information Security Technical Report 12(4), 218–227 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cover, T., Hart, P.: Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13(1), 21–27 (1967)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang, Y., Pedersen, J.: A comparative study on feature selection in text categorization. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 412–420. Citeseer (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guzella, T., Caminhas, W.: A review of machine learning approaches to Spam filtering. Expert Systems with Applications 36(7), 10206–10222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drucker, H., Wu, D., Vapnik, V.: Support vector machines for spam categorization. IEEE Transactions on Neural networks 10(5), 1048–1054 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sahami, M., Dumais, S., Heckerman, D., Horvitz, E.: A Bayesian approach to filtering junk e-mail. In: Learning for Text Categorization: Papers from the 1998 Workshop, vol. 62, pp. 98–105. AAAI Technical Report WS-98-05, Madison (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Androutsopoulos, I., Paliouras, G., Michelakis, E.: Learning to filter unsolicited commercial e-mail. Technical report, National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, Greece (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuanchun Zhu
    • 1
  • Ying Tan
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Machine Perception (MOE), Peking University, Department of Machine Intelligence, School of Electronics Engineering, and Computer SciencePeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations