Using Naive Bayes to detect spammy names in social networks

Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 3-12

  Freeman, David Mandell ^a  

^a LINKEDIN CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

naive bayes classifier; social networks; spam detection

Indexed keywords

FALSE POSITIVE RATES; GENERATION ALGORITHM; NAIVE BAYES CLASSIFIERS; ON-LINE INFORMATION; REGULAR EXPRESSIONS; SCORING ALGORITHMS; SPAM DETECTION; TERMS OF SERVICES;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CLASSIFIERS; ELECTRONIC MAIL; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PATTERN MATCHING; TELEPHONE SYSTEMS;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

EID: 84888989407     PISSN: 15437221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2517312.2517314     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. I. Androutsopoulos, J. Koutsias, K. V. Chandrinos, and C. D. Spyropoulos. An experimental comparison of Naive Bayesian and keyword-based anti-spam filtering with personal e-mail messages. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR '00, pages 160-167, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM.
2. I. Androutsopoulos, G. Paliouras, V. Karkaletsis, G. Sakkis, C. D. Spyropoulos, and P. Stamatopoulos. Learning to filter spam e-mail: A comparison of a naive Bayesian and a memory-based approach. In Proceedings of the Workshop "Machine Learning and Textual Information Access", European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDD), pages 1-13, 2000.
3. F. Benevenuto, G. Magno, T. Rodrigues, and V. Almeida. Detecting spammers on Twitter. In CEAS 2010 - Seventh annual Collaboration, Electronic messaging, AntiAbuse and Spam Conference, 2010.
4. P. N. Bennett. Assessing the calibration of Naive Bayes posterior estimates. Technical report, DTIC Document, 2000. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a385120.pdf.
5. A. Blum and T. M. Mitchell. Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In COLT, pages 92-100, 1998.
6. G. Brown, T. Howe, M. Ihbe, A. Prakash, and K. Borders. Social networks and context-aware spam. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, CSCW '08, pages 403-412, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
7. Q. Cao, M. Sirivianos, X. Yang, and T. Pregueiro. Aiding the detection of fake accounts in large scale social online services. In NDSI, 2012.
8. Q. Cao and X. Yang. Sybilfence: Improving social-graph-based sybil defenses with user negative feedback. Duke CS Technical Report: CS-TR-2012-05, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3819, 2013.
9. S. F. Chen and J. Goodman. An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '96, pages 310-318, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1996. Association for Computational Linguistics.
10. P. Domingos and M. Pazzani. Beyond independence: Conditions for the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier. In Machine Learning, pages 105-112. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
11. P. Domingos and M. Pazzani. On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine learning, 29(2-3):103-130, 1997.
12. R. Duda and P. E. Hart. Pattern classification and scene analysis. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1973.
13. Facebook Inc. Statement of rights and responsibilities. http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms, accessed 17 Jul 2013.
14. H. Gao, J. Hu, C. Wilson, Z. Li, Y. Chen, and B. Y. Zhao. Detecting and characterizing social spam campaigns. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, IMC '10, pages 35-47, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
15. Google Inc. User content and conduct policy. http://www.google.com/intl/ en/+/policy/content.html, accessed 17 Jul 2013.
16. J. Hovold. Naive Bayes spam filtering using word-position-based attributes. In CEAS, 2005.
17. R. Kohavi, B. Becker, and D. Sommerfield. Improving simple Bayes. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, 1997.
18. LinkedIn Corporation. Internal data, accurate as of 1 Jun 2013.
19. LinkedIn Corporation. Creating or deleting a profile in another language. http://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a-id/1717, accessed 22 July 2013.
20. LinkedIn Corporation. User agreement. http://www.linkedin.com/legal/user- agreement, accessed 17 Jul 2013.
21. A. McCallum and K. Nigam. A comparison of event models for Naive Bayes text classification. In Proceedings of AAAI, 1998.
22. V. Metsis, I. Androutsopoulos, and G. Paliouras. Spam filtering with Naive Bayes - which Naive Bayes? In CEAS, 2006.
23. T. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, 1997.
24. I. Rish. An empirical study of the Naive Bayes classifier. In IJCAI 2001 workshop on empirical methods in artificial intelligence, volume 3, pages 41-46, 2001.
25. M. Sahami, S. Dumais, D. Heckerman, and E. Horvitz. A Bayesian approach to filtering junk e-mail. In Learning for Text Categorization: Papers from the AAAI Workshop, Madison Wisconsin, volume Technical Report WS-98-05, pages 55-62. AAAI Press, 1998.
26. K.-M. Schneider. A comparison of event models for Naive Bayes anti-spam e-mail filtering. In EACL, pages 307-314, 2003.
27. A. K. Seewald. An evaluation of Naive Bayes variants in content-based learning for spam filtering. Intelligent Data Analysis, 11(5):497-524, 2007.
28. C. J. van Rijsbergen. Information Retrieval. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2nd edition, 1979.
29. G. Wang, T. Konolige, C. Wilson, X. Wang, H. Zheng, and B. Y. Zhao. You are how you click: Clickstream analysis for sybil detection. In Proceedings of The 22nd USENIX Security Symposium, pages 241-256, 2013.
30. C. M. Zhang and V. Paxson. Detecting and analyzing automated activity on Twitter. In PAM, pages 102-111, 2011.
31. H. Zhang. The optimality of Naive Bayes. In FLAIRS Conference, pages 562-567, 2004.