Phishing Email Classification Using Machine Learning

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.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2026-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.34822662
Primary Topic
Spam and Phishing Detection
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Phishing Email Classification Using Machine Learning

Sareena Bilal
4 links
Figshare
Spam and Phishing Detection
preprint

Phishing Email Classification Using Machine Learning

Sareena Bilal
preprint en

Abstract

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.

Figshare
Spam and Phishing Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon