This assignment consists of a report worth 20 marks. Delays caused by student`s own computer downtime cannot be accepted as a valid reason for late submission without penalty. Students must plan their work to allow for both scheduled and unscheduled downtime.
Submission instructions: You must submit an electronic copy of all your assignment files via Cloud- Deakin. You must include both your report, source codes, necessary data files and optionally presentation file. Assignments will not be accepted through any other manner of submission. Students should note that email and paper based submissions will ordinarily be rejected.
Special requirements to prove the originality of your work: On-campus students (B and G) are required to demonstrate the execution of your classification programs in R to your tutor in Week 10; Cloud students are required to attach a 3-5 minutes Video presentation to demonstrate how your R codes are executed to derive the claimed results. The video should be uploaded to a cloud storage (You can find out how to upload a video Failure to do so will result a delayed assessment of your submission.
Late submissions: Submissions received after the due date are penalized at a rate of 5% (out of the full mark) per day, no exceptions. Late submission after 5 days would be penalized at a rate of 100% out of the full mark. Close of submissions on the due date and each day thereafter for penalties will occur at 05:00 pm Australian Eastern Time (UTC +10 hours). Students outside of Victoria should note that the normal time zone in Victoria is UTC+10 hours. No extension will be granted.
It is the student`s responsibility to ensure that they understand the submission instructions. If you have ANY difficulties ask the Lecturer/Tutor for assistance (prior to the submission date).
Copying, Plagiarism Notice
This is an individual assignment. You are not permitted to work as a part of a group when writing this assignment. The University`s policy on plagiarism can be viewed online at
Overview
The popularity of social media networks, such as Twitter, leads to an increasing number of spamming activities. Researchers employed various machine learning methods to detect Twitter spams. In this assignment, you are required to classify spam tweets by using provided datasets. The features have been extracted and clearly structured in JSON format. The extracted features can be categorized into two groups: user profile-based features and tweet content-based features as summarized in Table 1.
The provided training dataset and testing dataset are separately listed in Table 2 and Table 3. In testing dataset, we can find that the ratio of spam to non-spam is 1:1 in Dataset1, while the ratio is 1:19 in Dataset 2. In most of previous work, the testing datasets are nearly evenly distributed. However, in real world, there are only around 5% spam tweets in Twitter, which indicates that testing Dataset 2 simulates the real-world scenario. You are required to classify spam tweets, evaluate the classifiers’ performance and compare the Dataset 1 and Dataset 2 outcomes by conducting experiments.
Twitter Spam Detection Work Flow
Problem Statement
This is an individual assessment task. Each student is required to submit a report of approximately 2,000-2,500 words along with exhibits to support findings with respect to the provided spam and non-spam messages. This report should consist of:
•Overview of classifiers and evaluation metrics
•Construction of data sets, identification of features and the process of conducting classification
•Technical findings of experiment results
•Justified discussion of the performance evaluation outcomes for different classifiers
To demonstrate your achievement of these goals, you must write a report of at least 2,000 words (2,500 words maximum). Your report should consist of the following chapters:
1.A proper title which matches the contents of your report.
2.Your name and Deakin student number in the author line.
3.An executive summary which summarizes your findings. (You may find hints on writing good executive summaries from http://unilearning.uow.edu.au/report/4bi1.html.)
4.An introduction chapter which lists the classification algorithms of your choice (at least 5 algorithms), the features used for classification, the performance evaluation metrics (at least 5 evaluation metrics), the brief summary of your findings, and the organization of the rest of your report. (You may find hints on features used for classification from Twitter Developer Documentation
5.A literature review chapter which surveys the latest academic papers regarding the classifiers and performance evaluation metrics of your choice. With respect to each classifier and performance evaluation metrics, you are advised to identify and cite at least one paper published by ACM and IEEE journals or conference proceedings. In addition, Your aim of this part of the report is to demonstrate deep and thorough understanding of the existing body of knowledge encompassing multiple classification techniques for security data analytics,
specifically, your argument should explain why machine learning algorithms should be used rather than human readers. (Please read through the hints on this web page before writing this chapter
6.Technical demonstration chapter which consists of fully explained screenshots when your experiments were conducted in R. That is, you should explain each step of the procedure of classification, and the performance results for your classifiers. Note, what classifiers you presented in literature review should be what you conduct experiments.
7.Performance evaluation chapter which evaluates the performance of classifiers. You should analyse each classifier’s performance with respect to the performance metrics of your choice. In addition, you should compare the performance results in terms of evaluation metrics, e.g., accuracy, false positive, recall, F-measure, speed and so on, for the selected classifiers and datasets.
8.A conclusions chapter which summarizes major findings of the study (You should use at least 5 evaluation metrics to evaluate the performance of classifiers and compare the performance of different classifiers. You can demonstrate your experiment results in the form of table and plots), discusses whether the results match your hypotheses prior to the experiments and recommends the best performing classification algorithm.
9.A bibliography list of all cited papers and other resources. You must use in-text citations in Harvard style and each citation must correspond to a bibliography entry. There must be no bibliography entries that are not cited in the report. (You should know the contents from this page http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-support/referencing/harvard.)
|
|
Proficient (above 80%)
|
|
Average (60-79%)
|
Satisfactory (50-59%)
|
Below Expectation (0-50%)
|
Score
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scientific
|
Use appropriate
|
Use discipline-specific
|
Use some discipline-specific
|
Fail to demonstrate
|
Out 0f 4
|
|
Writing in
|
language and genre to
|
language and genres to
|
language and prescribed genre
|
understanding for
|
marks
|
|
Introduction
|
extend the knowledge
|
address gaps of a self-selected
|
to demonstrate understanding
|
lecturer/teacher as audience.
|
|
|
and
|
of a range of audiences.
|
audience. Apply innovatively
|
from a stated perspective and
|
Fail to apply to a similar
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
|
the knowledge developed to a
|
for a specified audience. Apply
|
context the knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
di erent context.
|
to di erent contexts the
|
developed.
|
|
|
|
|
ff
|
|
knowledge developed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ff
|
|
|
|
Literature
|
Collect and record self-
|
Collect and record self-
|
Collect and record required
|
Fail to collect required
|
Out of 4
|
|
Review
|
determined information
|
determined information/ data
|
information/ data from self-
|
information or data from the
|
marks
|
|
|
from self-selected
|
from self-selected sources,
|
selected sources using one of
|
prescribed source; Fail to
|
|
|
|
sources, choosing or
|
choosing an appropriate
|
several prescribed
|
organize information/data
|
|
|
|
devising an appropriate
|
methodology based on
|
methodologies; Organize
|
using
|
|
|
|
methodology with self-
|
structured guidelines;
|
information/data using
|
prescribed structure; Fail to
|
|
|
|
structured guidelines;
|
Organize information/data
|
recommended structures.
|
respond to questions/tasks
|
|
|
|
Organize information
|
using student-determined
|
Manage self-determined
|
arising explicitly from a
|
|
|
|
using student-
|
structures, and manage the
|
processes with multiple possible
|
closed inquiry
|
|
|
|
determined structures
|
processes, within the
|
pathways; Respond to
|
|
|
|
|
and management of
|
parameters set by
|
questions/tasks generated from
|
|
|
|
|
processes; Generate
|
the guidelines; Generate
|
a closed inquiry.
|
|
|
|
|
questions/aims/hypoth
|
questions/aims/hypotheses
|
|
|
|
|
|
eses based on literature
|
framed within structured
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
Technical
|
Provide fully explained
|
Provide fully explained
|
Provide screenshots with R
|
No screenshots and
|
Out of 4
|
|
Demonstrati-
|
screenshots with R
|
screenshots with R script.
|
script. Explain each step of the
|
explanations provided.
|
marks
|
|
on
|
script. Explain each step
|
Explain each step of the
|
procedure of classification, and
|
|
|
|
|
of the procedure of
|
procedure of classification,
|
the performance results. But
|
|
|
|
|
classification, and the
|
and the performance results.
|
many parts of demo are not
|
|
|
|
|
performance results in
|
The entire demo is clear, but
|
clear enough and/or contain
|
|
|
|
|
details. The entire demo
|
there are some mistakes.
|
major flows or mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
is clear, correct and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
covers all findings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performan-
|
Evaluate
|
Evaluate information/data and
|
Evaluate information/data and
|
Fail to evaluate
|
Out of 4
|
|
ce Evaluation
|
information/data and
|
the inquiry process
|
reflect on the inquiry process
|
information/data and to
|
marks
|
|
|
inquiry process
|
comprehensively developed
|
based on the given literature.
|
reflect on inquiry process.
|
|
|
|
rigorously based on the
|
within the scope of the given
|
Use only one testing data set.
|
Use one or no testing data
|
|
|
|
latest literature.
|
literature.
|
Less than 4 classifiers work
|
set. Less than 2 classifiers
|
|
|
|
Reflect insightfully to
|
Reflect insightfully to renew
|
correctly. Less than 4 evaluation
|
work correctly. Less than 2
|
|
|
|
renew others`
|
others` processes. Construct
|
metrics apply to analyse the
|
evaluation metrics apply to
|
|
|
|
processes. Construct
|
and use one testing data set
|
performance of classifiers.
|
analyse the performance of
|
|
|
|
and use one testing
|
and two training data sets. 4
|
|
classifiers.
|
|
|
|
data set and two
|
classifiers work correctly. 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
training data sets. 5
|
evaluation metrics apply to
|
|
|
|
|
|
classifiers work
|
analyse the performance of
|
|
|
|
|
|
correctly. 5 evaluation
|
classifiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
metrics apply to analyse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the performance of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
classifiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reference
|
More than 10
|
More than 10 bibliographic
|
More than 10 bibliographic
|
Less than 10 bibliographic
|
Out of 4
|
|
|
bibliographic items (all
|
items (most of them are
|
items (most of them are
|
items are presented. Or
|
marks
|
|
|
of them are academic
|
academic papers and at least 1
|
academic papers) are
|
there are more than 3 errors
|
|
|
|
papers and at least 1
|
items per classification) are
|
presented. Inline citations are
|
in the bibliographic list and
|
|
|
|
item per classifier/ at
|
presented, but there are a few
|
often used incorrectly.
|
inline citations.
|
|
|
|
least 1 item for per
|
errors. Inline citations are
|
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation metrics) are
|
used but with a few errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
correctly presented and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
inline citations are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
correctly used.
|
|