SlowGuess/ACL_2020_OCR huggingface dataset:
Douglas Aberdeen, Ondrey Pacovsky, and Andrew Slater. 2010. The learning behind gmail priority in-box. In LCCC: NIPS 2010 Workshop on Learning on Cores, Clusters and Clouds.
Nir Ailon, Zohar S Karnin, Edo Liberty, and Yoelle Maarek. 2013. Threading machine generated email. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pages 405-414.
Noa Avigdor-Elgrabli, Roei Gelbhart, Irena Grabovitch-Zuyev, and Ariel Raviv. 2018. More than threads: Identifying related email messages. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2018, Torino, Italy, October 22-26, 2018, pages 1711-1714.
Nicolas Bettenburg, Bram Adams, Ahmed E Hassan, and Michel Smidt. 2011. A lightweight approach to uncover technical artifacts in unstructured data. In 2011 IEEE 19th international conference on program comprehension, pages 185-188.
Vitor Rocha de Carvalho and William W. Cohen. 2004. Learning to extract signature and reply lines from email. In CEAS 2004 - First Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, July 30-31, 2004, Mountain View, California, USA.
Dotan Di Castro, Iftah Gamzu, Irena Grabovitch-Zuyev, Liane Lewin-Eytan, Abhinav Pundir, Nil Ratan Sahoo, and Michael Viderman. 2018. Automated extractions for machine generated mail. In Companion of the The Web Conference 2018 on The Web Conference 2018, WWW 2018, Lyon, France, April 23-27, 2018, pages 655-662.
Danish Contractor, Tanveer A. Faruquie, and L. Venkata Subramaniam. 2010. Unsupervised cleansing of noisy text. In *COLING* 2010, 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Posters Volume, 23-27 August 2010, Beijing, China, pages 189-196.
Rachele De Felice and Gregory Garretson. 2018. Politeness at work in the Clinton email corpus: A first look at the effects of status and gender. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(3):221-242.
Jade Goldstein, Andres Kwasinkski, Paul R. Kingsbury, Roberta Evans Sabin, and Albert McDowell. 2006. Annotating subsets of the Enron email corpus. In CEAS 2006 - The Third Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, July 27-28, 2006, Mountain View, California, USA.
Edouard Grave, Tomas Mikolov, Armand Joulin, and Piotr Bojanowski. 2017. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2017, Valencia, Spain, April 3-7, 2017, Volume 2: Short Papers, pages 427-431.
Yujuan Jiang, Bram Adams, and Daniel M. Germán. 2013. Will my patch make it? and how fast?: case study on the Linux kernel. In Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR '13, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-19, 2013, pages 101-110.
P. S. Keila and David B. Skillicorn. 2005. Structure in the Enron email dataset. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 11(3):183-199.
Bryan Klimt and Yiming Yang. 2004. The Enron corpus: A new dataset for email classification research. In Machine Learning: ECML 2004, volume 3201 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 217-226.
Furkan Kocayusufoglu, Ying Sheng, Nguyen Vo, James Bradley Wendt, Qi Zhao, Sandeep Tata, and Marc Najork. 2019. Riser: Learning better representations for richly structured emails. In *The World Wide Web Conference*, WWW 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 13-17, 2019, pages 886-895.
Robert Kraut, S. Fussell, F. Lerch, and J. Espinosa. 2004. Coordination in teams: evidence from a simulated management game.
Andrew Lampert, Robert Dale, and Cecile Paris. 2009. Segmenting email message text into zones. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2009, 6-7 August 2009, Singapore, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 919-928.
Ken Lang. 1995. Newsweeder: learning to filter Netnews. In Proceedings of ICML, pages 331-339. Morgan Kaufmann publishers Inc.: San Mateo, CA, USA.
Nolan Lawson, Kevin Eustice, Mike Perkowitz, and Meliha Yetisgen-Yildiz. 2010. Annotating large email datasets for named entity recognition with mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon's Mechanical Turk, Los Angeles, USA, June 6, 2010, pages 71-79.
Einat Minkov, William W. Cohen, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2006. Contextual search and name disambiguation in email using graphs. In SIGIR 2006: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 6-11, 2006, pages 27-34.
Einat Minkov, Richard C. Wang, and William W. Cohen. 2005. Extracting personal names from email: Applying named entity recognition to informal text. In HLT/EMNLP 2005, Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference, 6-8 October 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pages 443-450.
Heiko Niedermayer, Nikolai Schwellnus, Daniel Raumer, Edwin Cordeiro, and Georg Carle. 2017. Information mining from public mailing lists: A case study on IETF mailing lists. In *Internet Science - 4th International Conference, INSCI* 2017, Thessaloniki, Greece, November 22-24, 2017, Proceedings, pages 301-309.
Julia Proskurnia, Marc-Allen Cartright, Lluis Garcia Pueyo, Ivo Krka, James Bradley Wendt, Tobias Kaufmann, and Balint Miklos. 2017. Template induction over unstructured email corpora. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pages 1521-1530.
Tim Repke and Ralf Krestel. 2018. Bringing back structure to free text email conversations with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of Advances in Information Retrieval - 40th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2018, volume 10772 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 114-126.
Cyrus Shaoul and Chris Westbury. 2009. A USENET corpus (2005-2009). University of Alberta, Canada.
Cyrus Shaoul and Chris Westbury. 2013. A reduced redundancy USENET corpus (2005-2011). University of Alberta.
Nikolai Sobotta. 2016. Why forwarded email threads are hard to read: The email format as an antecedent of email overload. CAIS, 39:2.
Jie Tang, Hang Li, Yunbo Cao, and ZhaoHui Tang. 2005. Email data cleaning. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Chicago, Illinois, USA, August 21-24, 2005, pages 489-498.
Yejun Wu. 2005. Email messages corpus parsed from W3C lists (for TRECENT 2005).
Aston Zhang, Lluis Garcia Pueyo, James Bradley Wendt, Marc Najork, and Andrei Z. Broder. 2017. Email category prediction. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pages 495-503.
7.1 Segmentation Confusion Matrix
par	0.933	0.006	0.000	0.014	0.007	0.003	0.006	0.008	0.001	0.004	0.001	0.001	0.012	0.000	0.001	0.002
clos	0.051	0.907	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.009	0.014	0.000	0.000	0.005	0.000	0.005	0.000	0.005	0.005
ihead	0.000	0.000	0.915	0.000	0.007	0.000	0.007	0.007	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.065	0.000	0.000	0.000
log	0.074	0.001	0.000	0.843	0.001	0.028	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.010	0.000	0.001	0.026	0.000	0.009	0.007
msig	0.047	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.914	0.020	0.010	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.003	0.001	0.001	0.000	0.000
pat	0.014	0.000	0.000	0.005	0.000	0.948	0.000	0.000	0.001	0.022	0.000	0.000	0.004	0.000	0.002	0.004
psig	0.068	0.045	0.000	0.019	0.060	0.000	0.774	0.019	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.008	0.000	0.008	0.000
quot	0.007	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.991	0.001	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.001
mark	0.019	0.000	0.005	0.000	0.000	0.005	0.000	0.947	0.000	0.005	0.000	0.005	0.000	0.005	0.005	0.010
code	0.107	0.000	0.000	0.231	0.000	0.030	0.000	0.006	0.000	0.621	0.000	0.000	0.006	0.000	0.000	0.000
salu	0.017	0.017	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.950	0.000	0.017	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
head	0.312	0.062	0.000	0.062	0.125	0.000	0.188	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.125	0.125	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
tab	0.085	0.000	0.009	0.030	0.004	0.026	0.000	0.102	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.728	0.000	0.004	0.013
tech	0.077	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.038	0.000	0.000	0.038	0.038	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.731	0.038	0.038	0.038
sep	0.008	0.003	0.000	0.008	0.000	0.005	0.008	0.023	0.005	0.000	0.000	0.003	0.000	0.938	0.000
emp	0.005	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.995
par	clos	ihead	log	msig	pat	psig	quot	mark	code	salu	head	tab	tech	sep	emp
Table 2: True labels are on the vertical axis, values were normalized line-wise. Classes: paragraph, closing, inlineheaders, log_data, mua_signature, patch, personal_signature, quotation, quotation Marker, raw_code, salutation, section Heading, tabular, technical, visual_separator, <empty>. The model is generally conservative, leaning towards paragraphs in uncertain cases. A slight yet notable confusion between MUA signatures, personal signatures, and closings can be observed, which are sometimes hard to discern even for humans. The heading class is the least prevalent of all and thus missing training data. Empty line misclassification is corrected afterwards.
7.2 Corpus Statistics
Languages
All	EN	DE	FR	n/a
Messages	153.3M	137.8M	1.9M	1.8M	2.1M
Excl. Replies	57.1M	51.8M	513.4k	683.9k	1.1M
Excl. Bugs, Patches	113.2M	100.3M	1.9M	1.6M	806.0k
Excl. comp. linux, os	24.0M	19.3M	448.5k	315.6k	172.8k
Messages/Month	710.6k	640.8k	9,0k	8,5k	10.0k
Unique Groups	14,635	14,398	6,984	7,710	9,241
Unique Senders	6.4M	6.7M	164.6k	137.7k	252.3k
Paragraph Lines	2.0G	1.8G	28.5M	28.7M	4.7M
Quotation Lines	2.5G	2.3G	26.0M	26.5M	5.0M
MUA Sig. Lines	400.3M	347.9M	3.8M	3.5M	6.3M
Pers. Sig. Lines	158.9M	133.3M	5.3M	2.3M	396.6k
Patch Lines	2.0G	1.9G	7.4M	18.5M	7.7M
Code Lines	254.0M	235.0M	1.6M	2.2M	339.9k
7.3 Segmentation Examples
Table 3: Gmane corpus statistics by detected language.
head:	CALENDAR ENTRY:	APPOINTMENT
tab:	Description:
tab:	EB48c2 - DPR Risk Mtg.
tab:	Date	3/6/2001
tab:	Time	10:00 AM - 11:00 AM (Central Standard Time)
tab:	Chairperson:	Stacey W White
head:	Detailed Description:
par:	Shona Wilson Heading the meeting
Figure 2: Segmentation example of an Enron email with section headings, tabular data, and a paragraph.
salu: Hi Michael,
par: Thanx very much for your response to my question. I will keep a look par: out on VITN for any updates. The artwork has been fantastic over the par: years! Thanx so much for all the effort put in!!!
clos: kind regards clos: LiveMiles
msig: Sent from my iPhone
mark: On Apr 8, 2010, at 20:52, "michael... ." </hOMQPRV... @example.com mark: > wrote:
...
quot: > > Sent from my iPhone
quot: > >
quot: > Hi Miles & others,
quot: >
quot: > sorry for the late reply. In September last year I have published
quot: > new artwork for TT I and TL VII by Leah Cim on Voices In The Net.
quot: > There will be an update of the site quite soon (I hope), featuring
...
tech: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sep:
sep:
msig: http://www.tadream.net
msig: ——Yahoo! Groups Links
msig: <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
msig: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tadream/
msig: <*> Your email settings:
msig: Individual Email | Traditional
msig: <*> To change settings online go to:
msig: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tadream/join
msig: (Yahoo! ID required)
...
Figure 3: Gmane corpus email segmentation example. Lines were identified correctly as salutation, paragraph, closing, MUA signatures, quotation marker, quotation, technical, and separators.