arXiv preprint ·
Measure Before You Train: Typed Decision Models vs. a Classical Baseline vs. a Generative LLM for Routing a Personal Multilingual Inbox
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Personal email agents decide, for every message, what it is, whether it is urgent, whether to draft a reply, create a task, or ignore it. Their error rate is rarely measured: the stored labels were written by the system itself. We present Foyer, a self-hosted personal inbox agent in daily use, and a measurement protocol (stratified sampling, frozen snapshots, thread-grouped splits, pre-registered hypotheses, human labels in the agent's review loop) that yields ground truth before any training. On 739 real Italian/English emails labelled by the owner (231 unbiased, 500 adversarially sampled), we compare nine systems under thread-grouped cross-validation: the production keyword rules, a TF-IDF + logistic-regression baseline, local typed decision models (Tev1, Nimble), a hosted decision model (Nimble v4-max), and hosted generative LLMs (Qwen2.5-7B, Gemma 4 26B/31B). Four results. The production rules score 28% on message type against a 58% majority class: the field shown most prominently carried no information. With ~200 labels, logistic regression has the highest accuracy on every field (type 0.79, urgency 0.74, needs-reply 0.83, is-noise 0.90), though it never predicts the two rarest classes and is statistically tied with Gemma 4 on type; few-shot prompting does not close the gap. The sender's relationship (client, supplier, service) is recovered from other emails of the same contact with 98.6% accuracy where the contact has been seen, and is not inferable from a single message by any model: it belongs in the contact graph, not the prompt. Finally, accuracy is not the product metric: composed into actions, the most accurate system most often ignores emails needing action (18% vs 4% for the best LLM); a cost-chosen threshold on its noise probability halves that rate and makes it the cheapest system.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
CRM-Agent-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents in Stateful Enterprise Environments
A Personalized and Adaptive Intelligent Tutoring System for Psychomotor Learning
Gaze Under Strain: How Oculomotor Behavior Tracks Cybersickness Progression in VR
EEGBiFormer: Real-Time EEG Attention Classification via Hybrid CNN-Transformer with EEG-Informed Auditory Protocol Validation
Beyond Correctness: How Novice Software Engineering Students Exercise Oversight of Generative AI
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.