Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Evaluating Large Language Models for Phishing Detection, Self-Consistency, Faithfulness, and Explainability

Published 16 Jun 2025 in cs.CR, cs.AI, and cs.LG | (2506.13746v1)

Abstract: Phishing attacks remain one of the most prevalent and persistent cybersecurity threat with attackers continuously evolving and intensifying tactics to evade the general detection system. Despite significant advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, faithfully reproducing the interpretable reasoning with classification and explainability that underpin phishing judgments remains challenging. Due to recent advancement in Natural Language Processing, LLMs show a promising direction and potential for improving domain specific phishing classification tasks. However, enhancing the reliability and robustness of classification models requires not only accurate predictions from LLMs but also consistent and trustworthy explanations aligning with those predictions. Therefore, a key question remains: can LLMs not only classify phishing emails accurately but also generate explanations that are reliably aligned with their predictions and internally self-consistent? To answer these questions, we have fine-tuned transformer based models, including BERT, Llama models, and Wizard, to improve domain relevance and make them more tailored to phishing specific distinctions, using Binary Sequence Classification, Contrastive Learning (CL) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). To that end, we examined their performance in phishing classification and explainability by applying the ConsistenCy measure based on SHAPley values (CC SHAP), which measures prediction explanation token alignment to test the model's internal faithfulness and consistency and uncover the rationale behind its predictions and reasoning. Overall, our findings show that Llama models exhibit stronger prediction explanation token alignment with higher CC SHAP scores despite lacking reliable decision making accuracy, whereas Wizard achieves better prediction accuracy but lower CC SHAP scores.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.