EXPLICATE: Enhancing Phishing Detection through Explainable AI and LLM-Powered Interpretability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sophisticated phishing attacks have emerged as a major cybersecurity threat, becoming more common and difficult to prevent. Though machine learning techniques have shown promise in detecting phishing attacks, they function mainly as "black boxes" without revealing their decision-making rationale. This lack of transparency erodes the trust of users and diminishes their effective threat response. We present EXPLICATE: a framework that enhances phishing detection through a three-component architecture: an ML-based classifier using domain-specific features, a dual-explanation layer combining LIME and SHAP for complementary feature-level insights, and an LLM enhancement using DeepSeek v3 to translate technical explanations into accessible natural language. Our experiments show that EXPLICATE attains 98.4 % accuracy on all metrics, which is on par with existing deep learning techniques but has better explainability. High-quality explanations are generated by the framework with an accuracy of 94.2 % as well as a consistency of 96.8% between the LLM output and model prediction. We create EXPLICATE as a fully usable GUI application and a light Chrome extension, showing its applicability in many deployment situations. The research shows that high detection performance can go hand-in-hand with meaningful explainability in security applications. Most important, it addresses the critical divide between automated AI and user trust in phishing detection systems.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 0 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Mar 2025.
Builds on
0 of 13 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Phishing Detection, Self-Consistency, Faithfulness, and Explainabilitycited by 1
- 2025Can AI Models be Jailbroken to Phish Elderly Victims? An End-to-End Evaluationcited by 1
- 2025Every Character Counts: From Vulnerability to Defense in Phishing Detectioncited by 0
- 2026SCRIPTMIND: Crime Script Inference and Cognitive Evaluation for LLM-based Social Engineering Scam Detection Systemcited by 0
- 2026Operational Evidence Gaps for LLMs in Fraud Detection and Trust-and-Safety Workflowscited by 0
- 2026(EC)2: Event-Centric Explainability for Cybersecurity Through Multi-Agent LLM Investigationscited by 0
- 2026(EC)2: Event-Centric Explainability for Cybersecurity Through Multi-Agent LLM Investigations28 Jul 2026
- 2026Operational Evidence Gaps for LLMs in Fraud Detection and Trust-and-Safety Workflows12 Jul 2026
- 2026SCRIPTMIND: Crime Script Inference and Cognitive Evaluation for LLM-based Social Engineering Scam Detection System20 Jan 2026
- 2025Can AI Models be Jailbroken to Phish Elderly Victims? An End-to-End Evaluation13 Nov 2025
- 2025Every Character Counts: From Vulnerability to Defense in Phishing Detection24 Sep 2025
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Phishing Detection, Self-Consistency, Faithfulness, and Explainability16 Jun 2025