mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2506.13746 ↗First posted 16 Jun 2025cs.CR cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

Abstract (arXiv)

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, Large Language Models (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.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 14 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2025.

Builds on

14 of 28 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Can Machines Think Like Humans? A Behavioral Evaluation of LLM Agents in Dictator Games28 Oct

Other references · 13

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2024Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Large Models: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 656
  5. 2020Keystroke Dynamics as Part of Lifeloggingcited by 334
  6. 2024Data-efficient Fine-tuning for LLM-based Recommendationcited by 104
  7. 2023On Measuring Faithfulness or Self-consistency of Natural Language Explanationscited by 73
  8. 2023Spear Phishing With Large Language Modelscited by 52
  9. 2024ChatSpamDetector: Leveraging Large Language Models for Effective Phishing Email Detectioncited by 25
  10. 2024Next-Generation Phishing: How LLM Agents Empower Cyber Attackerscited by 14
  11. 2024An Explainable Transformer-based Model for Phishing Email Detection: A Large Language Model Approachcited by 9
  12. 2025Enhancing Phishing Email Identification with Large Language Modelscited by 6
1 more
  1. 2025EXPLICATE: Enhancing Phishing Detection through Explainable AI and LLM-Powered Interpretabilitycited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Phishing Detection in the Gen-AI Era: Quantized LLMs vs Classical Models
  2. 2026User-Centric Phishing Detection: A RAG and LLM-Based Approach ↗
  3. 2025Phishing Email Detection Using Large Language Models
  4. 2024LLMs are One-Shot URL Classifiers and Explainers
  5. 2025Adaptive Linguistic Prompting (ALP) Enhances Phishing Webpage Detection in Multimodal Large Language Models
  6. 2026GuardPhish: Securing Open-Source LLMs from Phishing Abuse
  7. 2026Diagnosing Generalization Failures in Fine-Tuned LLMs: A Cross-Architectural Study on Phishing Detection
  8. 2026Clouding the Mirror: Stealthy Prompt Injection Attacks Targeting LLM-based Phishing Detection