Phishing Detection in the Gen-AI Era: Quantized LLMs vs Classical Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Phishing attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated, underscoring the need for detection systems that strike a balance between high accuracy and computational efficiency. This paper presents a comparative evaluation of traditional Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL), and quantized small-parameter Large Language Models (LLMs) for phishing detection. Through experiments on a curated dataset, we show that while LLMs currently underperform compared to ML and DL methods in terms of raw accuracy, they exhibit strong potential for identifying subtle, context-based phishing cues. We also investigate the impact of zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies, revealing that LLM-rephrased emails can significantly degrade the performance of both ML and LLM-based detectors. Our benchmarking highlights that models like DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B (Q8_0) achieve competitive accuracy, above 80%, using only 17GB of VRAM, supporting their viability for cost-efficient deployment. We further assess the models' adversarial robustness and cost-performance tradeoffs, and demonstrate how lightweight LLMs can provide concise, interpretable explanations to support real-time decision-making. These findings position optimized LLMs as promising components in phishing defence systems and offer a path forward for integrating explainable, efficient AI into modern cybersecurity frameworks.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jul 2025.
Builds on
9 of 26 references.
References · 9
- 2022Measuring the Carbon Intensity of AI in Cloud Instancescited by 111
- 2025How Hungry is AI? Benchmarking Energy, Water, and Carbon Footprint of LLM Inferencecited by 76
- 2018Collapse of Deep and Narrow Neural Netscited by 37
- 2024Measure-Observe-Remeasure: An Interactive Paradigm for Differentially-Private Exploratory Analysiscited by 24
- 2024Next-Generation Phishing: How LLM Agents Empower Cyber Attackerscited by 14
- 2024From ML to LLM: Evaluating the Robustness of Phishing Webpage Detection Models against Adversarial Attackscited by 6
- 2025LLMs meet Federated Learning for Scalable and Secure IoT Managementcited by 6
- 2025LLM-Based Threat Detection and Prevention Framework for IoT Ecosystemscited by 6
- 2025Open-Source LLM-Driven Federated Transformer for Predictive IoV Managementcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.
- 2025BAID: A Benchmark for Bias Assessment of AI Detectorscited by 0
- 2025BAID: A Benchmark for Bias Assessment of AI Detectors12 Dec 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Phishing Email Detection Using Large Language Models
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Phishing Detection, Self-Consistency, Faithfulness, and Explainability
- 2026User-Centric Phishing Detection: A RAG and LLM-Based Approach ↗
- 2026Clouding the Mirror: Stealthy Prompt Injection Attacks Targeting LLM-based Phishing Detection
- 2025An Investigation of Large Language Models and Their Vulnerabilities in Spam Detection
- 2026Diagnosing Generalization Failures in Fine-Tuned LLMs: A Cross-Architectural Study on Phishing Detection
- 2025Detecting Voice Phishing with Precision: Fine-Tuning Small Language Models
- 2023From Chatbots to PhishBots? -- Preventing Phishing scams created using ChatGPT, Google Bard and Claude