Beyond Detection: Evaluating Defensive LLMs Against AI-Generated Social Engineering in Live Turn-by-Turn Interaction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Generative AI makes social-engineering attacks more fluent, adaptive, and scalable, increasing the need for LLM-based de- fenders that can protect users during ongoing interactions. We ask whether such defenders identify the structural source of risk or merely react to surface cues. We formalize trust-chain localization: identifying whether an interaction fails at actor authority, asset control, verification sufficiency, or transaction path. We construct a controlled 300-case online-housing corpus spanning 20 scenario families, legitimate cases, four structural failure modes, and three surface conditions. Five defender models are evaluated on the same corpus in state- ful turn-by-turn and one-shot static settings, yielding 1,500 model-case evaluations per protocol and 3,000 in total. No model produced explicit unsafe compliance, yet defensive effectiveness varied sharply: intervention rates ranged from 0% to 96.3%. Protective action and correct structural localization were frequently decoupled, with models sometimes intervening while identifying the wrong trust component or recognizing a structural failure without taking protective action. Asset-control failures were a major localization bottleneck, surface sensitivity varied across models, and live-static differences were model-dependent. These findings show that safe-looking behavior alone is insufficient; live scam resistance must separately measure intervention, timing, structural localization, and false-positive behavior.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Aug 2026.
Builds on
12 of 22 references.
References · 12
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
- 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,422
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
- 2023MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedbackcited by 293
- 2025Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Surveycited by 56
- 2025Fraud-R1 : A Multi-Round Benchmark for Assessing the Robustness of LLM Against Augmented Fraud and Phishing Inducementscited by 31
- 2023Digital Deception: Generative Artificial Intelligence in Social Engineering and Phishingcited by 26
- 2024Evaluating Large Language Models' Capability to Launch Fully Automated Spear Phishing Campaigns: Validated on Human Subjectscited by 17
- 2024Lateral Phishing With Large Language Models: A Large Organization Comparative Studycited by 12
- 2024Can LLMs be Scammed? A Baseline Measurement Studycited by 3
- 2022Improving Phishing Detection Via Psychological Trait Scoringcited by 2
- 2016Do Users Focus on the Correct Cues to Differentiate Between Phishing and Genuine Emails?cited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.