mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Beyond Detection: Evaluating Defensive LLMs Against AI-Generated Social Engineering in Live Turn-by-Turn Interaction

arXiv 2608.10239 ↗First posted 10 Aug 2026cs.AIcited by 0

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

  1. 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
  2. 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,422
  3. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
  4. 2023MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedbackcited by 293
  5. 2025Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Surveycited by 56
  6. 2025Fraud-R1 : A Multi-Round Benchmark for Assessing the Robustness of LLM Against Augmented Fraud and Phishing Inducementscited by 31
  7. 2023Digital Deception: Generative Artificial Intelligence in Social Engineering and Phishingcited by 26
  8. 2024Evaluating Large Language Models' Capability to Launch Fully Automated Spear Phishing Campaigns: Validated on Human Subjectscited by 17
  9. 2024Lateral Phishing With Large Language Models: A Large Organization Comparative Studycited by 12
  10. 2024Can LLMs be Scammed? A Baseline Measurement Studycited by 3
  11. 2022Improving Phishing Detection Via Psychological Trait Scoringcited by 2
  12. 2016Do Users Focus on the Correct Cues to Differentiate Between Phishing and Genuine Emails?cited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.