Scalable and Ethical Insider Threat Detection through Data Synthesis and Analysis by LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07045v1
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 21:27:06 GMT
• Title: Scalable and Ethical Insider Threat Detection through Data Synthesis and Analysis by LLMs
• Authors: Haywood Gelman, John D. Hastings,
• Abstract summary: This research studies the potential for large language models (LLMs) to analyze and detect insider threat sentiment. A comparative analysis of sentiment scores generated by LLMs is benchmarked against expert human scoring.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Insider threats wield an outsized influence on organizations, disproportionate to their small numbers. This is due to the internal access insiders have to systems, information, and infrastructure. %One example of this influence is where anonymous respondents submit web-based job search site reviews, an insider threat risk to organizations. Signals for such risks may be found in anonymous submissions to public web-based job search site reviews. This research studies the potential for large language models (LLMs) to analyze and detect insider threat sentiment within job site reviews. Addressing ethical data collection concerns, this research utilizes synthetic data generation using LLMs alongside existing job review datasets. A comparative analysis of sentiment scores generated by LLMs is benchmarked against expert human scoring. Findings reveal that LLMs demonstrate alignment with human evaluations in most cases, thus effectively identifying nuanced indicators of threat sentiment. The performance is lower on human-generated data than synthetic data, suggesting areas for improvement in evaluating real-world data. Text diversity analysis found differences between human-generated and LLM-generated datasets, with synthetic data exhibiting somewhat lower diversity. Overall, the results demonstrate the applicability of LLMs to insider threat detection, and a scalable solution for insider sentiment testing by overcoming ethical and logistical barriers tied to data acquisition.

Related papers

• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• The Decoy Dilemma in Online Medical Information Evaluation: A Comparative Study of Credibility Assessments by LLM and Human Judges [4.65004369765875]
  It is not clear to what extent large language models (LLMs) behave "rationally" Our study empirically confirms the cognitive bias risks embedded in LLM agents. It highlights the complexity and importance of debiasing AI agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T00:43:27Z)
• Beyond the Safety Bundle: Auditing the Helpful and Harmless Dataset [4.522849055040843]
  This study audited the Helpful and Harmless dataset by Anthropic. Our findings highlight the need for more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to safety mitigation in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T23:43:20Z)
• The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead? [60.01746782465275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown capabilities close to human performance in various analytical tasks. This paper investigates the efficiency and accuracy of LLMs in specialized tasks through a structured user study focusing on Human-LLM partnership.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:18Z)
• LLM-PBE: Assessing Data Privacy in Large Language Models [111.58198436835036]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become integral to numerous domains, significantly advancing applications in data management, mining, and analysis. Despite the critical nature of this issue, there has been no existing literature to offer a comprehensive assessment of data privacy risks in LLMs. Our paper introduces LLM-PBE, a toolkit crafted specifically for the systematic evaluation of data privacy risks in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T01:37:29Z)
• Data-Centric AI in the Age of Large Language Models [51.20451986068925]
  This position paper proposes a data-centric viewpoint of AI research, focusing on large language models (LLMs) We make the key observation that data is instrumental in the developmental (e.g., pretraining and fine-tuning) and inferential stages (e.g., in-context learning) of LLMs. We identify four specific scenarios centered around data, covering data-centric benchmarks and data curation, data attribution, knowledge transfer, and inference contextualization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T16:34:07Z)
• Unveiling the Achilles' Heel of NLG Evaluators: A Unified Adversarial Framework Driven by Large Language Models [52.368110271614285]
  We introduce AdvEval, a novel black-box adversarial framework against NLG evaluators. AdvEval is specially tailored to generate data that yield strong disagreements between human and victim evaluators. We conduct experiments on 12 victim evaluators and 11 NLG datasets, spanning tasks including dialogue, summarization, and question evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T14:48:15Z)
• The Human Factor in Detecting Errors of Large Language Models: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions [0.0]
  Launch of ChatGPT by OpenAI in November 2022 marked a pivotal moment for Artificial Intelligence. Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable conversational capabilities across various domains. These models are susceptible to errors - "hallucinations" and omissions, generating incorrect or incomplete information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T21:39:39Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Leveraging Domain Knowledge for Inclusive and Bias-aware Humanitarian Response Entry Classification [3.824858358548714]
  We aim to provide an effective and ethically-aware system for humanitarian data analysis. We introduce a novel architecture adjusted to the humanitarian analysis framework. We also propose a systematic way to measure and biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T09:15:05Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.