LLMs in Cybersecurity: Friend or Foe in the Human Decision Loop?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06595v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 12:06:06 GMT
• Title: LLMs in Cybersecurity: Friend or Foe in the Human Decision Loop?
• Authors: Irdin Pekaric, Philipp Zech, Tom Mattson,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming human decision-making by acting as cognitive collaborators.<n>This paper investigates how LLMs shape human judgment in security-critical contexts.
• Score: 0.15293427903448023
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming human decision-making by acting as cognitive collaborators. Yet, this promise comes with a paradox: while LLMs can improve accuracy, they may also erode independent reasoning, promote over-reliance and homogenize decisions. In this paper, we investigate how LLMs shape human judgment in security-critical contexts. Through two exploratory focus groups (unaided and LLM-supported), we assess decision accuracy, behavioral resilience and reliance dynamics. Our findings reveal that while LLMs enhance accuracy and consistency in routine decisions, they can inadvertently reduce cognitive diversity and improve automation bias, which is especially the case among users with lower resilience. In contrast, high-resilience individuals leverage LLMs more effectively, suggesting that cognitive traits mediate AI benefit.

Related papers

• Can Large Language Models Express Uncertainty Like Human? [71.27418419522884]
  We release the first diverse, large-scale dataset of hedging expressions with human-annotated confidence scores.<n>We conduct the first systematic study of linguistic confidence across modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:34:30Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Corrupted by Reasoning: Reasoning Language Models Become Free-Riders in Public Goods Games [87.5673042805229]
  How large language models balance self-interest and collective well-being is a critical challenge for ensuring alignment, robustness, and safe deployment.<n>We adapt a public goods game with institutional choice from behavioral economics, allowing us to observe how different LLMs navigate social dilemmas.<n>Surprisingly, we find that reasoning LLMs, such as the o1 series, struggle significantly with cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T15:02:47Z)
• MetaFaith: Faithful Natural Language Uncertainty Expression in LLMs [66.14178164421794]
  We introduce MetaFaith, a novel prompt-based calibration approach inspired by human metacognition.<n>We show that MetaFaith robustly improves faithful calibration across diverse models and task domains, enabling up to 61% improvement in faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:54:08Z)
• Cognitive Debiasing Large Language Models for Decision-Making [71.2409973056137]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in supporting decision-making applications.<n>We propose a cognitive debiasing approach, self-adaptive cognitive debiasing (SACD)<n>Our method follows three sequential steps -- bias determination, bias analysis, and cognitive debiasing -- to iteratively mitigate potential cognitive biases in prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T11:23:05Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes.<n>This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• 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)
• Cognitive LLMs: Towards Integrating Cognitive Architectures and Large Language Models for Manufacturing Decision-making [51.737762570776006]
  LLM-ACTR is a novel neuro-symbolic architecture that provides human-aligned and versatile decision-making. Our framework extracts and embeds knowledge of ACT-R's internal decision-making process as latent neural representations. Our experiments on novel Design for Manufacturing tasks show both improved task performance as well as improved grounded decision-making capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T11:49:53Z)
• Metacognitive Myopia in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit potentially harmful biases that reinforce culturally inherent stereotypes, cloud moral judgments, or amplify positive evaluations of majority groups. We propose metacognitive myopia as a cognitive-ecological framework that can account for a conglomerate of established and emerging LLM biases. Our theoretical framework posits that a lack of the two components of metacognition, monitoring and control, causes five symptoms of metacognitive myopia in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-10T14:43:57Z)
• Balancing Rigor and Utility: Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models for Multiple-Choice Questions [0.46873264197900916]
  We show that certain cognitive biases can enhance decision-making efficiency through rational deviations and shortcuts.<n>By introducing moderation and an abstention option, we reduce error rates, improve decision accuracy, and optimize decision rates.<n>This approach offers a novel way to leverage cognitive biases to improve the practical utility of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T16:25:22Z)
• What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know [13.939511057660013]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into decision-making processes.<n>To earn human trust, LLMs must be well calibrated so that they can accurately assess and communicate the likelihood of their predictions being correct.<n>Here we explore the calibration gap, which refers to the difference between human confidence in LLM-generated answers and the models' actual confidence, and the discrimination gap, which reflects how well humans and models can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T22:21:04Z)

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.