Evaluating Human and Machine Confidence in Phishing Email Detection: A Comparative Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04610v1
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 05:30:41 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Human and Machine Confidence in Phishing Email Detection: A Comparative Study
• Authors: Paras Jain, Khushi Dhar, Olyemi E. Amujo, Esa M. Rantanen,
• Abstract summary: This research examines how human cognition and machine learn- ing models work together to distinguish phishing emails from legitimate ones.<n>Our results show that machine learning models provide good accuracy rates, but their confidence levels vary significantly.<n>Human evaluators, on the other hand, use a greater variety of language signs and retain more consistent confidence.
• Score: 0.45961260934000997
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Identifying deceptive content like phishing emails demands sophisticated cognitive processes that combine pattern recognition, confidence assessment, and contextual analysis. This research examines how human cognition and machine learn- ing models work together to distinguish phishing emails from legitimate ones. We employed three interpretable algorithms Logistic Regression, Decision Trees, and Random Forests train- ing them on both TF-IDF features and semantic embeddings, then compared their predictions against human evaluations that captured confidence ratings and linguistic observations. Our results show that machine learning models provide good accuracy rates, but their confidence levels vary significantly. Human evaluators, on the other hand, use a greater variety of language signs and retain more consistent confidence. We also found that while language proficiency has minimal effect on detection performance, aging does. These findings offer helpful direction for creating transparent AI systems that complement human cognitive functions, ultimately improving human-AI cooperation in challenging content analysis tasks.

Related papers

• Metacognitive Sensitivity for Test-Time Dynamic Model Selection [0.0]
  We propose a new framework for evaluating and leveraging AI metacognition.<n>We introduce meta-d', a psychologically-grounded measure of metacognitive sensitivity, to characterise how reliably a model's confidence predicts its own accuracy.<n>We then use this dynamic sensitivity score as context for a bandit-based arbiter that performs test-time model selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-11T09:15:05Z)
• Human Texts Are Outliers: Detecting LLM-generated Texts via Out-of-distribution Detection [71.59834293521074]
  We develop a framework to distinguish between human-authored and machine-generated text.<n>Our method achieves 98.3% AUROC and AUPR with only 8.9% FPR95 on DeepFake dataset.<n>Code, pretrained weights, and demo will be released.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T08:14:45Z)
• Anthropomimetic Uncertainty: What Verbalized Uncertainty in Language Models is Missing [66.04926909181653]
  We argue for anthropomimetic uncertainty, meaning that intuitive and trustworthy uncertainty communication requires a degree of linguistic authenticity and personalization to the user.<n>We conclude by pointing out unique factors in human-machine communication of uncertainty and deconstruct the data biases that influence machine uncertainty communication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T14:07:22Z)
• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• Dynamic Programming Techniques for Enhancing Cognitive Representation in Knowledge Tracing [125.75923987618977]
  We propose the Cognitive Representation Dynamic Programming based Knowledge Tracing (CRDP-KT) model.<n>It is a dynamic programming algorithm to optimize cognitive representations based on the difficulty of the questions and the performance intervals between them.<n>It provides more accurate and systematic input features for subsequent model training, thereby minimizing distortion in the simulation of cognitive states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:48Z)
• Human-in-the-Loop Annotation for Image-Based Engagement Estimation: Assessing the Impact of Model Reliability on Annotation Accuracy [5.862907885873446]
  This study integrates a high-performing image-based emotion model into a HITL annotation framework.<n>We investigate how varying model reliability and cognitive framing influence human trust, cognitive load, and annotation behavior.<n>By leveraging the strengths of both human oversight and automated systems, this study establishes a scalable HITL framework for emotion annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T09:37:10Z)
• Reasoner Outperforms: Generative Stance Detection with Rationalization for Social Media [12.479554210753664]
  This study adopts a generative approach, where stance predictions include explicit, interpretable rationales.<n>We find that incorporating reasoning into stance detection enables the smaller model (FlanT5) to outperform GPT-3.5's zero-shot performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T16:34:39Z)
• A Flexible Method for Behaviorally Measuring Alignment Between Human and Artificial Intelligence Using Representational Similarity Analysis [0.1957338076370071]
  We adapted Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA), a method that uses pairwise similarity ratings to quantify alignment between AIs and humans.<n>We tested this approach on semantic alignment across text and image modalities, measuring how different Large Language and Vision Language Model (LLM and VLM) similarity judgments aligned with human responses at both group and individual levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-30T20:24:52Z)
• The Cognitive Capabilities of Generative AI: A Comparative Analysis with Human Benchmarks [17.5336703613751]
  This study benchmarks leading large language models and vision language models against human performance on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) Most models demonstrated exceptional capabilities in the storage, retrieval, and manipulation of tokens such as arbitrary sequences of letters and numbers. Despite these broad strengths, we observed consistently poor performance on the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) from multimodal models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T19:22:26Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• You Impress Me: Dialogue Generation via Mutual Persona Perception [62.89449096369027]
  The research in cognitive science suggests that understanding is an essential signal for a high-quality chit-chat conversation. Motivated by this, we propose P2 Bot, a transmitter-receiver based framework with the aim of explicitly modeling understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-11T12:51:07Z)

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.