These findings show that safe-looking behavior alone is insufficient; live scam resistance must separately measure intervention, timing, structural localization, and false-positive behavior.
Abstract
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.
It is found that students'detection accuracy improves over time, driven by a shift from relying on linguistic cues to leveraging shared social and contextual signals.
Dan Schumacher, Pragathi Durga Rajarajan, Haven Kotara et al.· 0 citations
It is found that user hostility varies 13-fold across models, driven largely by who each model attracts rather than by model behaviour: first-turn hostility spreads far wider than post-response hostility, and more than fifteenfold separates the extremes even after deduplicating opening prompts.
Fan-Qi Zeng, Sadid A. Hasan, Chao-Cheng He· 0 citations
: Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping social bot detection by decoupling automated intent from surface-level expression. This decoupling weakens a central assumption behind contemporary detectors: that an account’s textual persona, profile metadata, and graph position remain jointly stable across evaluation. An...
Zhen-Yuan Wang, Li-Xin Ji, Shu-Xin Liu· Computers, Materials & C...· 0 citations
As LLM‐based agents move onto multiagent platforms, they process direct prompts and surrounding social context—posts, comments, and upvotes—an attack surface that single‐turn alignment never addressed. We built a simulation of Moltbook, a social network for AI agents, and a pipeline turning 100 JailBreakBench goals i...
Taehyeon Yun, Seonhee Jeon, Geonwoo Kim et al.· ETRI Journal· 0 citations
BluePRINT is introduced, a safety-evaluation framework separating a factorized social-influence strategy space from WORLDVIEWSIM, a cross-turn situational context module, and Monte Carlo Tree Search optimizes turn-level combinations of 18 theory-grounded influence factors across a four-turn trajectory.
Si-Yu Chen, Hao-Ran Wang, Xiaojian Li et al.· 0 citations
A lightweight hierarchical attribution model is trained that predicts safety violations and attributes them to contributing user turns and token spans and preserves low false positive rates on benign conversations with high-risk vocabulary.
Srinivasan Subramanian, Kazi Aminul Islam, Md Abdullah Al Hafiz Khan· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.