Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Joint Detection of Fraud and Concept Drift inOnline Conversations with LLM-Assisted Judgment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.07852 v1 pith:74KNV5KR submitted 2025-05-07 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Joint Detection of Fraud and Concept Drift inOnline Conversations with LLM-Assisted Judgment

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords detectiondriftconceptbehaviorconversationalconversationsframeworkfraud
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Detecting fake interactions in digital communication platforms remains a challenging and insufficiently addressed problem. These interactions may appear as harmless spam or escalate into sophisticated scam attempts, making it difficult to flag malicious intent early. Traditional detection methods often rely on static anomaly detection techniques that fail to adapt to dynamic conversational shifts. One key limitation is the misinterpretation of benign topic transitions referred to as concept drift as fraudulent behavior, leading to either false alarms or missed threats. We propose a two stage detection framework that first identifies suspicious conversations using a tailored ensemble classification model. To improve the reliability of detection, we incorporate a concept drift analysis step using a One Class Drift Detector (OCDD) to isolate conversational shifts within flagged dialogues. When drift is detected, a large language model (LLM) assesses whether the shift indicates fraudulent manipulation or a legitimate topic change. In cases where no drift is found, the behavior is inferred to be spam like. We validate our framework using a dataset of social engineering chat scenarios and demonstrate its practical advantages in improving both accuracy and interpretability for real time fraud detection. To contextualize the trade offs, we compare our modular approach against a Dual LLM baseline that performs detection and judgment using different language models.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LLM-Assisted Authentication and Fraud Detection

    cs.CR 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLM semantic authentication accepts 99.5% of legitimate non-exact answers at 0.1% false-accept rate while RAG fraud detection lowers false positives from 17.2% to 3.5%.