REVIEW 1 cited by
Large Multimodal Agents for Accurate Phishing Detection with Enhanced Token Optimization and Cost Reduction
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
abstract
With the rise of sophisticated phishing attacks, there is a growing need for effective and economical detection solutions. This paper explores the use of large multimodal agents, specifically Gemini 1.5 Flash and GPT-4o mini, to analyze both URLs and webpage screenshots via APIs, thus avoiding the complexities of training and maintaining AI systems. Our findings indicate that integrating these two data types substantially enhances detection performance over using either type alone. However, API usage incurs costs per query that depend on the number of input and output tokens. To address this, we propose a two-tiered agentic approach: initially, one agent assesses the URL, and if inconclusive, a second agent evaluates both the URL and the screenshot. This method not only maintains robust detection performance but also significantly reduces API costs by minimizing unnecessary multi-input queries. Cost analysis shows that with the agentic approach, GPT-4o mini can process about 4.2 times as many websites per $100 compared to the multimodal approach (107,440 vs. 25,626), and Gemini 1.5 Flash can process about 2.6 times more websites (2,232,142 vs. 862,068). These findings underscore the significant economic benefits of the agentic approach over the multimodal method, providing a viable solution for organizations aiming to leverage advanced AI for phishing detection while controlling expenses.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Enhancing Phishing Email Identification with Large Language Models
Llama-3.1-70b detects phishing emails with 97.21% accuracy and 98.10% precision on a combined, length-filtered dataset of 6,867 emails.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.