PreprintCited by 1Spam and Phishing DetectionAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningMisinformation and Its Impacts

MultiPhishGuard: An Explainable and Adaptive Multi-Agent LLM System for Phishing Email Detection

Open access
Xue, Yinuo, Spero, Eric, Woo, Meng Wai, Gao, Wei, Russello, Giovanni·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Phishing email detection faces significant challenges due to evolving adversarial tactics and heterogeneous attack patterns. Traditional approaches, such as rule-based filters and denylists, often struggle to keep pace, leading to missed detections and security risks. While machine learning methods have improved detection performance, they remain limited in adapting to novel and rapidly changing phishing strategies. We present MultiPhishGuard, an LLM-based multi-agent detection framework with learned coordination across specialized agents. The system consists of five cooperative agents (text, URL, metadata, explanation simplifier, and adversarial agents), with agent contributions dynamically weighted using Proximal Policy Optimization. To address emerging threats, the framework incorporates an adversarial training loop in which an LLM-based agent generates subtle, context-aware email variants to expose potential model weaknesses and improve robustness to ambiguous phishing cases. Experimental evaluations on public datasets show that MultiPhishGuard achieves stronger performance than established baselines, including Chain-of-Thought prompting and single-agent variants, as supported by ablation studies and comparative analyses. The system achieves an accuracy of 97.89%, with a false positive rate of 2.73% and a false negative rate of 0.20%. In addition, an explanation simplifier agent transforms technical model outputs into plain-language rationales intended for human users. Overall, these results suggest that multi-agent LLM architectures with adaptive coordination and adversarial training represent a promising direction for phishing email detection.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2505.23803

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ScamLLM detects malicious prompts used to generate phishing emails or websites, while MultiPhishGuard uses multi-agent reasoning to classify phishing email artifacts.

    “ScamLLM [3] detects malicious prompts used to generate phishing emails or websites, while MultiPhishGuard [21] uses multi-agent reasoning to classify phishing email artifacts.”
  • Role specialization can improve safety decisions, but existing multi-agent safety works remain threat-specific.

    “These works show that role specialization can improve safety decisions, but they remain threat-specific.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xue, Y., Spero, E., Woo, M. W., Gao, W., & Russello, G.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6910673573
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
phishing email detection, multi-agent LLM systems, explainable AI, adversarial training, proximal policy optimization, agent coordination, URL analysis, email metadata

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review