MultiPhishGuard: An Explainable and Adaptive Multi-Agent LLM System for Phishing Email Detection
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Verifying Intent and Harm: A Unified Defense Against LLM-Generated Threats (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
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.”
From Verifying Intent and Harm: A Unified Defense Against LLM-Generated Threats (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Verifying Intent and Harm: A Unified Defense Against LLM-Generated Threats
Thota, P., Lei, Y., Thangaraj, S., Jonnalagadda, S. R., & Nilizadeh, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26377
“In safety settings, AutoDe-fense [8] uses multi-agent reasoning for jailbreak detection, and MultiPhishGuard [21] applies multi-agent reasoning to phishing email artifact classification.”
- 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)
- arXiv
- 2505.23803
- OpenAlex
- W6910673573
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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