Paper detail

Evaluating Human and Machine Confidence in Phishing Email Detection: A Comparative Study

Identifying deceptive content like phishing emails demands sophisticated cognitive processes that combine pattern recognition, confidence assessment, and contextual analysis. This research examines how human cognition and machine learning models work together to distinguish phishing emails from legitimate ones. We employed three interpretable algorithms Logistic Regression, Decision Trees, and Random Forests training them on both TF-IDF features and semantic embeddings, then compared their predictions against human evaluations that captured confidence ratings and linguistic observations. Our results show that machine learning models provide good accuracy rates, but their confidence levels vary significantly. Human evaluators, on the other hand, use a greater variety of language signs and retain more consistent confidence. We also found that while language proficiency has minimal effect on detection performance, aging does. These findings offer helpful direction for creating transparent AI systems that complement human cognitive functions, ultimately improving human-AI cooperation in challenging content analysis tasks.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.