AI-Driven Phishing Detection: Enhancing Cybersecurity with Reinforcement Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phishing remains a persistent cybersecurity threat, often bypassing traditional detection methods due to evolving attack techniques. This study presents a Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based phishing detection framework, leveraging a Deep Q-Network (DQN) to enhance detection accuracy, reduce false positives, and improve classification performance. The model was trained and evaluated using a real-world dataset comprising 5000 emails (2500 phishing and 2500 benign) and externally validated against a synthetic phishing dataset of 1000 samples simulating unseen attacks. It achieved a 95% accuracy, 96% precision, 94% recall, and a 2% false positive rate on the real-world dataset and a 93% accuracy, 94% precision, and a 4% false positive rate on the synthetic dataset. Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis yielded a score of 0.92, confirming excellent classification separability and alignment with the model’s high accuracy and low false positive rate. This work contributes to scalable, real-world phishing defense by addressing the limitations of static detection systems and improving detection reliability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it