Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM65698
Volume:
10 |
6 |
Jun 2026
Pages:
1-4
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science
Anjuman-I-Islam Abdul Razzak Kalsekar Polytechnic Campus
Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science
Anjuman-I-Islam Abdul Razzak Kalsekar Polytechnic Campus
The rise of large language models has enabled cybercriminals to craft highly convincing phishing emails that often bypass traditional spam filters. Unlike human-written scams, AI-generated phishing messages exhibit subtle yet consistent linguistic fingerprints, including unnatural fluency, formulaic politeness, and distinctive structural patterns. This paper proposes a machine learning framework that leverages these linguistic patterns to distinguish AI-written phishing emails from both human-written phishing attempts and benign business correspondence. A corpus of 2,400 emails was compiled, comprising 800 AI-generated phishing samples, 800 human-crafted phishing emails, and 800 legitimate emails. From each message we extracted stylometric features, discourse markers, readability metrics, and syntactic complexity indicators. Three classifiers—random forest, XGBoost, and a fine-tuned transformer (RoBERTa)—were evaluated. The transformer achieved 98.7% accuracy and a 0.991 AUC in binary (AI vs. human) detection, while the feature-based models surpassed 94% accuracy with far lower computational cost. Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) revealed that AI-generated emails consistently overused formal salutations, avoided urgent threats, and employed longer, more balanced sentences. These findings demonstrate that linguistic pattern analysis offers a practical, interpretable defence against the next generation of phishing threats.
KEYWORDS
This study demonstrates that AI‑generated phishing emails bear distinct linguistic patterns that can be reliably detected. The combination of interpretable linguistic features and a fine‑tuned transformer yields a robust defence, with the feature‑based XGBoost model offering an attractive trade‑off between performance and explainability. Future work should extend the dataset to multilingual phishing, evaluate the impact of adversarial prompt engineering designed to mask linguistic signatures, and deploy the system as a plugin for enterprise mail gateways. As language models continue to evolve, the linguistic arms race between phishers and defenders will demand continuous retraining and novel detection paradigms, perhaps incorporating sender‑recipient relationship context alongside textual analysis.
1. Verma, R., Shashidhar, N., Hossain, N.: Detecting Phishing Emails the Natural Language Way. In: Proc. European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS), pp. 824–841 (2018) 2. Baki, S., Verma, R., Gnawali, O.: Scam Augmentation and Customization: Understanding the Linguistic Patterns of Phishing. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops, pp. 178–186 (2021) 3. Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H., Rush, A.M.: GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text. In: Proc. ACL Demonstrations, pp. 111–116 (2019) 4. Guo, B., Zhang, Y., Xu, Q., et al.: HC3: A Suite of Test Collections for LLM-Generated Text Detection. In: Proc. ACL, pp. 12424–12441 (2023) 5. Tian, E.: GPTZero: An AI Text Detection Tool. https://gptzero.me (2023)
Publication Date
6/30/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
12
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...