arXiv AI By Yifan Wang, Junyu Lu, Shun Zhang, Chaozhuo Li, Fanliang Bu, Rong Yin, Lingbin Bu, Changrong Min, Peng Chen

Beyond Risk Cues: A Mechanism-Level Benchmark and Verifiable Debate for Scam Video Detection on the Web

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces MechScam, a benchmark of 6,614 videos that covers diverse scam mechanisms and non‑scam content, providing evidence‑supported explanations and annotations of scam elements. It also proposes ScamCourt, a debate framework where prosecution and defense debaters argue over verified citations, and a judge decides based on the transcript. Experiments show that current large multimodal language models struggle to differentiate scam videos from similar non‑scam content, while ScamCourt reduces false positives and better resists misleading arguments.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 25

A Corpus of Real Scam- and Spam-Call Conversations from an Active Voice-Agent Honeypot

The paper introduces a dataset of 10,015 real scam and spam phone calls collected over 53 days using an active voice‑agent honeypot. Each call is recorded, transcribed, and automatically labeled, yielding 328,869 turn‑level transcripts and 895 hours of audio from 5,665 distinct numbers. The corpus distinguishes between predatory‑but‑legal lead generation and outright scams, with labels validated by human review and technical checks on realism.

By Ethan Traister, Dennis Tsang Ng, Siyu Zhang, Huaiyu Guo, Tommy Duong, Tyler Wu, Yuchen Zhou, Xingyu Shen, Jiaqi Wu, Simiao Ren
arXiv AI
1d ago

ScamWorld: An Interactive Environment for Evaluating Web Agents Against Online Fraud

ScamWorld is an interactive environment that recreates reported scam websites across various scenarios, fraud mechanisms, and languages, allowing researchers to observe fraud indicators before a web agent’s final action. The platform enables controlled, repeatable evaluation of web agents, which are increasingly used to browse, shop, and manage accounts on the open web. A study of six leading LLM-powered agents revealed deception rates between 11% and 35%, with agents more likely to proceed with payments than to provide credentials or wallet information, and some agents continuing after recognizing suspicious conditions.

By Yutao Wu, Xiao Liu, Ming Wen, Hanxun Huang, Jun Wang, Xingjun Ma
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 23

ReDence: A Hybrid Agentic and Decision-Model Framework for Rapid, Evidence-Grounded Detection of Modern Social Engineering Scams

ReDence is an open‑source hybrid framework that combines a multimodal agentic Investigator model with a specialized Decider model to detect modern social engineering scams. It automates investigative planning, evidence interpretation, and decision‑making across multiple scam categories, achieving 96% accuracy and operating at least four times faster than comparable agentic models. The system outputs structured, evidence‑grounded reports that enable analysts to audit decisions and support mitigation efforts.

By Jaishnoor Kaur, Josef Hor\'a\v{c}ek, Ian Waskom, Sayak Saha Roy
arXiv AI
Sep 28

A Survey on Fake Review Detection: From Pre-trained Language Models to Large Language Models

The article surveys fake review detection research, focusing on how pre‑trained language models (PLMs) and large language models (LLMs) influence both the generation of deceptive reviews and their detection. It reviews 211 studies from 2018 to early 2026, categorizing methods by evidence source—such as review text, sentiment, rating behavior, temporal metadata, user‑product graphs, multimodal content, external knowledge, and LLM‑generated signals—and by fusion level. The survey traces the evolution from traditional machine learning to PLM‑based and LLM‑based approaches, evaluates performance on Amazon, Yelp, and OpSpam benchmarks, and highlights open challenges including adversarial generation, cross‑domain transfer, uncertainty‑aware fusion, robustness to missing sources, interpretability, and trustworthy evaluation of AI‑generated deceptive content.

By Fanji Yang (Guizhou University of Finance and Economics), Huiyao Chen (Harbin Institute of Technology), Xi Yu (Guizhou University of Finance and Economics), Meishan Zhang (Harbin Institute of Technology), Xiaohong Xiao (Guizhou University of Commerce), Mingsen Deng (Guizhou University of Finance and Economics)