Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
San Kim, JinYeong Bak
Published
Aug 21, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
35% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Aug 21, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues. This risk is especially relevant in social-engineering fraud detection, where attackers can preserve malicious intent while changing the scenario, impersonated entity, or wording. We study this problem as scenario-level out-of-distribution (SL-OOD) detection for SMS and voice phishing, where entire attack scenarios are held out from training while the label space remains fixed. This setting tests whether models can generalize to unseen attack scenarios using decision-relevant evidence rather than familiar scenario-specific cues. Using this SL-OOD evaluation, we find that high in-distribution performance does not reliably predict held-out robustness across feature-, encoder-, and decoder-based baselines. We interpret this gap as scenario memorization: reliance on recurring scenario-specific lexical or entity cues rather than decision-relevant evidence. We propose ECoG, an evidence-consistent generative framework that combines evidence-span supervision with a rationale-label consistency objective during training. On the 0.5B decoder, relative to the same backbone trained without consistency regularization, ECoG raises Macro-F1 on OOD challenging instances by 3.22 points, reduces the share of predictions whose generated rationale supports the opposite label by 4.22 points, and increases token-level overlap with reference evidence spans by 8.38 points; the reduction in prediction-rationale inconsistency is consistent across four decoder backbones. These results suggest that compact generative detectors can benefit from evidence supervision and rationale-label consistency under social-engineering shift.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues."
F1, F1 macro
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
Conventional in-distribution evaluation can overestimate robustness when training and test data share recurring task-specific patterns or surface cues.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
Detected: f1, f1 macro