Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Evaluating Explanation Methods for Deep Learning in Security

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1906.02108 v4 pith:67MAYIR6 submitted 2019-06-05 cs.LG cs.CRstat.ML

classification cs.LGcs.CRstat.ML
keywords methodssecurityexplanationcomputerlearningcriteriadeepevaluating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Deep learning is increasingly used as a building block of security systems. Unfortunately, neural networks are hard to interpret and typically opaque to the practitioner. The machine learning community has started to address this problem by developing methods for explaining the predictions of neural networks. While several of these approaches have been successfully applied in the area of computer vision, their application in security has received little attention so far. It is an open question which explanation methods are appropriate for computer security and what requirements they need to satisfy. In this paper, we introduce criteria for comparing and evaluating explanation methods in the context of computer security. These cover general properties, such as the accuracy of explanations, as well as security-focused aspects, such as the completeness, efficiency, and robustness. Based on our criteria, we investigate six popular explanation methods and assess their utility in security systems for malware detection and vulnerability discovery. We observe significant differences between the methods and build on these to derive general recommendations for selecting and applying explanation methods in computer security.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Comparative Analysis of Black-Box and White-Box Machine Learning Model in Phishing Detection

    cs.CR 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    EBM and XGBoost achieve comparable phishing detection accuracy across 12 datasets, with EBM showing advantages in explanation stability, accuracy, and actionability based on qualitative SHAP analysis.

  2. XAI and Android Malware Models

    cs.CR 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    On KronoDroid Android malware classifiers, SHAP proves the most informative explainability tool, while LIME, ELI5, and Random Forest weights produce mutually inconsistent feature rankings.

Pith tools