Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Explainable AI for Android Malware Detection: Towards Understanding Why the Models Perform So Well?

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 2209.00812 v1 pith:ZR3QU2AW submitted 2022-09-02 cs.CR cs.SE

classification cs.CRcs.SE
keywords detectionmalwaremodelsperformanceunrealisticaccuracyexperimentalresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Machine learning (ML)-based Android malware detection has been one of the most popular research topics in the mobile security community. An increasing number of research studies have demonstrated that machine learning is an effective and promising approach for malware detection, and some works have even claimed that their proposed models could achieve 99\% detection accuracy, leaving little room for further improvement. However, numerous prior studies have suggested that unrealistic experimental designs bring substantial biases, resulting in over-optimistic performance in malware detection. Unlike previous research that examined the detection performance of ML classifiers to locate the causes, this study employs Explainable AI (XAI) approaches to explore what ML-based models learned during the training process, inspecting and interpreting why ML-based malware classifiers perform so well under unrealistic experimental settings. We discover that temporal sample inconsistency in the training dataset brings over-optimistic classification performance (up to 99\% F1 score and accuracy). Importantly, our results indicate that ML models classify malware based on temporal differences between malware and benign, rather than the actual malicious behaviors. Our evaluation also confirms the fact that unrealistic experimental designs lead to not only unrealistic detection performance but also poor reliability, posing a significant obstacle to real-world applications. These findings suggest that XAI approaches should be used to help practitioners/researchers better understand how do AI/ML models (i.e., malware detection) work -- not just focusing on accuracy improvement.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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