Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Benchmarking Android Malware Detection: Traditional vs. Deep Learning Models

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 2502.15041 v2 pith:CPAFF47V submitted 2025-02-20 cs.CR

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

Android malware detection has been extensively studied using both traditional machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) approaches. While many state-of-the-art detection models, particularly those based on DL, claim superior performance, they often rely on limited comparisons, lacking comprehensive benchmarking against traditional ML models across diverse datasets. This raises concerns about the robustness of DL-based approaches' performance and the potential oversight of simpler, more efficient ML models. In this paper, we conduct a systematic evaluation of Android malware detection models across four datasets: three recently published, publicly available datasets and a large-scale dataset we systematically collected. We implement a range of traditional ML models, including Random Forests (RF) and CatBoost, alongside advanced DL models such as Capsule Graph Neural Networks (CapsGNN), BERT-based models, and ExcelFormer based models. Our results reveal that in many cases simpler and more computationally efficient ML models achieve comparable or even superior performance compared with DL models. These findings highlight the need for rigorous benchmarking in Android malware detection research. We encourage future studies to conduct more comprehensive benchmarking comparisons between traditional and advanced models to ensure a more accurate assessment of detection capabilities. To facilitate further research, we provide access to our dataset, including app IDs, hash values, and labels.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Comparison of Multiple Classifiers for Android Malware Detection with Emphasis on Feature Insights Using CICMalDroid 2020 Dataset

    cs.CR 2026-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    On CICMalDroid2020, gradient-boosted trees on 564 hybrid features reach about 97.5% accuracy, beating PCA/LDA variants, but the top drivers are spoofable package-name and manifest metadata.

Pith tools