MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining Permission Patterns in Android Apps using Kernel Density Estimation

2020· article· en· W3013943371 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2020 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermissionAndroid (operating system)Computer scienceKernel density estimationKernel (algebra)Operating systemStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective detection of malware apps requires thorough knowledge of behavioral and structural patterns of both benign and malware apps. In this paper, we focus on permissions which allow or restrict access to system services in Android mobile operating system. After a preliminary statistical analysis of different permissions classified into normal, dangerous, and signature ones, we apply Kernel Density Estimation, a nonparametric method for estimating probability distribution of data. Our analysis is based on the distinct permission patterns in both benign and malware apps from a research database containing nearly 120,000 sample apps. The research presented here is the necessary first step towards building a cost-effective malware app detector for the Android system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it