Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for PDF Malware Detection: Evaluating Different Training and Testing Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of maliciously coded documents as file transfers increase has led to a rise in sophisticated attacks. Portable Document Format (PDF) files have emerged as a major attack vector for malware due to their adaptability and wide usage. Detecting malware in PDF files is challenging due to its ability to include various harmful elements such as embedded scripts, exploits, and malicious URLs. This paper presents a comparative analysis of machine learning (ML) techniques, including Naive Bayes (NB), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Average One Dependency Estimator (A1DE), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) for PDF malware detection. The study utilizes a dataset obtained from the Canadian Institute for Cyber-security and employs different testing criteria, namely percentage splitting and 10-fold cross-validation. The performance of the techniques is evaluated using F1-score, precision, recall, and accuracy measures. The results indicate that KNN outperforms other models, achieving an accuracy of 99.8599% using 10-fold cross-validation. The findings highlight the effectiveness of ML models in accurately detecting PDF malware and provide insights for developing robust systems to protect against malicious activities.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".