A Comprehensive Analysis of Explainable AI for Malware Hunting
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decade, the number of malware variants has increased rapidly. Many researchers have proposed to detect malware using intelligent techniques, such as Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), which have high accuracy and precision. These methods, however, suffer from being opaque in the decision-making process. Therefore, we need Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based models to be explainable, interpretable, and transparent to be reliable and trustworthy. In this survey, we reviewed articles related to Explainable AI (XAI) and their application to the significant scope of malware detection. The article encompasses a comprehensive examination of various XAI algorithms employed in malware analysis. Moreover, we have addressed the characteristics, challenges, and requirements in malware analysis that cannot be accommodated by standard XAI methods. We discussed that even though Explainable Malware Detection (EMD) models provide explainability, they make an AI-based model more vulnerable to adversarial attacks. We also propose a framework that assigns a level of explainability to each XAI malware analysis model, based on the security features involved in each method. In summary, the proposed project focuses on combining XAI and malware analysis to apply XAI models for scrutinizing the opaque nature of AI systems and their applications to malware analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it