Can we trust your explanations? Sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis

With the rapid growth of Android malware, many machine learning-based malware analysis approaches are proposed to mitigate the severe phenomenon. However, such classifiers are opaque, non-intuitive, and difficult for analysts to understand the inner decision reason. For this reason, a variety of exp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: FAN, Min, WEI, Wenying, XIE, Xiaofei, LIU, Yang, GUAN, Xiaohong, LIU, Ting
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/7101
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/8104/viewcontent/2008.05895.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sis_research-8104
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sis_research-81042024-02-28T00:35:58Z Can we trust your explanations? Sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis FAN, Min WEI, Wenying XIE, Xiaofei LIU, Yang GUAN, Xiaohong LIU, Ting With the rapid growth of Android malware, many machine learning-based malware analysis approaches are proposed to mitigate the severe phenomenon. However, such classifiers are opaque, non-intuitive, and difficult for analysts to understand the inner decision reason. For this reason, a variety of explanation approaches are proposed to interpret predictions by providing important features. Unfortunately, the explanation results obtained in the malware analysis domain cannot achieve a consensus in general, which makes the analysts confused about whether they can trust such results. In this work, we propose principled guidelines to assess the quality of five explanation approaches by designing three critical quantitative metrics to measure their stability, robustness, and effectiveness. Furthermore, we collect five widely-used malware datasets and apply the explanation approaches on them in two tasks, including malware detection and familial identification. Based on the generated explanation results, we conduct a sanity check of such explanation approaches in terms of the three metrics. The results demonstrate that our metrics can assess the explanation approaches and help us obtain the knowledge of most typical malicious behaviors for malware analysis. 2021-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/7101 info:doi/10.1109/TIFS.2020.3021924 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/8104/viewcontent/2008.05895.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School Of Computing and Information Systems eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Android malware Explanation approaches Stability Robustness Effectiveness Information Security Software Engineering
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Android malware
Explanation approaches
Stability
Robustness
Effectiveness
Information Security
Software Engineering
spellingShingle Android malware
Explanation approaches
Stability
Robustness
Effectiveness
Information Security
Software Engineering
FAN, Min
WEI, Wenying
XIE, Xiaofei
LIU, Yang
GUAN, Xiaohong
LIU, Ting
Can we trust your explanations? Sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis
description With the rapid growth of Android malware, many machine learning-based malware analysis approaches are proposed to mitigate the severe phenomenon. However, such classifiers are opaque, non-intuitive, and difficult for analysts to understand the inner decision reason. For this reason, a variety of explanation approaches are proposed to interpret predictions by providing important features. Unfortunately, the explanation results obtained in the malware analysis domain cannot achieve a consensus in general, which makes the analysts confused about whether they can trust such results. In this work, we propose principled guidelines to assess the quality of five explanation approaches by designing three critical quantitative metrics to measure their stability, robustness, and effectiveness. Furthermore, we collect five widely-used malware datasets and apply the explanation approaches on them in two tasks, including malware detection and familial identification. Based on the generated explanation results, we conduct a sanity check of such explanation approaches in terms of the three metrics. The results demonstrate that our metrics can assess the explanation approaches and help us obtain the knowledge of most typical malicious behaviors for malware analysis.
format text
author FAN, Min
WEI, Wenying
XIE, Xiaofei
LIU, Yang
GUAN, Xiaohong
LIU, Ting
author_facet FAN, Min
WEI, Wenying
XIE, Xiaofei
LIU, Yang
GUAN, Xiaohong
LIU, Ting
author_sort FAN, Min
title Can we trust your explanations? Sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis
title_short Can we trust your explanations? Sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis
title_full Can we trust your explanations? Sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis
title_fullStr Can we trust your explanations? Sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis
title_full_unstemmed Can we trust your explanations? Sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis
title_sort can we trust your explanations? sanity checks for interpreters in android malware analysis
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2021
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/7101
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/8104/viewcontent/2008.05895.pdf
_version_ 1794549716812300288