Why Is SHAP Not a Reliable Standalone Explanation Framework for Malware Detection?
arXiv paper shows SHAP gives unreliable standalone explanations for malware detection, with attribution dilution and sign reversal in dependent PE feature spaces.
The paper argues SHAP's formal guarantees are insufficient for reliable malware interpretation because the explained feature-coalition game is fixed only by analyst choices, not by malware behavior in the data. In static Portable Executable feature spaces, dependent feature groups cause conditional SHAP to dilute credit by a factor of 1/m across redundant features, attribute importance to features the model never uses, and even reverse attribution signs; interventional SHAP queries off-manifold coalitions no real executable exhibits. Experiments on EMBER-2018, EMBER-2024, and BODMAS with fixed LightGBM and XGBoost detectors confirm these effects. The authors position SHAP as a limited diagnostic requiring explicit data-distribution statements and domain validation, not a standalone explanation framework.
- Conditional SHAP dilutes credit 1/m across redundant dependent features
- Interventional SHAP queries off-manifold coalitions no real executable exhibits
- Validated on EMBER-2018, EMBER-2024, BODMAS with LightGBM and XGBoost
- Authors recommend SHAP only as a diagnostic with domain validation
Full article234 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse
Machine learning is widely used for malware detection, but its decisions must be explained. An analyst needs to know whether a model has learned genuine malicious behavior or only dataset-specific patterns \cite{gaur2021semantics}. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) is the standard tool for this, backed by formal properties such as local accuracy, missingness, and consistency. We argue that these guarantees are insufficient for reliable malware interpretation. We claim SHAP explains a chosen feature-coalition game, not malware behavior in the data. That game is fixed only after the analyst selects the feature players, the missing feature rule, the background distribution, and the simplified input mapping. In static Portable Executable feature spaces, groups such as byte histograms, byte-entropy, strings, headers, sections, imports, and data-directories are not independent signals but are jointly shaped by file structure, packing, compiler behavior, and family conventions. We prove that this dependence makes conditional SHAP dilute a model's feature credit by a factor of $1/m$ across $m-1$ redundant features, attributes importance to features the model never uses, and even reverses the sign of an unused feature's attribution when the data distribution changes; interventional SHAP, meanwhile, queries off-manifold coalitions that no real executable would exhibit. Experiments on EMBER-2018, EMBER-2024, and BODMAS with fixed LightGBM and XGBoost detectors confirm these effects. We therefore position SHAP as a limited diagnostic that requires an explicitly stated data distribution and domain validation, not a standalone account of malware behavior.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04626