mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

TESSERACT: Eliminating Experimental Bias in Malware Classification across Space and Time (Extended Version)

arXiv 2402.01359 ↗First posted 2 Feb 2024cs.LG cs.CR cs.PFcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine learning (ML) plays a pivotal role in detecting malicious software. Despite the high F1-scores reported in numerous studies reaching upwards of 0.99, the issue is not completely solved. Malware detectors often experience performance decay due to constantly evolving operating systems and attack methods, which can render previously learned knowledge insufficient for accurate decision-making on new inputs. This paper argues that commonly reported results are inflated due to two pervasive sources of experimental bias in the detection task: spatial bias caused by data distributions that are not representative of a real-world deployment; and temporal bias caused by incorrect time splits of data, leading to unrealistic configurations. To address these biases, we introduce a set of constraints for fair experiment design, and propose a new metric, AUT, for classifier robustness in real-world settings. We additionally propose an algorithm designed to tune training data to enhance classifier performance. Finally, we present TESSERACT, an open-source framework for realistic classifier comparison. Our evaluation encompasses both traditional ML and deep learning methods, examining published works on an extensive Android dataset with 259,230 samples over a five-year span. Additionally, we conduct case studies in the Windows PE and PDF domains. Our findings identify the existence of biases in previous studies and reveal that significant performance enhancements are possible through appropriate, periodic tuning. We explore how mitigation strategies may support in achieving a more stable and better performance over time by employing multiple strategies to delay performance decay.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 78 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2024.

Builds on

12 of 78 references.

References · 12

  1. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  2. 2017Wild Patterns: Ten Years After the Rise of Adversarial Machine Learningcited by 411
  3. 2018EMBER: An Open Dataset for Training Static PE Malware Machine Learning Modelscited by 164
  4. 2018TESSERACT: Eliminating Experimental Bias in Malware Classification across Space and Timecited by 108
  5. 2020Dos and Don'ts of Machine Learning in Computer Securitycited by 98
  6. 2020Transcending Transcend: Revisiting Malware Classification in the Presence of Concept Driftcited by 53
  7. 2017Yes, Machine Learning Can Be More Secure! A Case Study on Android Malware Detectioncited by 51
  8. 2023Continuous Learning for Android Malware Detectioncited by 33
  9. 2016MaMaDroid: Detecting Android Malware by Building Markov Chains of Behavioral Modelscited by 29
  10. 2015Reviewer Integration and Performance Measurement for Malware Detectioncited by 19
  11. 2021Adversarial Attacks against Windows PE Malware Detection: A Survey of the State-of-the-Artcited by 18
  12. 2018Benchmarking Crimes: An Emerging Threat in Systems Securitycited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 5.

9 papers.