# Counteracting Concept Drift by Learning with Future Malware Predictions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.09352 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.09352/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Apr 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6572/) (2014)
- [Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06083/) (2017)
- [Generative Adversarial Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.00667/) (2022)
- [mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.09412/) (2017)
- [Intriguing properties of neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6199/) (2013)
- [Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.10196/) (2017)
- [CutMix: Regularization Strategy to Train Strong Classifiers with Localizable Features](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.04899/) (2019)
- [Conditional Generative Adversarial Nets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1411.1784/) (2014)
- [The Many Faces of Robustness: A Critical Analysis of Out-of-Distribution Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.16241/) (2020)
- [Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.08573/) (2019)
- [DeepFool: a simple and accurate method to fool deep neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.04599/) (2015)
- [Generalized Out-of-Distribution Detection: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.11334/) (2021)
- [Deep Neural Networks are Easily Fooled: High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.1897/) (2014)
- [Generalizing to Unseen Domains: A Survey on Domain Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03097/) (2021)
- [Domain Generalization: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.02503/) (2021)
- [Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.03994/) (2020)
- [Generative Adversarial Networks: An Overview](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.07035/) (2017)
- [Towards Out-Of-Distribution Generalization: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.13624/) (2021)
- [EMBER: An Open Dataset for Training Static PE Malware Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.04637/) (2018)
- [Adv-BERT: BERT is not robust on misspellings! Generating nature adversarial samples on BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.04985/) (2020)
- [Towards Crafting Text Adversarial Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.02812/) (2017)
- [Frustratingly Simple Domain Generalization via Image Stylization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.11207/) (2020)
- [Improving Robustness of ML Classifiers against Realizable Evasion Attacks Using Conserved Features](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.08327/) (2017)
- [The MalSource Dataset: Quantifying Complexity and Code Reuse in Malware Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.06888/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Detecting Concept Drift in Evolving Malware Families Using Rule-Based Classifier Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22629/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The accuracy of deployed malware-detection classifiers degrades over time due to changes in data distributions and increasing discrepancies between training and testing data. This phenomenon is known as the concept drift. While the concept drift can be caused by various reasons in general, new malicious files are created by malware authors with a clear intention of avoiding detection. The existence of the intention opens a possibility for predicting such future samples. Including predicted samples in training data should consequently increase the accuracy of the classifiers on new testing data. We compare two methods for predicting future samples: (1) adversarial training and (2) generative adversarial networks (GANs). The first method explicitly seeks for adversarial examples against the classifier that are then used as a part of training data. Similarly, GANs also generate synthetic training data. We use GANs to learn changes in data distributions within different time periods of training data and then apply these changes to generate samples that could be in testing data. We compare these prediction methods on two different datasets: (1) Ember public dataset and (2) the internal dataset of files incoming to Avast. We show that while adversarial training yields more robust classifiers, this method is not a good predictor of future malware in general. This is in contrast with previously reported positive results in different domains (including natural language processing and spam detection). On the other hand, we show that GANs can be successfully used as predictors of future malware. We specifically examine malware families that exhibit significant changes in their data distributions over time and the experimental results confirm that GAN-based predictions can significantly improve the accuracy of the classifier on new, previously unseen data.