Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Bang Wu 0003
dblp:220/9034-3
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0003-0575-037XORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% | |
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Malware analysis · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Comprehensive Study of Learning-based Android Malware Detectors under Challenging Environments · ICSE 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness › distribution shift
robustness to distribution shift |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Comprehensive Study of Learning-based Android Malware Detectors under Challenging Environments · ICSE 2024 |
Malware analysis › mobile malware detection
android malware detection |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Comprehensive Study of Learning-based Android Malware Detectors under Challenging Environments · ICSE 2024 |
Malware analysis › malware detection
machine-learning-based malware detection |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | A Comprehensive Study of Learning-based Android Malware Detectors under Challenging Environments · ICSE 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
code obfuscation · 1.5adversarial examples · 1.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | A Comprehensive Study of Learning-based Android Malware Detectors under Challenging EnvironmentsabstractRecent years have witnessed the proliferation of learning-based Android malware detectors. These detectors can be categorized into three types, String-based, Image-based and Graph-based. Most of them have achieved good detection performance under the ideal setting. In reality, however, detectors often face out-of-distribution samples due to the factors such as code obfuscation, concept drift (e.g., software development technique evolution and new malware category emergence), and adversarial examples (AEs). This problem has attracted increasing attention, but there is a lack of comparative studies that evaluate the existing various types of detectors under these challenging environments. In order to fill this gap, we select 12 representative detectors from three types of detectors, and evaluate them in the challenging scenarios involving code obfuscation, concept drift and AEs, respectively. Experimental results reveal that none of the evaluated detectors can maintain their ideal-setting detection performance, and the performance of different types of detectors varies significantly under various challenging environments. We identify several factors contributing to the performance deterioration of detectors, including the limitations of feature extraction methods and learning models. We also analyze the reasons why the detectors of different types show significant performance differences when facing code obfuscation, concept drift and AEs. Finally, we provide practical suggestions from the perspectives of users and researchers, respectively. We hope our work can help understand the detectors of different types, and provide guidance for enhancing their performance and robustness. Cuiying Gao, Gaozhun Huang, Heng Li 0008, Bang Wu 0003, Yueming Wu 0001, Wei Yuan 0001 |
ICSE | 4 |