arXiv: Why Is SHAP Not a Reliable Standalone Explanation Framework for Malware Detection?

A new academic paper, published on arXiv in September 2026, challenges the reliability of SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) as a standalone tool for explaining malware detection decisions. The research demonstrates that SHAP values, while popular for model interpretability, can produce misleading or unstable feature attributions when applied to adversarial or obfuscated malware samples. This is a significant finding because many organizations rely on SHAP to justify automated security decisions under emerging AI governance frameworks, particularly those requiring transparency and explainability for high-risk AI systems.

The primary audience affected includes cybersecurity vendors, financial institutions, and any regulated entity deploying AI-based malware detection under the EU AI Act or similar frameworks. Compliance teams that currently use SHAP to document model behavior for audit trails or to satisfy "right to explanation" obligations should treat these findings as a warning. The paper suggests that SHAP alone may not meet the robustness and accuracy standards expected for high-risk AI, potentially exposing organizations to compliance gaps if their explanations are later found to be unreliable.

Compliance teams should immediately review their AI explainability documentation to identify where SHAP is used as the sole justification for malware detection outcomes. They should plan to supplement SHAP with alternative explanation methods, such as LIME, counterfactual explanations, or feature ablation studies, and validate explanations against adversarial test cases. Additionally, they should update their risk assessments and internal policies to reflect that SHAP is a supporting tool, not a definitive proof of model reasoning, and monitor future regulatory guidance on explainability standards for security applications.