Routing-Aware Explanations for Mixture of Experts Graph Models in Malware Detection
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) offers flexible graph reasoning by combining multiple views of a graph through a learned router. We investigate routing-aware explanations for MoE graph models in malware detection using control flow graphs (CFGs). Our architecture builds diversity at two levels. At the node level, each layer computes multiple neighborhood statistics and fuses them with an MLP, guided by a degree reweighting factor rho and a pooling choice lambda in {mean, std, max}, producing distinct node representations that capture complementary structural cues in CFGs. At the readout level, six experts, each tied to a specific (rho, lambda) view, output graph-level logits that the router weights into a final prediction. Post-hoc explanations are generated with edge-level attributions per expert and aggregated using the router gates so the rationale reflects both what each expert highlights and how strongly it is selected. Evaluated against single-expert GNN baselines such as GCN, GIN, and GAT on the same CFG dataset, the proposed MoE achieves strong detection accuracy while yielding stable, faithful attributions under sparsity-based perturbations. The results indicate that making the router explicit and combining multi-statistic node encoding with expert-level diversity can improve the transparency of MoE decisions for malware analysis.
Results and benchmarks
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) offers flexible graph reasoning by combining multiple views of a graph through a learned router.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mixture Experts Graph Models Malware Detection | GCN backbone | Malicious | 84.75 | paper-derived |
| Mixture Experts Graph Models Malware Detection | 90.53 | Malicious | 89.58 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Detection, Mixture Experts Graph Models Malware Detection
Methods
None detected
Domains
None detected
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.