xai-whitebox-eval
A Comparative Analysis of DNN-based White-Box Explainable AI Methods in Network Security — Arreche et al. (2025) (arXiv:2501.07801, 2025)
What this evaluates
Evaluates the reliability and operational suitability of white-box explainable AI methods (DeepLift, Integrated Gradients, LRP) when applied to deep neural network-based intrusion detection systems. It probes how well these methods preserve model accuracy, maintain consistency under repeated runs, resist adversarial noise, and compute efficiently across real-world network traffic datasets.
Datasets
- NSL-KDD — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)
- RoEduNet-SIMARGL2021 — total ?; splits: (unstated)
- CICIDS-2017 — total ?; splits: (unstated)
Metrics
descriptive accuracy (primary) — range: [0, 1]
- Measures the drop in model classification accuracy as the top-k most important features are iteratively removed from the input. Evaluated at k=0, 10, 20, 40, 80.
sparsity — range: [0, 1]
- Quantifies how concentrated the feature importance scores are, indicating whether the explanation relies on a small subset of features.
stability — range: [0, 1]
- Calculates the overlap ratio of the top-ranked features when explanations are generated multiple times (3 runs in this study). Top 5 or 20 features considered depending on dataset dimensionality.
robustness — range: [0, 1]
- Assesses the consistency of feature importance scores when the input sample is subjected to adversarial noise or perturbation.
efficiency — range: other
- Measures the wall-clock computational time required to generate explanations across varying sample sizes.
completeness — range: [0, 1]
- Verifies if perturbing the most important features causes the model's prediction to change, confirming the explanation aligns with model behavior.
Input / output format
Input: Tabular network traffic flow features (e.g., packet counts, durations, protocol flags) representing normal and malicious traffic instances.
Output: Ranked list of input features with corresponding importance/relevance scores (global explanations) or per-instance feature attributions (local explanations).
Scoring recipe
def evaluate_xai(model, xai_method, X, y):
scores = xai_method.explain(X)
# Descriptive Accuracy
acc = [accuracy(model, mask_top_k(X, scores, k)) for k in [0,10,20,40,80]]
# Stability
top_feats = [get_top_k(scores, k=20) for _ in range(3)]
stability = set_intersection(top_feats)
# Robustness
robust = [similarity(xai_method.explain(x), xai_method.explain(perturb(x))) for x in X]
# Efficiency
eff = measure_time(xai_method.explain, X)
# Completeness
complete = any(model.predict(x) != model.predict(perturb_top(x, scores, k=2)) for x in X)
return acc, sparsity(scores), stability, robust, eff, complete
Common pitfalls
- Assuming white-box XAI methods are inherently complete without empirical verification via feature perturbation.
- Using a fixed top-k feature removal count across datasets with vastly different feature dimensions without normalization.
- Evaluating stability based on a single explanation run rather than multiple independent generations to capture variance.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
For the descriptive accuracy experiment, we removed the top-k features at each iteration. For Stability, the explanations are generated as well, but it is generated a p number of times, three times for this paper’s experiments for stability, and then we evaluated how many of the top features overlap. Robustness is examined under a modified version of [[26]] to run with DNN, and it is done locally to evaluate the resistance of the XAI technique when facing a perturbation attack many times. Completeness deals with perturbing only the top two features in small increments to check if the explanation can be changed.
Citation
@misc{arreche2025xaiwhitebox,
title={A Comparative Analysis of DNN-based White-Box Explainable AI Methods in Network Security},
author={Arreche et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2501.07801}
}
1---2name: xai-whitebox-eval3description: Evaluates the reliability and operational suitability of white-box explainable AI methods (DeepLift, Integrated Gradients, LRP) when applied to deep neural network-based intrusion detection systems. It probes how well these methods preserve model accuracy, maintain consistency under repeated runs, resist adversarial noise, and compute efficiently across real-world network traffic datasets. Use when the user wants to benchmark on NSL-KDD, RoEduNet-SIMARGL2021, CICIDS-2017, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports descriptive accuracy.4---56# xai-whitebox-eval78> A Comparative Analysis of DNN-based White-Box Explainable AI Methods in Network Security — Arreche et al. (2025) (arXiv:2501.07801, 2025)910## What this evaluates1112Evaluates the reliability and operational suitability of white-box explainable AI methods (DeepLift, Integrated Gradients, LRP) when applied to deep neural network-based intrusion detection systems. It probes how well these methods preserve model accuracy, maintain consistency under repeated runs, resist adversarial noise, and compute efficiently across real-world network traffic datasets.1314## Datasets1516- **NSL-KDD** — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)17- **RoEduNet-SIMARGL2021** — total ?; splits: (unstated)18- **CICIDS-2017** — total ?; splits: (unstated)1920## Metrics2122- `descriptive accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]23 - Measures the drop in model classification accuracy as the top-k most important features are iteratively removed from the input. Evaluated at k=0, 10, 20, 40, 80.24- `sparsity` — range: [0, 1]25 - Quantifies how concentrated the feature importance scores are, indicating whether the explanation relies on a small subset of features.26- `stability` — range: [0, 1]27 - Calculates the overlap ratio of the top-ranked features when explanations are generated multiple times (3 runs in this study). Top 5 or 20 features considered depending on dataset dimensionality.28- `robustness` — range: [0, 1]29 - Assesses the consistency of feature importance scores when the input sample is subjected to adversarial noise or perturbation.30- `efficiency` — range: other31 - Measures the wall-clock computational time required to generate explanations across varying sample sizes.32- `completeness` — range: [0, 1]33 - Verifies if perturbing the most important features causes the model's prediction to change, confirming the explanation aligns with model behavior.3435## Input / output format3637**Input**: Tabular network traffic flow features (e.g., packet counts, durations, protocol flags) representing normal and malicious traffic instances.3839**Output**: Ranked list of input features with corresponding importance/relevance scores (global explanations) or per-instance feature attributions (local explanations).4041## Scoring recipe4243```python44def evaluate_xai(model, xai_method, X, y):45 scores = xai_method.explain(X)46 # Descriptive Accuracy47 acc = [accuracy(model, mask_top_k(X, scores, k)) for k in [0,10,20,40,80]]48 # Stability49 top_feats = [get_top_k(scores, k=20) for _ in range(3)]50 stability = set_intersection(top_feats)51 # Robustness52 robust = [similarity(xai_method.explain(x), xai_method.explain(perturb(x))) for x in X]53 # Efficiency54 eff = measure_time(xai_method.explain, X)55 # Completeness56 complete = any(model.predict(x) != model.predict(perturb_top(x, scores, k=2)) for x in X)57 return acc, sparsity(scores), stability, robust, eff, complete58```5960## Common pitfalls6162- Assuming white-box XAI methods are inherently complete without empirical verification via feature perturbation.63- Using a fixed top-k feature removal count across datasets with vastly different feature dimensions without normalization.64- Evaluating stability based on a single explanation run rather than multiple independent generations to capture variance.6566## Evidence (verbatim from paper)6768> For the descriptive accuracy experiment, we removed the top-k features at each iteration. For Stability, the explanations are generated as well, but it is generated a p number of times, three times for this paper’s experiments for stability, and then we evaluated how many of the top features overlap. Robustness is examined under a modified version of [[26]] to run with DNN, and it is done locally to evaluate the resistance of the XAI technique when facing a perturbation attack many times. Completeness deals with perturbing only the top two features in small increments to check if the explanation can be changed.6970## Citation7172```bibtex73@misc{arreche2025xaiwhitebox,74 title={A Comparative Analysis of DNN-based White-Box Explainable AI Methods in Network Security},75 author={Arreche et al. (2025)},76 year={2025},77 note={arXiv:2501.07801}78}79```8081- arXiv: 2501.07801