Collaborative Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Security is oftentimes centrally managed. An alternative trend of using collaboration in order to improve security has gained momentum over the past few years. Collaborative security is an abstract concept that applies to a wide variety of systems and has been used to solve security issues inherent in distributed environments. Thus far, collaboration has been used in many domains such as intrusion detection, spam filtering, botnet resistance, and vulnerability detection. In this survey, we focus on different mechanisms of collaboration and defense in collaborative security. We systematically investigate numerous use cases of collaborative security by covering six types of security systems. Aspects of these systems are thoroughly studied, including their technologies, standards, frameworks, strengths and weaknesses. We then present a comprehensive study with respect to their analysis target, timeliness of analysis, architecture, network infrastructure, initiative, shared information and interoperability. We highlight five important topics in collaborative security, and identify challenges and possible directions for future research. Our work contributes the following to the existing research on collaborative security with the goal of helping to make collaborative security systems more resilient and efficient. This study (1) clarifies the scope of collaborative security, (2) identifies the essential components of collaborative security, (3) analyzes the multiple mechanisms of collaborative security, and (4) identifies challenges in the design of collaborative security.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".