MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097536943 · doi:10.1109/aina.2009.10

Fuzzy ESVDF Approach for Intrusion Detection Systems

2009· article· en· W2097536943 on OpenAlexaff
Safaa Zaman, Fakhri Karray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrusion detection systemComputer scienceMachine learningFuzzy logicArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Data miningSelection (genetic algorithm)Set (abstract data type)Fuzzy set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs) deal with large amount of data containing irrelevant and redundant features, which leads to slow training and testing processes, heavy computational resources and low detection accuracy. Therefore, the features selection is an important issue in intrusion detection. Reducing the features set improves the system accuracy and speeds up the training and testing phases considerably. In this paper, we improve the Enhancing Support Vector Decision Function (ESVDF) approach by integrate it with a fuzzy inferencing model. The fuzzy inferencing model is used to accommodate the learning approximation and the small differences in the decision making steps of the ESVDF approach. It simplifies the design complexity and reduces the execution time of the ESVDF, which speeds up the features selection processing and facilitates any modification or changes in the features selection process that may happen later. In addition, it improves the overall performance of the ESVDF. We have examined the feasibility of our approach by conducting several experiments using the DARPA dataset. The experimental results indicate that the proposed algorithm can deliver a satisfactory performance in terms of classification accuracy, training and testing time.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207