MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146450186 · doi:10.1109/dnsr.2004.1344727

On dataset biases in a learning system with minimum a priori information for intrusion detection

2004· article· en· W2146450186 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Güneş Kayacık, A. Nur Zincir‐Heywood, Malcolm I. Heywood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute for Materials ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemData miningA priori and a posterioriArtificial intelligenceMachine learningHierarchyQuality (philosophy)Feature selectionAnomaly-based intrusion detection system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical design decision in the construction of intrusion detection systems is often the selection of features describing the characteristics of the data being learnt. Selecting features often requires a priori or expert knowledge and may lead to the introduction of specific attack biases ntended or otherwise. To this end, summarized network connections from the DARPA 98 Lincoln Labs dataset are employed for training and testing a data driven learning architecture. The learning architecture is composed from a hierarchy of self-organizing feature maps. Such a scheme is entirely unsupervised, thus the quality of the intrusion detection system is directly influenced by the quality of the dataset. Dataset biases are investigated through three different dataset partitions: 10% KDD (default training dataset); normal connections alone; 50/50 mix of attack and normal. The three resulting intrusion detection systems appear to be competitive with the alternative cluster based data-mining approaches.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207