MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597441556 · doi:10.1109/icissec.2016.7885840

An Evaluation Framework for Intrusion Detection Dataset

2016· article· en· W2597441556 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemBenchmark (surveying)Variety (cybernetics)The InternetData miningNetwork securityIntrusion prevention systemComputer securityMachine learningArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing number of security threats on the Internet and computer networks demands highly reliable security solutions. Meanwhile, Intrusion Detection (IDSs) and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPSs) have an important role in the design and development of a robust network infrastructure that can defend computer networks by detecting and blocking a variety of attacks. Reliable benchmark datasets are critical to test and evaluate the performance of a detection system. There exist a number of such datasets, for example, DARPA98, KDD99, ISC2012, and ADFA13 that have been used by the researchers to evaluate the performance of their intrusion detection and prevention approaches. However, not enough research has focused on the evaluation and assessment of the datasets themselves. In this paper we present a comprehensive evaluation of the existing datasets using our proposed criteria, and propose an evaluation framework for IDS and IPS datasets.

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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Quick stats

Citations210
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207