Cybersecurity Automated Information Extraction Techniques: Drawbacks of Current Methods, and Enhanced Extractors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address a crucial element of applied information extraction—accurate identification of basic security entities in text-—by evaluating previous methods and presenting new labelers. Our survey reveals that the previous efforts have not been tested on documents similar to the targeted sources (news articles, blogs, tweets, etc.) and that no sufficiently large publicly available annotated corpus of these documents exists. By assembling a representative test corpus, we perform a quantitative evaluation of previous methods in a realistic setting, revealing an overall lack of recall, and giving insight to the models' beneficial and inhibiting elements. In particular, our results show that many previous efforts overfit to the non-representative test corpora in this domain. Informed by this evaluation, we present three novel cyber entity extractors, which seek to leverage the available labeled data but remain worthwhile on the more diverse documents encountered in the wild. Each new model increases the state of the art in recall, with maximal or near maximal F1 score. Our results establish that the state of the art in cyber entity tagging is characterized by F1 = 0.61.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it