MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2870865805

Security alert aggregation and visualisation

2018· article· en· W2870865805 on OpenAlexaff
Wajahath Nazal, Aishwarya Shivani R

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of advanced research in computer science and electronics engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationNetwork securityData miningData aggregatorCluster analysisAggregate (composite)Network monitoringSet (abstract data type)Computer securityComputer networkArtificial intelligenceWireless sensor network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the augmentation of attacks on computer networks, a need for monitoring the network traffic becomes obligatory. Network analyst recognizes the anomalies of network by analyzing alert messages and traffic data generated by these monitoring devices. The time taken to analyze and inspect overwhelming amount of security logs and events is exponential, that is where data aggregation comes into picture. On account of similarity of the security notification generated using K-means clustering-based algorithm, the data can be aggregated. An efficient technique for analyzing and examining network security could be executed through visualization. Furthermore, implementing network security visualization will significantly facilitate to detect, perceive and defend the network from being attacked by the anomalies. In this project, data visualization is achieved by the use of Matplotlib library. A colour coded bar graph obtained from Matplotlib will aid the network analysts in understanding and precisely tackle the events of network security. K-means aggregation technique is used in order to aggregate the data from a pre-determined data set which is then fed to software tool named Jupyter for visualization.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of advanced research in computer science and electronics engineeringSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207