MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893123663 · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2872784

Data Mining Techniques in Intrusion Detection Systems: A Systematic Literature Review

2018· article· en· W2893123663 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

VenueIEEE Access · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemData miningScalabilityCategorizationBig dataData scienceSystematic reviewStrengths and weaknessesIntrusionArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continued ability to detect malicious network intrusions has become an exercise in scalability, in which data mining techniques are playing an increasingly important role. We survey and categorize the fields of data mining and intrusion detection systems, providing a systematic treatment of methodologies and techniques. We apply a criterion-based approach to select 95 relevant articles from 2007 to 2017. We identified 19 separate data mining techniques used for intrusion detection, and our analysis encompasses rich information for future research based on the strengths and weaknesses of these techniques. Furthermore, we observed a research gap in establishing the effectiveness of classifiers to identify intrusions in modern network traffic when trained with aging data sets. Our review points to the need for more empirical experiments addressing real-time solutions for big data against contemporary attacks.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.281 · 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