Machine learning-based recommendation trust model for machine-to-machine communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Machine Type Communication Devices (MTCDs) are usually based on Internet Protocol (IP), which can cause billions of connected objects to be part of the Internet. The enormous amount of data coming from these devices are quite heterogeneous in nature, which can lead to security issues, such as injection attacks, ballot stuffing, and bad mouthing. Consequently, this work considers machine learning trust evaluation as an effective and accurate option for solving the issues associate with security threats. In this paper, a comparative analysis is carried out with five different machine learning approaches: Naive Bayes (NB), Decision Tree (DT), Linear and Radial Support Vector Machine (SVM), KNearest Neighbor (KNN), and Random Forest (RF). As a critical element of the research, the recommendations consider different Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication nodes with regard to their ability to identify malicious and honest information. To validate the performances of these models, two trust computation measures were used: Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROCs), Precision and Recall. The malicious data was formulated in Matlab. A scenario was created where 50% of the information were modified to be malicious. The malicious nodes were varied in the ranges of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and the results were carefully analyzed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".