MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955694650 · doi:10.18280/rces.060105

Study of Two Kinds of Analysis Methods of Intrusion Tolerance System State Transition Model

2019· article· en· W2955694650 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Computer Engineering Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion toleranceState (computer science)IntrusionIntrusion detection systemAutomatonCellular automatonNetwork securityMarkov chainDistributed computingComputer securityTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithmGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existing network security technologies cannot prevent all of intrusion, so the purpose of this study is to ensure that the system can continue to operate normally after the invasion. On the basis of existing intrusion tolerance model, increased to learning Status, the optimal state transition model of the invasion-tolerant system is proposed and analyzed respectively with the theory of finite automata and markov theory, further establish intrusion tolerance system. The experimental results show that increasing the learning state can enhance the tolerance of the system and ensure the stable operation of the system. The significance of this study is to provide a new idea for intrusion tolerance technologies.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · 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