MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976918864 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12627

Synthetic Data Generator for User Behavioral Analytics Systems

2018· dissertation· en· W2976918864 on OpenAlexaff
Asad Narayanan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGenerator (circuit theory)Synthetic dataAnalyticsData analysisData miningProcess (computing)Behavioral patternData scienceArtificial intelligencePower (physics)Software engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the User Behavioral Analytics (UBA) applications rely on the distributions and baselines of individual users and are sensitive to the changes in these patterns. These applications identify anomalies and threats by observing the deviation of user behavior from their baselines. Development and testing of these applications depend heavily on synthetic data as the availability of the real data is scarce in most of the cases. Synthetic data generated has to follow these patterns, or else it could result in noisy results. Through this work, we present a synthetic data generation technique, which could be utilized by UBA applications for their development and testing. The proposed system for data generation extracts the distribution of attributes, considering the dependencies between these attributes provided by the user. The extracted patterns are stored and can be used any number of time to generate synthetic data. Additionally, we also generate synthetic users, whose behaviors and baselines are similar to that of real users. The scalable system developed will help the development of UBA applications, especially during performance testing. The experiments conducted showed that the synthetic data captured the required patterns and relations from the real data. The experiments also showed that the process of data generation we follow can be scaled up linearly to the available number of processors.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreMethods

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 topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207