MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979563069 · doi:10.3390/app9204221

AE-CGAN Model based High Performance Network Intrusion Detection System

2019· article· en· W2979563069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joohwa Lee, Keehyun Park

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoencoderComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceIntrusion detection systemRandom forestDeep learningMachine learningGenerative adversarial networkIntrusionPattern recognition (psychology)Data mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a high-performance network intrusion detection system based on deep learning is proposed for situations in which there are significant imbalances between normal and abnormal traffic. Based on the unsupervised learning models autoencoder (AE) and the generative adversarial networks (GAN) model during deep learning, the study aim is to solve the imbalance of data and intrusion detection of high performance. The AE-CGAN (autoencoder-conditional GAN) model is proposed to improve the performance of intrusion detection. This model oversamples rare classes based on the GAN model in order to solve the performance degradation caused by data imbalance after processing the characteristics of the data to a lower level using the autoencoder model. To measure the performance of the AE-CGAN model, data is classified using random forest (RF), a typical machine learning classification algorithm. In this experiment, we used the canadian institute for cybersecurity intrusion detection system (CICIDS)2017 dataset, the latest public dataset of network intrusion detection system (NIDS), and compared the three models to confirm efficacy of the proposed model. We compared the performance of three types of models. These included single-RF, a classification model using only a classification algorithm, AE-RF which is processed by classifying data features, and the AE-CGAN model which is classified after solving the data feature processing and data imbalance. Experimental results showed that the performance of the AE-CGAN model proposed in this paper was the highest. In particular, when the data were unbalanced, the performances of recall and F1 score, which are more accurate performance indicators, were 93.29% and 95.38%, respectively. The AE-CGAN model showed much better performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations69
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207