Investigating Resistance of Deep Learning-based IDS against Adversaries using min-max Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growth of adversarial attacks against machine learning models, several concerns have emerged about potential vulnerabilities in designing deep neural network-based intrusion detection systems (IDS). In this paper, we study the resilience of deep learning-based intrusion detection systems against adversarial attacks. We apply the min-max (or saddle-point) approach to train intrusion detection systems against adversarial attack samples in UNSW-NB 15 dataset. We have the max approach for generating adversarial samples that achieves maximum loss and attack deep neural networks. On the other side, we utilize the existing min approach [1] [2] as a defense strategy to optimize intrusion detection systems that minimize the loss of the incorporated adversarial samples during the adversarial training. We study and measure the effectiveness of the adversarial attack methods as well as the resistance of the adversarially trained models against such attacks. We find that the adversarial attack methods that were designed in binary domains can be used in continuous domains and exhibit different misclassification levels. We finally show that principal component analysis (PCA) based feature reduction can boost the robustness in intrusion detection system (IDS) using a deep neural network (DNN).
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".