Comparison of Data Mining Algorithm: PSO-KNN, PSO-RF, and PSO-DT to Measure Attack Detection Accuracy Levels on Intrusion Detection System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nowadays, computer networks are widely used to exchange valuable and confidential data information between servers to computers or cellular devices. Access to user control and use of software or hardware as a firewall often experience security problems. Unauthorized access to information through computer networks continues to occur and tends to increase. This study examines the attack detection mechanism by using three data mining algorithms based on particle swarm optimization (PSO), namely PSO-K Nearest Neighbor, PSO-Random Forest, and PSO-Decision Tree in the Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity Dataset (CICIDS2017). The initial experiment showed that the approach using the PSO-RF method was able to produce the highest accuracy of attack detection. Accuracy values generated using the PSO-RF algorithm with a combination of the number of trees and maximal depth = 20 in the CICIDS2017 dataset are intact higher than other proposed algorithms. The highest accuracy of attack detection in the CICIDS2017 dataset is intact, which is 99.76%. In the CICIDS2017 dataset 50% Benign and 50% Attack it turns out that the PSO-RF algorithm with a combination of the number of trees and maximal depth = 20 also gets the highest accuracy value of 99.67%.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".