A Comparative Study of AI-Based Intrusion Detection Techniques in Critical Infrastructures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volunteer computing uses Internet-connected devices (laptops, PCs, smart devices, etc.), in which their owners volunteer them as storage and computing power resources, has become an essential mechanism for resource management in numerous applications. The growth of the volume and variety of data traffic on the Internet leads to concerns on the robustness of cyberphysical systems especially for critical infrastructures. Therefore, the implementation of an efficient Intrusion Detection System for gathering such sensory data has gained vital importance. In this article, we present a comparative study of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven intrusion detection systems for wirelessly connected sensors that track crucial applications. Specifically, we present an in-depth analysis of the use of machine learning, deep learning and reinforcement learning solutions to recognise intrusive behavior in the collected traffic. We evaluate the proposed mechanisms by using KDD’99 as real attack dataset in our simulations. Results present the performance metrics for three different IDSs, namely the Adaptively Supervised and Clustered Hybrid IDS (ASCH-IDS), Restricted Boltzmann Machine-based Clustered IDS (RBC-IDS), and Q-learning based IDS (Q-IDS), to detect malicious behaviors. We also present the performance of different reinforcement learning techniques such as State-Action-Reward-State-Action Learning (SARSA) and the Temporal Difference learning (TD). Through simulations, we show that Q-IDS performs with detection rate while SARSA-IDS and TD-IDS perform at the order of .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it