A Comparative Study of AI-Based Intrusion Detection Techniques in Critical Infrastructures
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".