Implementation of Ensemble Learning and Feature Selection for Performance Improvements in Anomaly-Based Intrusion Detection Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, data security in organizational information systems has become a serious concern. Many attacks are becoming less detectable by firewall and antivirus software. To improve security, intrusion detection systems (IDSs) are used to detect anomalies in network traffic. Currently, IDS technology has performance issues regarding detection accuracy, detection times, false alarm notifications, and unknown attack detection. Several studies have applied machine-learning approaches as solutions. This study used an ensemble learning approach that integrates the benefits of each single detection algorithms. We made comparisons with seven single classifiers to identify the most appropriate basic classifiers for ensemble learning. The experiment shows logistics regression, decision trees, and gradient boosting are chosen for our ensemble model. The Communications Security Establishment and Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity 2018 (CSE-CIC-IDS2018) dataset was used to evaluate the proposed model. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient facilitated the identification of the data features that might not be used. The experiment results showed that 23 of the 80 features were selected, and the model achieved the following scores: final accuracy, 98.8%; precision, 98.8%; recall, 97.1%; and F1, 97.9%.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".