MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080664025 · doi:10.3390/app10175811

A Systematic Review of Defensive and Offensive Cybersecurity with Machine Learning

2020· review· en· W3080664025 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffensiveArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer scienceComputer securityEngineeringOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a systematic review of over one hundred research papers about machine learning methods applied to defensive and offensive cybersecurity. In contrast to previous reviews, which focused on several fragments of research topics in this area, this paper systematically and comprehensively combines domain knowledge into a single review. Ultimately, this paper seeks to provide a base for researchers that wish to delve into the field of machine learning for cybersecurity. Our findings identify the frequently used machine learning methods within supervised, unsupervised, and semi-supervised machine learning, the most useful data sets for evaluating intrusion detection methods within supervised learning, and methods from machine learning that have shown promise in tackling various threats in defensive and offensive cybersecurity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it