Sustaining the Effectiveness of IoT-Driven Intrusion Detection over Time: Defeating Concept and Data Drifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the challenge of sustaining the intrusion detection effectiveness of machine learning-based intrusion detection systems in the Internet of Things (IoT) in the presence of concept and data drifts. Data drift is a phenomenon which embodies the change that happens in the relationships among the independent features, which is mainly due to changes in the data quality over time. Concept drift is a phenomenon which depicts the change in the relationships between input and output data in the machine learning model over time. To address data drifts, we first propose a series of data preparation steps that help improve the quality of the data and avoid inconsistencies. To counter concept drifts, we capitalize on an online deep neural network model that relies on an ensemble of varying depth neural networks that cooperate and compete together to enable the model to steadily learn and adapt as new data come, thus allowing for stable and long-lasting learning. Experiments conducted on a real-world IoT-based intrusion detection dataset, designed to address concept and data drifts, suggest that our solution stabilizes the performance of the intrusion detection on both the training and testing data compared to the static deep neural network model, which is widely used for intrusion detection.
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 | 0.014 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".