Naïve Bayes Classifier and Particle Swarm Optimization Feature Selection Method for Classifying Intrusion Detection System Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The security of a network might be threatened by an intrusion aim to steal classified data or to find weaknesses on the network. In general, network main security systems use a firewall to control and monitor both incoming and outgoing network traffic. Intrusion Detection System can be used to strengthen network security. Several data mining methods have been used to solve Intrusion Detection System (IDS) problem on a network. On this paper we will use Naïve Bayes Classifier along with Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) as the feature selection method specifically on one of the benchmark dataset on IDS problem, KDD CUP’99. The dataset consists of more than 40 features with more than 400 thousands records. To solve IDS problem on the dataset, it needs a quite expensive cost either on time computation or memory usage hence the use of PSO as the feature selection method. The best classification result was reached when we use 38 features where the accuracy is 99.12%. Particle Swarm Optimization method has several parameters that may affect the classification performance. For future improvement, it is possible to use a parameter optimization method to ensure the best classifier performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".