MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153493802 · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2021.3071928

Anomaly Detection for Insider Threats Using Unsupervised Ensembles

2021· article· en· W3153493802 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam Trusts
KeywordsInsider threatAnomaly detectionComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)InsiderUnsupervised learningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insider threat represents a major cybersecurity challenge to companies, organizations, and government agencies. Insider threat detection involves many challenges, including unbalanced data, limited ground truth, and possible user behavior changes. This research presents an unsupervised learning based anomaly detection approach for insider threat detection. We employ four unsupervised learning methods with different working principles, and explore various representations of data with temporal information. Furthermore, different computational intelligence schemes are explored to combine these models to create anomaly detection ensembles for improving the detection performance. Evaluation results show that the approach allows learning from unlabelled data under challenging conditions for insider threat detection. Insider threats are detected with high detection and low false positive rates. For example, 60% of malicious insiders are detected under 0.1% investigation budget, and all malicious insiders are detected at less than 5% investigation budget. Furthermore, we explore the ability of the proposed approach to generalize for detecting new anomalous behaviors in different datasets, i.e., robustness. Finally, results demonstrate that a voting-based ensemble of anomaly detection can be used to improve detection performance as well as the robustness. Comparisons with the state-of-the-art confirm the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.214 · 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