Building an Intrusion Detection System to Detect Atypical Cyberattack Flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques provide effective solutions for the detection of many aberrant network traffic patterns and attack flows. However, the validation of these techniques often relies on one training dataset. Recent results show that such training may fail in the face of dynamically-changing cyberattacks. Given the increased sophistication of cyberattacks nowadays, it is imperative to examine and improve the performance of such AI models. This paper proposes a defensive AI engine combined with a twofold feature selection technique and hyperparameter optimization of the AI model. In this work, we utilize the proposed system for binary attack flow identification and the AI models are trained and validated on the CICIDS2017 dataset. The system is then evaluated using synthesized atypical attack flows to mimic real-world scenarios. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed atypical attack flow detection approach using several Deep Learning and Machine Learning models including DNN, Linear-SVC, and Stacked Decision Tree Classifier (S-DTC). Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed defensive AI engine significantly improves the True Positive Rate (TPR) of AI models on multiple atypical attacks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".