MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225463305 · doi:10.1051/itmconf/20224301003

A Survey on Network Intrusion Detection using Convolutional Neural Network

2022· article· en· W4225463305 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

VenueITM Web of Conferences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkIntrusion detection systemField (mathematics)Network securityArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkMachine learningData miningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays Artificial Intelligence (AI) and studies dedicated to this field are gaining much attention worldwide. Although the growth of AI technology is perceived as a positive development for the industry, many factors are being threatened. One of these factors is security, especially network security. Intrusion Detection System (IDS) which provides real-time network security has been recognized as one of the most effective security solutions. Moreover, there are various types of Neural Networks (NN) approaches for IDS such as ANN, DNN, CNN, and RNN. This survey mainly focuses on the CNN approach, whether individually used or along with another technique. It analyses 81 articles that were carefully investigated based on a specific criterion. Accordingly, 28 hybrid approaches were identified in combination with CNN. Also, it recognized 21 evaluation metrics that were used to validate the models, as well as 12 datasets.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.215 · 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