MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287849481 · doi:10.1109/dsn53405.2022.00022

Arming IDS Researchers with a Robotic Arm Dataset

2022· article· en· W4287849481 on OpenAlexaff
Arpan Gujarati, Zainab Saeed Wattoo, Maryam Raiyat Aliabadi, Sean Clark, Xiaoman Liu, Parisa Shiri, Amee Trivedi, Ruizhe Zhu, Jason E. Hein, Margo Seltzer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePython (programming language)Intrusion detection systemDomain (mathematical analysis)AutomationPipeline (software)Industrial InternetEmbedded systemSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligenceInternet of ThingsOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industry 4.0 is rapidly transforming traditional manufacturing practices. Smart manufacturing technologies that automate research and development using a combination of robotic arms and domain-specific cyber-physical systems are at the core of this transformation. Unfortunately, dependence on networked communication increases the risk of security attacks, which must be mitigated using either platforms that are secure by design or intrusion detection and prevention systems. We report on an ongoing project to design and develop intrusion detection systems (IDS) for the Hein Lab, a smart manufacturing research lab in the chemical sciences domain. Designing effective IDS requires large datasets and high-quality, domain-specific benchmarks, which are difficult to obtain. To address this gap, we present the Robotic Arm Dataset (RAD), which we collected at the Hein Lab over a three-month period. We also present our non-intrusive tracing framework RATracer, which can be retrofitted onto any existing Python-based automation pipeline, and two sets of preliminary analyses based on the command and power data in RAD.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207