MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292263417 · doi:10.3390/s22166117

Prevention of Cyber Security with the Internet of Things Using Particle Swarm Optimization

2022· article· en· W4292263417 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

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationDenial-of-service attackComputer scienceComputer securityThe InternetHackerInternet of ThingsAnt colony optimization algorithmsInternet ProtocolComputer networkArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High security for physical items such as intelligent machinery and residential appliances is provided via the Internet of Things (IoT). The physical objects are given a distinct online address known as the Internet Protocol to communicate with the network's external foreign entities through the Internet (IP). IoT devices are in danger of security issues due to the surge in hacker attacks during Internet data exchange. If such strong attacks are to create a reliable security system, attack detection is essential. Attacks and abnormalities such as user-to-root (U2R), denial-of-service, and data-type probing could have an impact on an IoT system. This article examines various performance-based AI models to predict attacks and problems with IoT devices with accuracy. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), genetic algorithms, and ant colony optimization were used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested technique concerning four different parameters. The results of the proposed method employing PSO outperformed those of the existing systems by roughly 73 percent.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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