Towards Developing a Robust Intrusion Detection Model Using Hadoop–Spark and Data Augmentation for IoT Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, anomaly detection and machine learning for intrusion detection systems have been used to detect anomalies on Internet of Things networks. These systems rely on machine and deep learning to improve the detection accuracy. However, the robustness of the model depends on the number of datasamples available, quality of the data, and the distribution of the data classes. In the present paper, we focused specifically on the amount of data and class imbalanced since both parameters are key in IoT due to the fact that network traffic is increasing exponentially. For this reason, we propose a framework that uses a big data methodology with Hadoop-Spark to train and test multi-class and binary classification with one-vs-rest strategy for intrusion detection using the entire BoT IoT dataset. Thus, we evaluate all the algorithms available in Hadoop-Spark in terms of accuracy and processing time. In addition, since the BoT IoT dataset used is highly imbalanced, we also improve the accuracy for detecting minority classes by generating more datasamples using a Conditional Tabular Generative Adversarial Network (CTGAN). In general, our proposed model outperforms other published models including our previous model. Using our proposed methodology, the F1-score of one of the minority class, i.e., Theft attack was improved from 42% to 99%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".