Towards an Optimized Ensemble Feature Selection for DDoS Detection Using Both Supervised and Unsupervised Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and next-generation communication technologies, the demand for Internet-based applications and intelligent digital services is increasing, leading to a significant rise in cyber-attacks such as Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS). AI-based DoS detection systems promise adequate identification accuracy with lower false alarms, significantly associated with the data quality used to train the model. Several works have been proposed earlier to select optimum feature subsets for better model generalization and faster learning. However, there is a lack of investigation in the existing literature to identify a common optimum feature set for three main AI methods: machine learning, deep learning, and unsupervised learning. The current works are compromised either with the variation of the feature selection (FS) method or limited to one type of AI model for performance evaluation. Therefore, in this study, we extensively investigated and evaluated the performance of 15 individual FS methods from three major categories: filter-based, wrapper-based, and embedded, and one ensemble feature selection (EnFS) technique. Furthermore, the individual feature subset's quality is evaluated using supervised and unsupervised learning methods for extracting a common best-performing feature subset. According to our experiment, the EnFS method outperforms individual FS and provides a universal best feature set for all kinds of AI models.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".