MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362554721 · doi:10.1007/s44248-023-00002-y

Evaluating Word Embedding Feature Extraction Techniques for Host-Based Intrusion Detection Systems

2023· article· en· W4362554721 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul K. Mvula, Paula Branco, Guy-Vincent Jourdan, Herna L. Viktor

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Data · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaVector Institute
KeywordsWord2vecComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemWord embeddingHost (biology)EmbeddingSystem callData miningFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceFeature extractionMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research into Intrusion and Anomaly Detectors at the Host level typically pays much attention to extracting attributes from system call traces. These include window-based, Hidden Markov Models, and sequence-model-based attributes. Recently, several works have been focusing on sequence-model-based feature extractors, specifically Word2Vec and GloVe, to extract embeddings from the system call traces due to their ability to capture semantic relationships among system calls. However, due to the nature of the data, these extractors introduce inconsistencies in the extracted features, causing the Machine Learning models built on them to yield inaccurate and potentially misleading results. In this paper, we first highlight the research challenges posed by these extractors. Then, we conduct experiments with new feature sets assessing their suitability to address the detected issues. Our experiments show that Word2Vec is prone to introducing more duplicated samples than GloVe. Regarding the solutions proposed, we found that concatenating the embedding vectors generated by Word2Vec and GloVe yields the overall best balanced accuracy. In addition to resolving the challenge of data leakage, this approach enables an improvement in performance relative to other alternatives.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover DataSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207