Evaluating Word Embedding Feature Extraction Techniques for Host-Based Intrusion Detection Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".