MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification of IoT Devices Using A Multiple Transformers Single Estimator (MTSE) Learning Pipeline

2023· article· en· W4384158201 on OpenAlexaff
Gwen Xiao, Rasha Kashef

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAdaBoostEstimatorRandom forestBoosting (machine learning)Support vector machineGradient boostingNaive Bayes classifierTransformerDecision treeData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adopting a malicious IoT device connected to a company’s network is a hazard to the enterprise. Firms must be able to distinguish between legitimate devices connected to their network and those that are threats. It is essential to comprehend the device’s properties and recognize it once it has been added to a network. Various machine learning algorithms for device identification have been introduced for this task, including Support vector machines, Adaboost classifiers, Logistic regression, KNeighbors classifiers, decision trees classifiers, XGBoost, Gradient boosting classifiers, and Random forests. However, there is a research gap in identifying the best-performing classification pipeline that adapts to the features and types of the associated data in the device identification problem while providing high recognition accuracy. For this purpose, we propose a Multiple Transformers Single Estimator (MTSE) Learning pipeline that captures the best-performing feature sets and the best-performing machine learning algorithm for the recognition problem. The MTSE uses transformers and estimators; the transformers filter or modify the data. The estimator learns and builds a recognition model from the data. Experimental results through different transformers and estimators achieved an accuracy of 89.50% compared to the existing classification methods.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207