MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384519193 · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3296311

5G Aviation Networks Using Novel AI Approach for DDoS Detection

2023· article· en· W4384519193 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huw Whitworth, Saba Al–Rubaye, Antonios Tsourdos, Julia Jiggins

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCranfield UniversityGovernment of the United KingdomDepartment of Transport, UK Government
KeywordsComputer scienceDenial-of-service attackDeep learningConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceRobustness (evolution)Feature extractionData miningMachine learningReal-time computingPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of Fifth Generation (5G) technology has ushered in a new era of advancements in the aviation sector. However, the introduction of smart infrastructure has significantly altered the threat landscape at airports, leading to an increased vulnerability due to the proliferation of endpoints. Consequently, there is an urgent requirement for an automated detection system capable of promptly identifying and thwarting network intrusions. This research paper proposes a deep learning methodology that merges a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) to effectively detect various types of cyber threats using tabular-based image data. To transform time series features into 2D texture images, Gramian Angular Fields (GAFs) are utilized. These images are then stacked to form an N-channel image, which is fed into the CNN-GRU architecture for sequence analysis and identification of potential threats. The provide solution GAF-CNN-GRU achieved an accuracy of 98.6% on the Cranfield Embedded Systems Attack Dataset. We further achieved Precision, Recall and F1-scores of 97.84%, 91% and 94.3%. To evaluate model robustness we further tested this approach, using a benchmark random selection of input features, on the Canadian Institute for Cyber-Security (CIC) 2019 Distributed Denial-of-service attack (DDoS) Dataset achieving an Accuracy of 89.08%. Following feature optimisation our approach was able to achieve an accuracy of 98.36% with Precision, Recall and F1 scores of 93.09%, 95.45% and 94.56% respectively.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207