Customized K-nearest neighbors’ algorithm for malware detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The security and integrity of computer systems and networks highly depend on malware detection. In the realm of malware detection, the K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) algorithm is a well-liked and successful machine learning algorithm. However, the choice of an acceptable distance metric parameter has a significant impact on the KNN algorithm's performance. This study tries to improve malware detection by adjusting the KNN algorithm's distance metric parameter. The distance metric greatly influences the similarity or dissimilarity between instances in the feature space. The KNN algorithm for malware detection can be more accurate and effective by carefully choosing or modifying the distance metric. This paper analyzes multiple distance metrics, including Minkowski distance, Manhattan distance, and Euclidean distance. These metrics account for the traits of malware samples while capturing various aspects of similarity. The effectiveness of the KNN algorithm is evaluated using the MalMem-2022 malware dataset, and the results are broken down into these three-distance metrics. The experimental findings show that, among the three distance metric parameters, the Euclidean and Minkowski distance metric parameters considerably produced the best outcomes with binary classification. While with multiclass classification, the KNN algorithm has achieved the highest outcomes using Manhattan distance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".