MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388930684 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3626868/v1

Meta Learning for Enhanced Web Security Against Malicious URLs

2023· preprint· en· W4388930684 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanskriti Sanjay Kumar Singh, V. K. Narayana Menon, S. A. Sajidha, V. M. Nisha, Sheik Abdullah A, M. Nivedita, Aakif Mairaj

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceRandom forestInternet securitySupport vector machineGradient boostingNetwork securityThe InternetData miningInformation securityComputer securityWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> The identification of malicious Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) plays a pivotal role in strengthening network and cyber security. Over the years, the Internet has increasingly become a breeding ground for a multitude of cybercrimes. Malicious URLs can disrupt network performance, compromise data integrity, and introduce vulnerabilities into the system, impacting the network’s overall security and reliability. Taking precautions and implementing preventative techniques is crucial for shielding users from cyberattacks. This study utilizes meta-learning, which is a machine learning technique that learns from the predictions of other machine learning algorithms to make better decisions. For a comprehensive evaluation, the ISCX-URL-2016 dataset was utilized, a resource curated by the Canadian Institute for Cyber Security. The proposed approach focuses on utilizing URL strings as the primary source of information for detecting malicious content.The performance of different machine learning algorithms, including Histogram-based Gradient Boosting Classification Tree, XGBoost Classifier, CatBoost Classifier, Random Forest Classifier and more, were compared for the detection of malicious URLs. The two best performing base classifiers were identified and evaluated as potential meta-classifiers. Various combinations of base classifiers were then tested in conjunction with these two selected meta-classifiers. A significant improvement in the accuracy was observed and the best accuracy of 98.25% was achieved using All Base Classifiers + Meta Classifier XGBoost. Closely followed by the Three Best Base Classifiers + Meta Classifier XGBoost, which achieved an accuracy of 98.2%.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207