MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analyzing the Quality of Synthetic Adversarial Cyberattacks

2023· article· en· W4389077626 on OpenAlexaff
Ulya Sabeel, Shahram Shah Heydari, Khalil El‐Khatib, Khalid Elgazzar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemAutoencoderComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAdversarial machine learningGenerative grammarFace (sociological concept)Generative adversarial networkQuality (philosophy)Vulnerability (computing)Deep learningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today's networked systems face significant security challenges due to sophisticated attacks. Several Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) models are employed to combat these diverse attacks. Adversarial attacks, which can evade detection by AI-based intrusion detection systems (IDS) through small alterations to network attack traffic, pose a significant concern. These AI-synthesized adversarial attacks must adhere to network constraints to seem plausible. In this work, we explore the validation criteria for such adversarial attacks and propose a methodology for analyzing their quality. We evaluate adversarial attack samples synthesized by state-of-the-art generative DL models such as Variational autoencoder (VAE), Conditional Variational autoencoder (CVAE), Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) and compare the performance with our CVAE-Adversarial Network (CVAE-AN) model. Results indicate the effectiveness of CVAE-AN in synthesizing realistic adversarial attacks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207