AI for Identity and Access Management (IAM) in the Cloud: Exploring the Potential of Artificial Intelligence to Improve User Authentication, Authorization, and Access Control within Cloud-Based Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comprehensive study explores the integration and effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Identity and Access Management (IAM) within cloud environments. It primarily focuses on how AI can enhance user authentication, authorization, and access control, addressing the challenges and possibilities in cloud computing. The study adopts a mixed-methods approach, employing both quantitative and qualitative analyses. A survey involving 582 cybersecurity experts provides insights into the current state and potential of AI in IAM, while multiple regression analysis examines the impact of various factors on system effectiveness. Four hypotheses are explored: the impact of hardware and software configurations on system accuracy (H1), the influence of computational environments on reliability (H2), the role of demographic factors in user acceptance (H3), and the effect of technological enhancements on system performance and acceptance (H4). Findings indicate significant correlations between these factors and the effectiveness of AI in IAM. Notably, hardware configurations and security concerns influence system accuracy; computational environment variations affect system reliability; demographic factors impact user acceptance; and enhancements such as user feedback, advancements in AI technology, continuous learning algorithms, and system transparency improve performance and acceptance. These insights underscore the need for advanced hardware, standardized software, user-centric design, and continuous improvement in AI technologies for effective IAM in cloud environments. The study provides actionable recommendations for cloud service providers and developers, emphasizing the importance of involving users in development processes, ensuring transparency, and adopting adaptive algorithms. Future research directions include longitudinal studies on the impact of technological advancements and exploring demographic-specific responses to AI-integrated IAM solutions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".