Thwarting Cybersecurity Attacks with Explainable Concept Drift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyber-security attacks pose a significant threat to the operation of autonomous systems. Particularly impacted are the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems in smart buildings, which depend on data gathered by sensors and Machine Learning (ML) models using the captured data. As such, attacks that alter the readings of these sensors can severely affect the HVAC system operations impacting residents’ comfort and energy reduction goals. Such attacks may induce changes in the online data distribution being fed to the ML models, violating the fundamental assumption of similarity in training and testing data distribution. This leads to a degradation in model prediction accuracy due to a phenomenon known as Concept Drift (CD) — the alteration in the relationship between input features and the target variable. Addressing CD requires identifying the source of drift to apply targeted mitigation strategies, a process termed drift explanation. This paper proposes a Feature Drift Explanation (FDE) module to identify the drifting features. FDE utilizes an Auto-encoder (AE) that reconstructs the activation of the first layer of the regression Deep Learning (DL) model and finds their latent representations. When a drift is detected, each feature of the drifting data is replaced by its representative counterpart from the training data. The Minkowski distance is then used to measure the divergence between the altered drifting data and the original training data. The results show that FDE successfully identifies 85.77% of drifting features and showcases its utility in the DL adaptation method under the CD phenomenon. As a result, the FDE method is an effective strategy for identifying drifting features towards thwarting cyber-security 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".