Methods for Computer Network Security Management Assisted by Artificial Intelligence Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims to construct a management system capable of automatically detecting, analyzing, and responding to network security threats, thereby enhancing the security and stability of networks. It is based on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in computer network security management to establish a network security system that combines AI with traditional technologies. Furthermore, by incorporating the attention mechanism into Graph Neural Network (GNN) and utilizing botnet detection, a more robust and comprehensive network security system is developed to improve detection and response capabilities for network attacks. Finally, experiments are conducted using the Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity Intrusion Detection Systems 2017 dataset. The results indicate that the GNN combined with an attention mechanism performs well in botnet detection, with decreasing false positive and false negative rates at 0.01 and 0.03, respectively. The model achieves a monitoring accuracy of 98%, providing a promising approach for network security management. The findings underscore the potential role of AI in network security management, especially the positive impact of combining GNN and attention mechanisms on enhancing network security performance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it