MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403944872 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.140510

Performance Exploration of Network Intrusion Detection System with Neural Network Classifier on The KDD Dataset

2024· article· en· W4403944872 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Devaraju, Dheresh Soni, Jawahar Sundaram, Jay Prakash Maurya, Vipin Tiwari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningClassifier (UML)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS) are a difficult task for determining in any managerial information system or IT sectors, if a user is a normal user or an attacker.The main objectives of the proposed system are to enhance operational efficiency, decreasing the occurrence of false positives, to minimize the time complexity of the process.It is an excellent way for dealing with various types of network problems.Research focusses the various classifiers are applied to detect various types of network assaults.Performance of network intrusion detection by two classifiers are used to compare the results.Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN) and Feed Forward Neural Network (FFNN) classifiers are employed this suggested study.The performance results comparison between full featured and reduced features are presented.MATLAB software application is applied to test the performance of both test and train dataset.Detecting network intrusions is a critical challenge within managerial information systems and the IT sector, as it involves the complex task of distinguishing between legitimate users and potential attackers.Maintaining a secure network environment is paramount to safeguarding sensitive information and operations.In the arena of network intrusion detection, the research predominantly revolves around the deployment of diverse classifiers to identify various types of network attacks.This paper, proposes the evaluation of two specific classifiers, the PNN and the FFNN, with the objective of comparing their performance in the context of network intrusion detection.We systematically assess their effectiveness in both full-featured and reduced-feature scenarios, utilizing MATLAB software to rigorously analyze their capabilities across test and training datasets.In essence, this research delves into the intricate realm of Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS), investigating how the PNN and FFNN classifiers function in the critical role of safeguarding networks against a multitude of potential threats.Through comprehensive analysis, we aim to illuminate the most efficient approach to enhancing network security in the constantly evolving landscape of cybersecurity.As a result, it is recommended that FFNN approaches be adopted as a means of improving detection efficiency and reducing the False Positive Rate (FPR) in network intrusion detection systems.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207