MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405440383 · doi:10.1109/icebe62490.2024.00017

Multiclass Feature Selection Model for Adversarial Attacks in IoT Environment

2024· article· en· W4405440383 on OpenAlexaff
Nafiza Tabassoum, Farsha Bindu, Raqeebir Rab, Abderrahmane Leshob, Tamima Binte Wahab

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature selectionAdversarial systemSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Internet of ThingsClass (philosophy)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malware attacks have become prevalent in the uti-lization of Internet of Things (IoT) networks. The security and re-liability of IoT networks and information systems are significantly threatened by this. Machine learning-based Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) are ineffective in countering these cyber threats due to the widespread distribution of malware. This research presents a method for choosing features that utilize Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) to enhance the effectiveness of Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) by reliably and promptly identifying both new and previously known threats in real-time in the IoT environment. Our feature selection method consists of two parts. First, we employed the Mutual Information (MI) technique to reduce the required features. Second, we employed exclusion and inclusion feature selection techniques which rely on discriminator accuracy to detect adversarial attacks. We performed an experiment using the proposed method on the CICIOT 2023 dataset, which includes a diverse range of IoT attack incidents. To the best of our knowledge, our proposed effort is the initial endeavor to utilize a feature selection method on this recently introduced dataset. The selection of 20 features for generating new data with optimal evaluation accuracy was accomplished using a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and a Mutual Information Classifier, incorporating exclusion and inclusion techniques. Ultimately, we utilized a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) with a limited set of features to classify malware attacks. Subsequently, we evaluated the correctness of the classification by considering prominent features, resulting in a commendable accuracy rate of 93%.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207