Addressing Class Imbalance in Intrusion Detection: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Machine Learning Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever-growing number of cyber attacks in today’s digitally interconnected world requires highly efficient intrusion detection systems (IDSs), which accurately identify both frequent and rare network intrusions. One of the most important challenges in IDSs is the class imbalance problem of network traffic flow data, where benign traffic flow significantly outweighs attack instances. This directly affects the ability of machine learning models to identify minority class threats. This paper is intended to evaluate various machine learning algorithms under different levels of class imbalances, using resampling as a strategy for this problem. The paper will provide an experimental comparison by combining various algorithms for classification and class imbalance learning, assessing the performance through the F1-score and geometric mean (G-mean). The work will contribute to creating robust and adaptive IDS through the judicious integration of resampling with machine learning models, thus helping the domain of cybersecurity to become resilient.
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 | 0.029 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".