MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Issues and Challenges in Machine Learning-based IoT Device Discovery: An Empirical Study

2024· article· en· W4405908781 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Dillabaugh, Vamsikumar Tholeti, Delfin Y. Montuno, Nabil Seddigh, Biswajit Nandy, Margaret Ajibola

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsSolana Networks (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInternet of ThingsEmpirical researchData scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IoT device discovery and identification is a requisite part of ensuring strong cyber security posture for homes, organizations & industries. Increased use of encryption by such devices poses a present and future challenge for traditional identification methods based on Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). Recent research has proposed the use of AIbased approaches as a solution. However, enabling such systems to operate accurately and scalably across heterogeneous IoT devices and networks remains a challenge. This paper makes multiple contributions to advance the state of the art. First, we analyze representative domain research and summarize results. Second, we discuss pending issues and challenges which emerge from existing research. Third, we experimentally investigate and validate the pending challenges using three public datasets as well as two private datasets with 30 IoT devices. Our findings indicate that while research around per-device IoT ML models has advanced significantly, further research is required in the area of generalized AI models which carry out accurate discovery & identification across different $I o T$ devices and networks. We identify in particular, the area of device category identification as deserving of further research attention.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207