MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406135379 · doi:10.1016/j.iot.2025.101492

HYRIDE: HYbrid and Robust Intrusion DEtection approach for enhancing cybersecurity in Industry 4.0

2025· article· en· W4406135379 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shubham Srivastav, Amit K. Shukla, Sandeep Kumar, Pranab K. Muhuri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet of Things · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityIntrusion detection systemComputer scienceIntrusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interconnectedness and smartness aspect between several components of Industry 4.0 has caused sudden increase in data and its exchange, which has resulted in significant cybersecurity challenges. Thus, a better threat intelligence technique is required for monitoring and identifying malicious cyberattacks. However, distinguishing between a normal event and a cyberattack can be difficult because label information is mostly unavailable. Therefore, it is imperative to develop a threat intelligence system that operates more effectively without supervision, i.e., without a label. Additionally, reducing the false positive rate in cyber threat detection is a more promising step for a safer and more reliable environment. Also, the enormous number of features in the data for intrusion detection tasks sometimes results in significant computing costs. Therefore, a novel hybrid feature selection based unsupervised intrusion detection system is proposed, which is termed as HYbrid and Robust Intrusion DEtection (HYRIDE), that uses a wide variety of feature selection techniques to obtain the fewest, best possible features. The local outlier factor, elliptic envelope, and histogram-based outlier score models are then trained using these features to identify threats in network traffic automatically. As a result, HYRIDE can effectively and efficiently distinguish between normal events and intrusions. The proposed methodology is empirically evaluated using popular datasets such as Telemetry datasets of Internet of Things (IoT) services, Operating systems datasets of Windows and Linux, as well as datasets of Network traffic (TON_IoT), University of New South Wales-Network Benchmark (UNSW-NB15), and Canadian Institute of Cybersecurity Intrusion Detection System (CICIDS 2017).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternet of ThingsSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207