MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408149909 · doi:10.21017/rimci.1116

Identificación de ataques de denegación de servicio distribuido (DDoS) mediante la integración de algoritmos de aprendizaje automático y arquitecturas de redes neuronales artificiales.

2025· article· en· W4408149909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Víctor Alfonso Guzmán Brand, Laura Esperanza Gélvez García

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Ingeniería Matemáticas y Ciencias de la Información · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks by integrating machine learning algorithms and artificial neural network architectures. Methodology: To structure the data analysis, the Knowledge Discovery Data (KDD) technique is used. This approach allows examining large volumes of information of various types, with the objective of identifying patterns, correlations and producing valuable information. As for the data set, the CIC-DDoS2019 dataset developed by the Canadian Cybersecurity Institute is used. Results: When training and evaluating the different algorithms, it was observed that the models based on decision trees, such as Random Forest and XGBoost, stood out for achieving the best results in terms of accuracy and efficiency. On the other hand, in the analysis of the performance of the neural networks, the Closed Stream Units (GRU) stood out by obtaining the best results in accuracy and precision. This performance suggests that GRUs achieve an optimal balance between predictive ability and minimization of false positives and negatives. Discussion: In the comparison between traditional machine learning models and neural networks for DDoS attack detection, it is observed that algorithms such as XGBoost and Random Forest offer similar or superior performance in terms of accuracy and also exhibit significantly shorter execution times. On the other hand, neural networks such as GRU and RNN achieve high accuracy, but with a high computational cost. Conclusions: XGBoost, demonstrated an optimal balance between accuracy (F1-score: 0.9992) and speed (11.47s), positioning itself as the most viable alternative for real-time implementations. In the field of neural networks, Gated Stream Units (GCU) obtained the best performance (accuracy: 0.9992; F1-score: 0.9992), given the ability to process temporal dependencies and reduce false positives.

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)0.009
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Ingeniería Matemáticas y Ciencias de la InformaciónSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207