Research on malware detection and defense system based on machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has identified and presented a unified machine-learning-based malware defense system that can handle dynamic features in cyber-security challenges.This approach will leverage recent deep learning models, ensembles, and automatic generation of defense strategies to construct an effective and adaptive framework for malware detection and mitigation.These results tend to indicate significant gains compared with traditional signature-based approaches, whereby known malware detection rates reached 99.2%, and zero-day vulnerabilities reached 87.5%.The system also recorded an extra 68% reduction in false positives after one month of operations due to the adaptive learning component, while real-time detection features yielded less than a one-second response time for 95% of the threatened records.The generated defense strategy module can demonstrate a 92% success rate in the automated mitigation or containment of identified threats.The paper further presents that even with such advances, much potential still exists for optimizing resource use, enhancing model interpretability, and building more robust defenses against adversarial attacks.It enhances the area of cybersecurity and adds a new dimension by showing the capability of AI-enabled methodology to create much more efficient, agile, and flexible malware protection systems-thereby paving the way for more advanced cybersecurity innovations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".