MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Agentic AI for Autonomous Cyber Threat Hunting and Adaptive Defense in Dynamic Security Environments

2025· article· en· W4413179320 on OpenAlexaff
Amish Sheth, Anil Ranjitbhai Patel, Hariharan Ragothaman, Balkrishna Patil, Saai Krishnan Udayakumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolution of cyber threats have led to limitations in the efficiency of traditional rule-based cybersecurity approaches. These traditional interventions have remained to have a resource intensive and reaction approach, prompting the creation of new steps that can help in handling cyber threats through AI. This study develops an AI driven system for autonomous cyber threat hunting, through leveraging Machine Learning (ML), Deep Reinforcement Learning (RDL) and using AI analytics to ensure a proactive detection, resolution and management of threats. The study uses datasets such as DARPA and CIDS ensuring that they can work on an AI intervention. The use of ML models such as CNN and RNN ensure analysis of the network traffic, behavioral indicators and system logs. Using DRL enables the system to have an autonomous adaptation to threats such as zero day exploits, reducing the instances of false positives and false negatives. Results from this study indicates that using AI driven threat detection leads to an accuracy rate of 98.2%, F1 score of 97.1% while reducing both MTTD and MTTR by an estimated 99%. The findings depict the ability of the system to have an operational framework demanding minimal human intervention. Thus, the cybersecurity operations can be advanced to have an increasingly transformative engagement, working on proactive threat detection and reducing operational costs. Considerably, future research should focus on enhancing Explainability in AI, addressing ethical issues and countering growing adversarial attacks on the AI system.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207