Automated offense Prioritization for SIEM using ProbabilisticMachine Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems play a crucial role in cybersecurity by collecting, analyzing, and categorizing various events to detect and mitigate potential threats. These events are processed into offenses and then presented to Security Operations Center (SOC) analysts for further investigation and response. However, manual prioritization of offenses by SOC analysts can be challenging because of resource constraints and increasing volume of events. In our proposed solution for automating offense prioritization, we utilized the prediction probability and impact score derived from probabilistic machine learning (ML) models to address this challenge. The prediction probability indicates the likelihood of the occurrence of the offense, whereas the impact score signifies the severity of the potential consequences if the offense occurs. Additionally, we integrate time-based metrics such as Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) and Mean Time to Resolve (MTTR) into our offense prioritization framework. This combination of prediction probability, impact score, MTTD, and MTTR enables SOC analysts to prioritize offenses effectively, focusing their attention on those with high likelihood, high impact, and optimized response timelines. By addressing highly likely and high-impact offenses with efficient response processes, SOC analysts can optimize their response efforts, ensure the timely detection, and mitigate genuine security threats.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".