MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133060657

Interactive Machine Learning in Cybersecurity: Using Human Expertise More Effectively

2023· dissertation· W7133060657 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mu-Huan Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMitacs
KeywordsTraining setProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)Supervised learningTraining (meteorology)Classifier (UML)Data modelingData set
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybersecurity is increasingly important in a world where malicious actors seek to profit from various forms of data exfiltration. In this dissertation I examine the potential for improving the detection of anomalies related to potential data exfiltration in a large financial service company through better use of human expertise. The overall approach that guided the research reported below is interactive Machine Learning (iML) where humans work together with Machine Learning to solve prediction and classification problems. After reviewing work on data exfiltration and ML, I carried out a series of three case studies with the overall goal of using iML to improve defence against data exfiltration. I first demonstrated that the best known synthetic data set did not provide credible results that would generalize to real world settings. I then did two further case studies on real world data (from a financial services company). In the first of those further studies I looked at how the organization of human labelers affects outcomes with active learning (AL), comparing model training performance between individuals, groups, and situations where pairs of labelers exchanged places halfway through the training process so that different people trained the model on the second half of the training process. I found that a single individual performed best and the role of expertise was further reinforced in my final case study where a group of skilled (vs. unskilled) labelers was shown to produce higher model performance, as well as producing confidence ratings in their labels that were better calibrated with resulting model accuracy. I also showed that an information gain maximizing approach was a viable method of AL in this application area, with better F1 scores and labeler confidence than a more traditional model uncertainty approach. One limitation of this research was that due to privacy concerns I was using redacted email data that did not contain the email body.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.338 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207