Soft multimedia anomaly detection based on neural network and optimization driven support vector machine

  • Dong LiangEmail author
  • Chen Lu
  • Hao Jin


Software multimedia anomaly detection model based on neural network and optimization driven support vector machine is discussed in this paper. For multimedia information, most traditional information security technology has its limitations. For example, the limitation of the encryption technology is that on the one hand, the encrypted files resulting from the incomprehension of attributes interfere with the transfer of multimedia information. On the other hand, the encrypted multimedia information is likely to attract the attacker’s curiosity and attention, and is likely to be cracked, and once it is cracked, the system loses control of the information. To deal with these challenges, this study integrates soft computing techniques to finalize the enhanced multimedia anomaly detection model. With respect to the neural network, a random system with random factors is referred to as a random system. These practical systems are generally described and modeled by stochastic differential equations. In this study, we combined the double support vector machine and decision tree support vector machine to construct a new double support vector machine decision tree classifier. Kernel function and convex optimization were integrated to guarantee an optimal solution. Experimental results demonstrated the robustness of the model compared with other recent techniques.


Soft multimedia Anomaly detection Neural network Support vector machine 


  1. 1.
    Bakshi S, Sa PK, Wang H et al (2017) Fast periocular authentication in handheld devices with reduced phase intensive local pattern. Multimed Tools Appl.
  2. 2.
    Bengio Y, Yao L, Alain G, Vincent P. (2013) Generalized denoising auto-encoders as generative models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 899-907)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhattacharya I, Sil J (2017) Sparse representation based query classification using LDA topic modeling. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering and Communication Technology. Springer, Singapore, pp 621–629Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callegari C, Gazzarrini L, Giordano S, Pagano M, Pepe T (2014) Improving PCA-based anomaly detection by using multiple time scale analysis and Kullback–Leibler divergence. Int J Commun Syst 27(10):1731–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang X, Nie F, Yang Y, Huang H (2014) A Convex Formulation for Semi-Supervised Multi-Label Feature Selection. In AAAI (pp. 1171-1177)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen M, Weinberger KQ, Sha F, Bengio Y (2014) Marginalized Denoising Auto-encoders for Nonlinear Representations. In ICML (pp. 1476-1484)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen Z, Jiang B, Tang J, Luo B (2017) Image Set Representation and Classification with Attributed Covariate-Relation Graph Model and Graph Sparse Representation Classification. Neurocomputing 226:262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cui J et al (2013) Tracking generic human motion via fusion of low-and high-dimensional approaches. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybernet: Syst 43.4:996–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dai L, Zhang Y, Li Y, Wang H (2014) MMW and THz images denoising based on adaptive CBM3D. In Sixth International Conference on Digital Image Processing (pp. 915906-915906). International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dong L, Zhang Y, Wen C, Wu H (2016) Camera anomaly detection based on morphological analysis and deep learning. In Digital Signal Processing (DSP), 2016 I.E. International Conference on (pp. 266-270). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El Aboudi N, Benhlima L (2017) Parallel and Distributed Population based Feature Selection Framework for Health Monitoring. Int J Cloud Appl Comput (IJCAC) 7(1):57–71Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta S, Gupta BB (2017) Detection, Avoidance, and Attack Pattern Mechanisms in Modern Web Application Vulnerabilities: Present and Future Challenges. Int J Cloud Appl Comput (IJCAC) 7(3):1–43Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gupta BB, Gupta S, Chaudhary P (2017) Enhancing the Browser-Side Context-Aware Sanitization of Suspicious HTML5 Code for Halting the DOM-Based XSS Vulnerabilities in Cloud. Int J Cloud Appl Comput (IJCAC) 7(1):1–31Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ibtihal M, Hassan N (2017) Homomorphic Encryption as a Service for Outsourced Images in Mobile Cloud Computing Environment. Int J Cloud Appl Comput (IJCAC) 7(2):27–40Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jain DK, Dubey SB, Choubey RK, Sinhal A, Arjaria SK, Jain A, Wang H (2017) An approach for hyperspectral image classification by optimizing SVM using self-organizing map. Journal of Computational Science.
  16. 16.
    Jiang D, Yuan Z, Zhang P, Miao L, Zhu T (2016) A traffic anomaly detection approach in communication networks for applications of multimedia medical devices. Multimed Tools Appl 75(22):14281–14305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jin R, Yang T, Mahdavi M, Li YF, Zhou ZH (2013) Improved bounds for the Nyström method with application to kernel classification. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 59(10):6939–6949CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim UH, Kang JM, Lee JS, Kim HS, Jung SY (2014) Practical firewall policy inspection using anomaly detection and its visualization. Multimed Tools Appl 71(2):627–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirar JS, Agrawal RK (2017) Composite kernel support vector machine based performance enhancement of brain computer interface in conjunction with spatial filter. Biomed Sign Process Contrl 33:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar D, Bezdek JC, Rajasegarar S, Leckie C, Palaniswami M (2015) A visual-numeric approach to clustering and anomaly detection for trajectory data. The Visual Computer, 1–17Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Long, J. and Büyüköztürk, O., 2016. Decentralised one-class kernel classification-based damage detection and localisation. Structural Control and Health MonitoringGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lu Y, Wei Y, Liu L, Zhong J, Sun L, Liu Y (2017) Towards unsupervised physical activity recognition using smartphone accelerometers. Multimed Tools Appl 76(8):10701–10719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luo F, Huang H, Liu J, Ma Z (2017) Fusion of Graph Embedding and Sparse Representation for Feature Extraction and Classification of Hyperspectral Imagery. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 83(1):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mustafa H, Xiong Y, Elaalim K (2014) Distributed and cooperative anomaly detection scheme for mobile ad hoc networks. J Comput Commun 2(03):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Muthuramalingam S, Karthikeyan N, Geetha S, Sindhu SSS (2016) Stego anomaly detection in images exploiting the curvelet higher order statistics using evolutionary support vector machine. Multimed Tools Appl 75(21):13627–13661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nan S, Sun L, Chen B, Lin Z, Toh KA (2017) Density-dependent quantized least squares support vector machine for large data sets. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 28(1):94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rajasegarar S, Gluhak A, Imran MA, Nati M, Moshtaghi M, Leckie C, Palaniswami M (2014) Ellipsoidal neighbourhood outlier factor for distributed anomaly detection in resource constrained networks. Pattern Recogn 47(9):2867–2879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salimi-Khorshidi G, Douaud G, Beckmann CF, Glasser MF, Griffanti L, Smith SM (2014) Automatic denoising of functional MRI data: combining independent component analysis and hierarchical fusion of classifiers. NeuroImage 90:449–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sangaiah AK, Samuel OW, Li X, Abdel-Basset M, Wang H (2017) Towards an efficient risk assessment in software projects–Fuzzy reinforcement paradigm. Computers & Electrical Engineering.
  30. 30.
    See J, Tan S (2014) Lost world: Looking for anomalous tracks in long-term surveillance videos. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand. ACM, New Zealand, pp 224–229Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sermpinis G, Stasinakis C, Rosillo R, de la Fuente D (2017) European Exchange Trading Funds Trading with Locally Weighted Support Vector Regression. Eur J Oper Res 258(1):372–384CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shi Y, Wan Y, Wu K, Chen X (2017) Non-negativity and locality constrained Laplacian sparse coding for image classification. Expert Syst Appl 72:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sonntag D, Zillner S, van der Smagt P, Lörincz A (2017) Overview of the CPS for Smart Factories Project: Deep Learning, Knowledge Acquisition, Anomaly Detection and Intelligent User Interfaces. In Industrial Internet of Things (pp. 487-504). Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tan P, Zhang C, Xia J, Fang Q, Chen G (2018) NOX Emission Model for Coal-Fired Boilers Using Principle Component Analysis and Support Vector Regression. J Chem Eng Jap 49(2):211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang H, Wang J (2014) An effective image representation method using kernel classification. In Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), 2014 I.E. 26th International Conference on (pp. 853-858). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang Z, Liu J, Xue JH (2017) Joint sparse model-based discriminative K-SVD for hyperspectral image classification. Signal Process 133:144–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yoo H, Shon T (2015) Novel approach for detecting network anomalies for substation automation based on IEC 61850. Multimed Tools Appl 74(1):303–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang Y, Du B, Zhang L, Wang S (2016) A low-rank and sparse matrix decomposition-based Mahalanobis distance method for hyperspectral anomaly detection. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 54(3):1376–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang S, Wang H, Huang W (2017) Two-stage plant species recognition by local mean clustering and Weighted sparse representation classification. Clust Comput.
  40. 40.
    Zhao J, Cao N, Wen Z, Song Y, Lin YR, Collins C (2014) # fluxflow: Visual analysis of anomalous information spreading on social media. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 20(12):1773–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhu X, Liu J, Wang J, Li C, Lu H (2014) Sparse representation for robust abnormality detection in crowded scenes. Pattern Recogn 47(5):1791–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zou L, He Q, Wu J (2017) Source cell phone verification from speech recordings using sparse representation. Digit Sign Process 62:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Universal Wireless Communication (Ministry of Education)Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT)BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations