Advertisement

Towards Effective Algorithms for Intelligent Defense Systems

  • Michael N. Johnstone
  • Andrew Woodward
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7672)

Abstract

With the volume of data required to be analysed and interpreted by security analysts, the possibility of human error looms large and the consequences possibly harmful for some systems in the event of an adverse event not being detected. In this paper we suggest machine learning algorithms that can assist in supporting the security function effectively and present a framework that can be used to choose the best algorithm for a specific domain. A qualitative framework was produced, and it is suggested that a naive Bayesian classifier and artificial neural network based algorithms are most likely the best candidates for the proposed application. A testing framework is proposed to conduct a quantitative evaluation of the algorithms as the next step in the determination of best fit for purpose algorithm. Future research will look to repeat this process for cyber security specific applications, and also examine GPGPU optimisations.

Keywords

Machine Learning Security Optimisation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmed, F.E.: Artificial neural networks for diagnosis and survival prediction in colon cancer. Molecular Cancer 4(29), 12 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou, Z.-H., Jiang, Y., et al.: Lung cancer cell identification based on artificial neural network ensembles. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 24(1), 25–36 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Halloran, M., Mcginley, B., Conceição, R.C., Morgan, F., Jones, E., Glavin, M.: Spiking neural networks for breast cancer classification in a dielectrically heterogeneous breast. Progress In Electromagnetics Research 113(16), 413–428 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmad, A.M., Khan, G.M., et al.: Breast cancer detection using cartesian genetic programming evolved artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 1031–1038. ACM, Philadelphia (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muthukkumarasamy, V., Blumenstein, M.M., et al.: Intelligent Illicit Object Detection System for Enhanced Aviation Security. Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh, M., Singh, S., et al.: A knowledge-based framework for image enhancement in aviation security. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 34(6), 2354–2365 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guzella, T.S., Caminhas, W.M.: A review of machine learning approaches to Spam filtering. Expert Systems with Applications 36(7), 10206–10222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huadong, W., Siegel, M., Khosla, P.: Vehicle sound signature recognition by frequency vector principal component analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, IMTC 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krishnamoorthy, P., Kumar, S.: Hierarchical audio content classification system using an optimal feature selection algorithm. Multimed. Tools Appl. 54, 415–444 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sivanandam, S.N., Deepa, S.N.: An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wooldridge, M.J.: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graupe, D.: Principles of Artificial Neural Networks, 2nd edn. World Scientific, Singapore (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bayes, M., Price, M.: An Essay towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. By the Late Rev. Mr. Bayes, F. R. S. Communicated by Mr. Price, in a Letter to John Canton, A. M. F. R. S. Philosophical Transactions 53, 370–418 (1763)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rumelhart, D.E., McClelland, J.L.: Parallel distributed processing: Exploration in the microstructure of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cantú-Paz, E., Kamath, C.: An empirical comparison of combinations of evolutionary algorithms and neural networks for classification problems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B Cybern. 35(5), 915–927 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sukanesh, R., Harikumar, R.: A Comparison of Genetic Algorithm & Neural Network (MLP) In Patient Specific Classification of Epilepsy Risk Levels from EEG Signals. Engineering Letters 14, 1 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zheng, F., Webb, G.I.: A Comparative Study of Semi-naive Bayes Methods in Classification Learning. In: Simoff, S.J., Williams, G.J., Galloway, J., Kolyshkina, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Australasian Data Mining Workshop (AusDM 2005), pp. 141–156. University of Technology, Sydney (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fleizach, C., Fukushima, S.: A naive Bayes classifier on 1998 KDD Cup (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dekhtyar, M., Dikovsky, A., Valiev, M.: Complexity of Multi-agent Systems Behavior. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 125–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elkind, E., Markakis, E.: Computational Complexity in Multi-Agent Systems. In: 10th European Agent Systems Summer School, EASSS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Owechko, Y., Shams, S.: Comparison of neural network and genetic algorithms for a resource allocation problem. In: Proc. Neural Networks, IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael N. Johnstone
    • 1
  • Andrew Woodward
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer and Security ScienceSecurity Research Centre Edith Cowan University Perth Western AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations