A Study of Ensemble Methods for Cyber Security
Nicholas Lower and Felix Zhan
Abstract—Ensemble methods for machine learning serve to
increase the predictive power of preexisting models by applying
a meta-algorithm on top of the underlying workings of one or
many prediction models. These ensemble models show promise
for anomaly detection over the simpler prediction models they
are built on-top of without much more admin work and theory,
making them ideal for network intrusion detection. This study
looks at the advantages of these methods when applied to the
cybersecurity domain by using the widely used NSL-KDD intru-
sion detection dataset. The types of ensemble methods studied
are voting, bagging, and boosting, specifically the algorithms
experimented with are the Voting classifier, boosting, Random
forest classifier, and AdaBoost classifier.
Index Terms
I. I NTRODUCTION
It is often useful when making predictions in the real-world
to consider others’ own predictions to solidify your choice
and form a more well-rounded decision. This concept is the
foundation of ensemble methods, which seek to strength a
machine learning model’s predictions by incorporating other
model’s predictions [1]. Many techniques to achieve this effect
are under the ensemble methods umbrella, the ones studied in
this paper are voting, bagging, and boosting [2], [3], [4], [5].
Ensemble methods work by utilizing multiple individual
models to create a singular truly confident final prediction.
These individual models used in each ensemble are going to be
referred to as the ”inner-models” of the ensemble throughout
the paper. The inner-models are typically independent of the
ensemble algorithm, so any type of inner-models can be used
initially then have an ensemble built on-top. This is a valuable
observation because tailoring the inner-models to the specific
problem at hand can greatly improve the ensemble’s overall
prediction performance, which is done in this paper by using
decision trees, K-nearest neighbors, and logistical regression,
all of which have all been shown to perform well with the
NSL-KDD dataset [6]. A useful feature of ensembles is their
ability to be used for both regression and classification without
altercations in the theoretical basis, allowing for ease of use for
any type of typical machine learning problem. Many machine
learning or deep learning models that are in wide-use over
nearly all domains are in fact ensembles that typically do the
inner-model training and predicting hidden from the user; two
examples of these ensemble models are random forests and
AdaBoost, which are tested in this paper for their effectiveness
in tackling the NSL-KDD data prediction problem.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
An important domain that utilizes machine learning is
cybersecurity, which is the practice of analyzing and studying
network activity and architecture to better protect against unau-
thorized actions and other attacks. This area of research and
consumer products for cybersecurity is becoming increasingly
more important as the role of networking becomes integral to
a vast number of users’ lives, which brings along the onslaught
of hacks and attacks. Machine learning ideas and the use of
models are valuable for this domain because the practice of
packet analysis and finding signs of dangerous activity is easily
related to using past examples and probabilities [7], [8].
Motivation for using ensemble methods in the cybersecurity
domain is the shown power of such systems in anomaly
detection under similar situations as general packet-switching
based networking [9], and also the increasing utility of such
systems in CPU and memory juggernaut data centers to filter
incoming traffic for foul play. Because ensembles are built
upon multiple smaller models, the time and memory efficiency
lags behind simply using those individual models which made
these methods undesirable for networking tools that prioritize
speed of traffic, but with the abundance of CPU power and
memory in large scale routers and servers in data centers
the useful detection of ensembles begin to outweigh the
diminishing cost of their use. With an incredible amount of the
consumer internet powered by these data centers [10], a single
malicious attack on a center can render an uncomfortable
amount of users out of service or create a mass risk for theft,
so these centers are prime players for the potential benefits
ensemble methods bring to intrusion detection.
A. Related Work
The type of specific systems that detect these attacks are
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) [11]. These systems take
in network packets and look for telling signs of an attack,
such as flags set, protocol, duration, length, etc., so training a
supervised learning model on these telling signs as features
produces a prediction model telling you whether or not a
packet is part of an attack, and if it is part of an attack
the system can take precautions to avoid as much damage
as possible and alert the user of all details if requested.
Liao et al. give a comprehensive overview of the current
state of IDS [12], and they classify currently used methods
into five classes: Statistics-based, Pattern-based, Rule-based,
State-based, and Heuristic-based. Using the same classification
characteristics, ensemble methods fall under the statistics-
based umbrella mostly with systems setting a predetermined
threshold confidence interval and triggering a warning when
1001
a packet is classified b eyond t he t hreshold, b ut t here i s some
crossover with pattern-based systems depending on the amount
of rote learning is incorporated into the system by the admin
user. Previous research on the application of machine-learning
to IDS has brought favorable results, as Tsai et al. presented in
a comprehensive review of research and studies [13], machine
learning is applicable to the intrusion detection domain. Single
classifiers (including Support Vector Machines, artificial neural
networks, decision tress, etc.) have been studied thoroughly,
with some studies reaching impressive accuracies of >80%
with intensive feature engineering and hyper-parameter tuning,
and hybrid methods (intelligent combining of multiple ideas
and methods behind single classifier a lgorithms i nto a single
new algorithm) have shown even more promise and have
had a recent explosion in research. Ensemble methods have
also been been popping up in research recently as worthy
investments in cybersecurity, with increased accuracy over
single classifiers w ith m inimal a dditional e ffort a nd admin
work. The gathering of packets to serve as data points is
a tricky process because normal packet traffic f or a u ser is
massive and has very little percentage of actual attacks to
use as labels, so to ease the creation of IDS models, datasets
containing normal and attack packets such as NSL-KDD exist
for training and testing. We go into more detail on the NSL-
KDD dataset in the Experiment section of the paper. Other
works include [14]–[194].
II. E NSEMBLE M ETHODS BACKGROUND
In this section we will dive into each of the ensemble meth-
ods to better understand how they take multiple models and
return a strong prediction. First we analyze the voting method,
then bagging, boosting, and finally e nding w ith stacking.
A. Voting
Voting is the simplest of the ensemble methods to under-
stand because it mirrors our natural instinct when we consider
multiple models, we tend to simply tally up all the results of
the models and output the majority winner. This is exactly how
a voting ensemble works, we take a ”vote” of all the inner-
model’s predictions and return the result with the majority
of the votes as the final prediction [2]. This only works for
classification, as tallying up raw numbers/probabilities will
rarely, if ever, lead to a majority winner, so in this case the
simplest method is returning the average of all the predictions.
An add-on to the voting process can be the inclusion of
weights on the individual votes to skew the voting to favor
models that have shown to be more correct than others.
Typically, there are two different methods of voting, so
called ”hard” voting and ”soft” voting. The previous example
of picking the majority winner of the vote process is hard
voting, the final prediction of each inner-model is taken at
face-value and tallied, no matter how confident the prediction
is. Soft voting resolves this; in soft voting the actual confidence
probabilities of each prediction is taken into account. The
voting works by taking the average of all the confidence
probabilities for each predicted label for every model and
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
choosing the label that has the highest probability. Formally
this final prediction ŷ can be written as:
m
ŷ = argi max pij (1)
j=0
Where m is the number of all the models and pij is the
prediction probability of classification label i of model j.
While the advantage of voting is a stronger prediction
when utilizing mediocre to effective inner-models, voting
performs very poorly when one or more inner-models have
poor accuracy and precision. These inner-model’s defective
predictions affect the voting process too much if no weighting
is used, so the final prediction can itself be defective. This
can be counteracted with utilizing weak models that ”focus”
on separate aspects of the data, in other words in order to
get the full strength of a voting ensemble the inner-models
should all be different and have underlying algorithms that
use and manipulate the dataset in differing ways. In this
sense, voting ensembles can be seen as being as powerful
as its participants. Another advantage of voting that is more
specific to ensemble building is its complete independence of
the inner-models, that is voting does not require the inner-
models be connected at all, because only the final predictions
are used. This makes the ensemble easier to scale when more
and more predictions become available and it also allows the
inner-models themselves to be built off of completely different
algorithms with no consequence.
B. Bagging
Bagging [3] is based on two ideas: Bootstrap sampling and
Aggregating. First, bootstrap sampling is the process of taking
a random sample from a dataset with replacement. This gives
us a truly random subset of the dataset to train multiple ”weak”
individual models on. Second, aggregating is simply taking the
predicted outputs of each weak model and combining them
into a strong final prediction, typically using a voting process.
Because bagging aggregates models that use a bootstrap
sample to train and not the whole ”true” dataset, bagging
achieves a low variance in its model even if the inner-models
all have high variance themselves, and thus has very little
problem with overfitting, which is a major problem for single
classifiers and voting ensembles. For bias, bagging models
tend to follow the bias of the underlying inner-models very
closely, so a disadvantage of bagging is the lack of ability to
correct for low bias found in simple inner-model algorithms.
A powerful example of a bagging model that is frequently
used in real-world application is the Random Forest model
[195]. Random Forest models are a type of bagging model that
use decision trees exclusively as their inner-models plus the
added requirement that during the bootstrap sampling phase
of training not all features in the data are present in each
bootstrap sample, instead only a subset of given size are used.
This further reduces variance in final predictions for the model,
and because decision trees typically have low bias but high
variance, and bagging reduces variance and keeps bias, this
method of ensemble greatly extends the power of decision
1002
trees and proves to be very effective in its real-world predictive
power.
A particularly useful feature of random forests is their
ability to weigh the importance of certain features, a valuable
tool in the feature selection process. This is done by using
mean decrease impurity and mean decrease accuracy, which
are the total averages of the impurity measures of each feature
as determined by Gini impurity or information gain/entropy in
each of the random forest’s inner-model decision trees. Using
these calculated importances, we can choose to use only the k
most important features and reduce the dimensionality of the
data.
C. Boosting
Boosting is an ensemble technique that focuses on sequen-
tially turning, ”boosting”, weak models into stronger ones. A
weak model in this context is defined as a model that works
on the prediction using a single (or small subset of) areas
of correlation, for example in a spam filter a single area of
correlation might be whether or not an email contains a single
certain phrase. Boosting is all about taking these weak models
and creating a strong model which can successfully predict
using all correlations.
A popular ensemble algorithm that uses boosting is Adap-
tive Boosting or ”AdaBoost”. As given by Freund and Schapire
[196], AdaBoost turns weak models into a strong model by
sequentially training each weak model with the a weighted
training dataset that puts heavy weights on the data instances
that were part of the previous model’s error, creating a line
of stronger and stronger correlations until finally combining
all the weak models into a strong ensemble that can predict
based on multiple correlations with low bias.
D. Stacking
An another ensemble worth describing is stacking [197],
which works by building a system where first many inner-
models are trained using the dataset and then each make a final
prediction. These predictions are then fed into a meta-model
that combines all these inputs into a final strong prediction.
The meta-model is what makes stacking stand out from simple
voting with each inner-model’s prediction, the meta-model
typically involves a complex combining or mixing of all
predictions to make the final strong prediction. Stacking will
not be experimented on in this paper.
III. E XPERIMENT
A. NSL-KDD Dataset
The dataset used for studying the effectiveness of the various
ensemble methods is the NSL-KDD dataset [198]. This dataset
is widely used for building and testing IDS models, it consists
of 4.9 million packet analysis instances of various intrusion
attacks that fit into the five categories ddos, probe, r2l, and u2r.
Each instance has 41 features ranging from duration of attack,
protocol, flags, etc. which describe the state of each packet
and a final class label which labels each instance as ”normal”
or the name of the particular attack. For sake of experiment, it
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
is often valuable to test both on this multi-nominal target label
and a simpler binary label which just labels each instance as
either ”normal” or ”attack”.
Because the NSL-KDD features around 5 million instances,
a 50% subset of both the test and train sets are used to make
computation faster. Also, in order to get the best performance
possible a number of feature engineering techniques are ap-
plied, including using one-hot encoding and feature selection.
One-hot encoding is applied to the whole dataset and because
the number of categorical features in NSL-KDD is quite high
the number of features explodes to about around 120. So to
counteract this unwieldy number of features, feature selection
is used to choose only the most important 20 features as
determined by a series of random forest’s feature importance
results.
B. Experiment
The experiments to test the increase of performance of each
ensemble method is done on the NSL-KDD dataset with binary
labels described above. The inner-models themselves are in no
way the strongest they can be, in that they are not entirely built
and tuned to get the greatest performance out of each, instead
they are typically simple forms of each in order to purely study
the quick and easy boost an ensemble method can provide. The
hyper-parameters used in this experiment are as follows1 :
Decision Trees - min sample split = 1000,
min sample leaf = 1000, K-Nearest Neighbors - n neighbors
= 1000, MLP Classifier - hidden layer = (100,100).
The voting experiment is done in two sections to evaluate
both hard and soft voting, each of these voting schema use
the metrics:
• IM - the names of the inner-models
• IMAA - the average accuracy of each individual inner-
model
• IMAP - the average precision of each individual inner-
model
• IMAF - the average F1 score of each individual inner-
model
• Acc. - the accuracy of the ensemble
• Prec. - the precision of the voting ensemble
• F1 - the F1 score of the voting ensemble.
These metrics are measured in order to showcase the potential
elevated results using an ensemble can bring compared to
the individual inner-models. Likewise, the bagging ensemble
experiment tests using the same metrics with the difference of
each result coming from the number of decision tree inner-
models that were used. The random forest evaluations were
only measured using the Acc., Prec., and F1 scores because
it is less valuable seeing the improved performance the act
of ensemble-ing the results brings; the outright accuracy,
precision, and F1 score of the whole model is better to
study. The AdaBoost test follows the same idea, only the
performance of the whole model is given.
1 The names of the hyper-parameters follow those described in the Scikit-
Learn docs.
1003
 IV. R ESULTS performance, reaching very impressive numbers for models
The results of the hard voting test on the NSL-KDD dataset that are not finely-tuned, again showing the potential power
is shown in Table I. The inner-models (IM) used in the of the bagging ensemble. A reason for the impressive per-
experiment are denoted as follows: formance is Bagging’s avoidance of overfitting by using the
• D - Decision Tree
random smaller bootstrap samples of the dataset and then
• K - K Nearest Neighbors
aggregating, over using the entire training set to begin with.
• M - MLP Classifier
Overfitting is the major pitfall single classifiers, and in-turn
• L - Logistic Regression
voting classifiers, fall into and stunt their performance, so
The tests show that for a small voting poll of only two simple taking steps to minimize overfitting is critical for ensembles
models, a decision tree and K-Nearest Neighbors, the accuracy, and is primarily a focus behind their algorithm development.
precision, and F1 score have a clear increase over the average
inner-model’s. What can also be seen in the results is as TABLE IV
R ANDOM F OREST NSL-KDD R ESULTS FOR n T REES
the inner-models became weaker (the inner-model’s average
metrics fell) the ensemble’s overall performance fell as well, n Acc. Prec. F1
just not as dramatically. 5 0.822 0.723 0.821
10 0.857 0.774 0.849
100 0.863 0.781 0.855
TABLE I 1000 0.863 0.786 0.857
H ARD VOTING NSL-KDD R ESULTS

IMa IMAA IMAP IMAF Acc. Prec. F1

D, K 0.812 0.725 0.820 0.855 0.778 0.845 Likewise, the results of the random forest classifier shown
D, K, M 0.782 0.704 0.772 0.850 0.767 0.843 in Table IV demonstrate the predictive power of the ensemble,
D, K, M, L 0.641 0.589 0.721 0.784 0.677 0.795 reaching an impressive 86.3% accuracy and 0.857 F1 score.
a See Experiment subsection for abbrevation meanings.
The measures to avoid overfitting are also at play in the
Random Forest’s impressive performance, by - like bagging
- utilizing smaller bootstrap samples of dataset on top of
TABLE II using ”trimmed” inner-trees that have small depth and thus
S OFT VOTING NSL-KDD R ESULTS
are unable to overfit to the many specific features in each
IM IMAA IMAP IMAF Acc. Prec. F1 instance. It can speculated that with further hyper-parameter
D, K 0.786 0.675 0.796 0.801 0.684 0.802 tuning and feature engineering this ensemble can become a
D, K, M 0.689 0.603 0.739 0.792 0.681 0.801
D, K, M, L 0.681 0.551 0.619 0.794 0.683 0.802 top contender for predictive power on the NSL-KDD domain
and get a lot of real-world use.
The results of the soft voting test on the NSL-KDD dataset
TABLE V
is shown in Table II. The inner-models (IM) used in the exper- A DA B OOST NSL-KDD R ESULTS FOR n T REES
iment are denoted as follows: D - Decision Tree, K - K Nearest
Neighbors, M - MLP Classifier, and L - Logistic Regression. n Acc. Prec. F1
10 0.859 0.780 0.852
Like the hard-voting results the ensemble performed better 50 0.865 0.785 0.858
than the individual inner-models, but unlike the hard voting, 100 0.864 0.783 0.856
when the inner-models became weaker the overall ensemble’s 1000 0.864 0.785 0.856
performance stayed relatively stable instead of falling. This is
the benefit of soft voting over hard voting, because the voting
Finally, Table V shows the results for applying AdaBoost
considers the confidence of each inner model and not just
classifiers with n decision trees as inner-models on the NSL-
binary choices, when the inner models start becoming less and
KDD dataset. The accuracy, precision, and F1 score results
less confident the ensemble intuitively reacts and softens the
show impressive numbers for an out-of-box algorithm that has
fall in accuracy by considering a sum of every single choice
had no tuning or massaging. It is interesting to observe that
confidence.
the scores seem to not increase after a n somewhere between
TABLE III 10 and 50 and instead reach a somewhat constant state, this
BAGGING NSL-KDD R ESULTS FOR n D ECISION T REE C LASSIFIERS can be used for an advantage with AdaBoost classifiers, as
finding that point through some hyper-parameter search can
n IMAA IMAP IMAF Acc. Prec. F1
2 0.821 0.720 0.821 0.821 0.720 0.821 bring the greatest results with improved runtimes.
5 0.844 0.755 0.840 0.860 0.778 0.853 Comparing all the results we see Random Forests and
10 0.840 0.754 0.839 0.862 0.786 0.857 AdaBoost as the two stand-out stars. This can explained
20 0.854 0.771 0.847 0.862 0.784 0.855
by the special attention given to combat overfitting in their
algorithms, which is absent in the basic voting ensembles.
Table III gives the results of bagging n decision trees. Random Forest uses the explicit bootstrap datasets, while
As the number of decision trees increases so to does the AdaBoost uses more implicit weights for the dataset, but both

1004

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
serve to lower variance and thus improve performance. The
voting ensembles still improved over the performance of their
inner-models, and their ease of use and understanding is a plus
for teaching hand-implementing the systems over the more
complicated algorithms like AdaBoost. Bagging vs Random
Forest is interesting because at the core both algorithms are
notably similar, but the extra complexities Random Forests
takes to build more refined inner-models and then aggregate
smarter takes its performance farther, but - again - at an
increase in development and management complexity.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper was a study on the potential effectiveness of
ensemble methods when applied to the cybersecurity domain
using the NSL-KDD for experiments on three existing ensem-
ble algorithms. The ensembles studied in this paper, voting,
bagging, and boosting, are by no means all-inclusive for
ensembles, many other ensembles tackle the goal of combining
results for a smarter prediction, the ones studied in this paper
are simply the most widely used.
It is important to note that these experiments only outline
the potential of the ensembles and their ability to elevate
individual algorithms; the actual powerhouse models can be
created with more time and resources spent on devising and
refining the ensembles and their inner-models. It has been
shown in numerous papers that decision trees or KNN models
can achieve accuracy scores of 90% [199], [200], so it
can be speculated that the recreation of these models for a
random forest or AdaBoost the predictions scores can reach
very impressive numbers and give a powerful security tool to
consumers to fend against the increasing onslaught of intrusion
based attacks.
R EFERENCES
[1] G. Seni and J. Elder, “Ensemble methods in data mining,” Improving
Accuracy Through Combining Predictions, 2010.
[2] J. Kittler, M. Hatef, R. P. W. Duin, and J. Matas, “On combining
classifiers,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intel-
ligence, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 226–239, March 1998.
[3] L. Breiman, “Bagging predictors,” Machine learning, vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 123–140, 1996.
[4] T. M. Khoshgoftaar, J. V. Hulse, and A. Napolitano, “Comparing
boosting and bagging techniques with noisy and imbalanced data,”
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems
and Humans, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 552–568, May 2011.
[5] R. Polikar, “Ensemble based systems in decision making,” IEEE
Circuits and Systems Magazine, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 21–45, 2006.
[6] Y. Xin, L. Kong, Z. Liu, Y. Chen, Y. Li, H. Zhu, M. Gao, H. Hou,
and C. Wang, “Machine learning and deep learning methods for
cybersecurity,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 35 365–35 381, 2018.
[7] A. L. Buczak and E. Guven, “A survey of data mining and machine
learning methods for cyber security intrusion detection,” IEEE Commu-
nications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1153–1176, 2016.
[8] S. Dua and X. Du, “Data mining and machine learning in cybersecu-
rity,” Auerbach Publications, 2016.
[9] G. F. Ciocarlie, U. Lindqvist, S. Nováczki, and H. Sanneck, “Detecting
anomalies in cellular networks using an ensemble method,” in Pro-
ceedings of the 9th International Conference on Network and Service
Management, Zurich, 2013, pp. 171–174.
[10] T. Day and N. D. Pham, “Data centers,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Technology Engagement Center, 2017.
[11] B. Mukherjee, L. T. Heberlein, and K. N. Levitt, “Network intrusion
detection,” IEEE Network, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 26–41, May-June 1994.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[12] H. J. Liao, C. H. R. Lin, Y. C. Lin, and K. Y. Tung, “Intrusion detection
system: A comprehensive review,” Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 16–24, May-June 2013.
[13] C. Tsai, Y. Hsu, C. Lin, and W. Lin, “Intrusion detection by machine
learning: A review,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 10,
pp. 11 994–12 000, December 2009.
[14] M. Schwob, J. Zhan, and D. A., “Modeling cell communication with
time-dependent signaling hypergraphs,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 2019.
[15] S. Chobe and J. Zhan, “Advancing community detection using keyword
attribute search,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 6, no. 83, 2019.
[16] C. Chiu and J. Zhan, “An evolutionary approach to compact dag neural
network optimization,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 178 331 –
178 341, 2019.
[17] ——, “Deep learning for link prediction in dynamic networks using
weak estimators,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 35 937 – 35 945,
2018.
[18] M. Bhaduri and J. Zhan, “Using empirical recurrences rates ratio for
time series data similarity,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 30 855–
30 864, 2018.
[19] J. Wu, J. Zhan, and S. Chobe, “Mining association rules for low
frequency itemsets,” PLOS ONE, vol. 13, no. 7, 2018.
[20] P. Ezatpoor, J. Zhan, J. Wu, and C. Chiu, “Finding top-k dominance
on incomplete big data using mapreduce framework,” IEEE Access,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7872–7887, 2018.
[21] P. Chopade and J. Zhan, “Towards a framework for community
detection in large networks using game-theoretic modeling,” IEEE
Transactions on Big Data, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 27 354–27 365, 2017.
[22] M. Bhaduri, J. Zhan, and C. Chiu, “A weak estimator for dynamic
systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 27 354–27 365, 2017.
[23] M. Bhaduri, J. Zhan, C. Chiu, and F. Zhan, “A novel online and non-
parametric approach for drift detection in big data,” IEEE Access,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 15 883–15 892, 2017.
[24] C. Chiu, J. Zhan, and F. Zhan, “Uncovering suspicious activity from
partially paired and incomplete multimodal data,” IEEE Access, vol. 5,
no. 1, pp. 13 689 – 13 698, 2017.
[25] R. Ahn and J. Zhan, “Using proxies for node immunization identifica-
tion on large graphs,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 13 046–13 053,
2017.
[26] J. Zhan and B. Dahal, “Using deep learning for short text understand-
ing,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 4, no. 34, pp. 1–15, 2017.
[27] J. Zhan, S. Gurung, and S. P. K. Parsa, “Identification of top-k nodes
in large networks using katz centrality,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 4,
no. 16, 2017.
[28] J. Zhan, T. Rafalski, G. Stashkevich, and E. Verenich, “Vaccination
allocation in large dynamic networks,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 161–172, 2017.
[29] J. Zhan, V. Gudibande, and S. P. K. Parsa, “Idenfication of top-k
influential communities in large networks,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 3,
no. 16, 2016.
[30] H. Selim and J. Zhan, “Towards shortest path identification on large
networks,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 3, no. 10, 2016.
[31] X. Fang and J. Zhan, “Sentiment analysis using product review data,”
Journal of Big Data, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 1–14, 2015.
[32] P. Chopade and J. Zhan, “Structural and functional analytics for
community detection in large-scale complex networks,” Journal of Big
Data, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2015.
[33] J. Zhan and X. Fang, “A computational framework for detecting
malicious actors in communities,” International Journal of Privacy,
Security, and Integrity, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2014.
[34] A. Doyal and J. Zhan, “Towards ddos defense and traceback,” Inter-
national Journal of Privacy, Security, and Integrity, vol. 1, no. 4, pp.
299–311, 2013.
[35] J. Zhan, J. Oommen, and J. Crisostomo, “Anomaly detection in
dynamic systems using weak estimator,” ACM Transaction on Internet
Technology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 53–69, 2011.
[36] J. Zhan and X. Fang, “Social computing: The state of the art,” In-
ternational Journal of Social Computing and Cyber-Physical Systems,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2011.
[37] N. Mead, M. S., and J. Zhan, “Integrating privacy requirements con-
siderations into a security requirements engineering method and tool,”
International Journal of Information Privacy, Security and Integrity,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 106–126, 2011.
1005
[38] J. Zhan, “Granular computing in privacy-preserving data mining,” In-
ternational Journal of Granular Computing, Rough Sets and Intelligent
Systems, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 272–288, 2010.
[39] J. Wang, J. Zhang, and J. Zhan, “Towards real-time performance of
data privacy protection,” International Journal of Granular Computing,
Rough Sets and Intelligent Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 329–342, 2010.
[40] J. Zhan, “Secure collaborative social networks,” IEEE Transaction on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 682–689,
2010.
[41] J. Zhan, H. C., I. Wang, T. Hsu, C. Liau, and W. D., “Privacy-preserving
collaborative recommender systems,” IEEE Transaction on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 472–476, 2010.
[42] H. Park, J. Hong, J. Park, J. Zhan, and D. Lee, “Attribute-based access
control using combined authentication technologies,” IEEE Transaction
on Mobile Computing, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 824–837, 2010.
[43] I. Wang, C. Shen, J. Zhan, T. Hsu, C. Liau, and D. Wang, “Empirical
evaluations of secure scalar product,” IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 440–447, 2009.
[44] N. Mead, V. Viswanathan, and J. Zhan, “Incorporating security re-
quirements engineering into standard lifecycle processes,” International
Journal of Security and Its Applications, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 67–80, 2008.
[45] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “Privacy-preserving multi-party
decision tree induction,” International Journal of Business Intelligence
and Data Mining, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 197–212, 2007.
[46] ——, “Building k-nearest neighbor classifiers on vertically partitioned
private data,” International Journal of Network Security, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 46–51, 2005.
[47] J. Zhan and S. Matwin, “Privacy preserving support vector machine
classification,” International Journal of Intelligent Information and
Database Systems, vol. 1, no. 3/4, pp. 356–385, 2005.
[48] F. Zhan, A. Martinez, N. Rai, R. McConnell, M. Swan, M. Bhaduri,
J. Zhan, L. Gewali, and P. Oh, “Beyond cumulative sum charting in
non-stationarity detection and estimation,” IEEE Access, 2019.
[49] A. Hart, B. Smith, S. Smith, E. Sales, J. Hernandez-Camargo, Y. M.
Garcia, F. Zhan, L. Griswold, B. Dunkelberger, M. R. Schwob,
S. Chaudhry, J. Zhan, L. Gewali, and P. Oh, “Resolving intravoxel
white matter structures in the human brain using regularized regression
and clustering,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 6, 2019.
[50] F. Zhan, “Hand gesture recognition with convolution neural networks,”
in Proceedings of IEEE 20th International Conference on Information
Reuse and Integration for Data Science, Los Angeles, CA, USA, July
31-August 1 2019.
[51] ——, “How to optimize social network influence,” in Proceedings of
the IEEE Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
and Knowledge Engineering (AIKE), Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, June 3-5
2019.
[52] E. Aguilar, J. Dancel, D. Mamaud, D. Pirosch, F. Tavacoli, F. Zhan,
R. Pearce, M. Novack, H. Keehu, B. Lowe, J. Zhan, L. Gewali, and
P. Oh, “Highly parallel seedless random number generation from arbi-
trary thread schedule reconstruction,” in IEEE International Conference
on Big Knowledge, Beijing, China, November 10-11 2019.
[53] E. Hunt, R. Janamsetty, C. Kinares, C. Koh, A. Sanchez, F. Zhan,
M. Ozdemir, S. Waseem, O. Yolcu, B. Dahal, J. Zhan, L. Gewali,
and P. Oh, “Machine learning models for paraphrase identification
and its applications on plagiarism detection,” in IEEE International
Conference on Big Knowledge, Beijing, China, November 10-11 2019.
[54] M. Bhaduri, J. Zhan, C. Chiu, and F. Zhan, “A novel online and non-
parametric approach for drift detection in big data,” IEEE Access,
vol. 5, pp. 15 883–15 892, 2017.
[55] C. Chiu, J. Zhan, and F. Zhan, “Uncovering suspicious activity from
partially paired and incomplete multimodal data,” IEEE Access, vol. 5,
pp. 13 689–13 698, 2017.
[56] D. Pintado, V. Sanchez, E. Adarve, M. Mata, Z. Gogebakan, B. Cabuk,
C. Chiu, J. Zhan, L. Gewali, and P. Oh, “Deep learning based shopping
assistant for the visually impaired,” in IEEE International Conference
on Consumer Electrics, Las Vegas, USA, January 2019.
[57] F. Fessahaye, L. Perez, T. Zhan, R. Zhang, C. Fossier, R. Markarian,
C. Chiu, J. Zhan, L. Gewali, and P. Oh, “T-recsys: A novel music
recommendation system using deep learning,” in IEEE International
Conference on Consumer Electrics, Las Vegas, USA, January 2019.
[58] F. Zhan, G. Laines, S. Deniz, S. Paliskara, I. Ochoa, I. Guerra,
M. Pirouz, C. Chiu, S. Tayeb, E. Ploutz, J. Zhan, L. Gewali, and
P. Oh, “An efficient alternative to personalized page rank for friend
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
recommendations,” in IEEE Consumer Communications and Network-
ing Conference, Las Vegas, USA, January 2018.
[59] F. Zhan, G. Laines, S. Deniz, S. Paliskara, I. Ochoa, I. Guerra,
S. Tayeb, C. Chiu, M. Pirouz, E. Ploutz, L. G. Justin Zhan and, and
P. Oh, “Prediction of online social networks users’ behaviors with a
game theoretic approach,” in IEEE Consumer Communications and
Networking Conference, Las Vegas, USA, January 2018.
[60] S. Tayeb, M. Pirouz, B. Cozzens, R. Huang, M. Jay, K. Khembunjong,
S. Paliskara, F. Zhan, M. Zhang, J. Zhan, and S. Latifi, “Toward data
quality analytics in signature verification using a convolutional neural
network,” in IEEE International Conference on Big Data, Boston,
USA, December 2017, pp. 2644–2651.
[61] P. Chopade and J. Zhan, “Large-scale big data networks analytics and
community detection,” in IEEE International Symposium on Technolo-
gies for Homeland Security, Waltham, MA USA, April 2017.
[62] ——, “Efficient detection of communities and prediction of abnormal
events, situational awareness in large complex networks,” in IEEE
International Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security,
Waltham, MA USA, April 2017.
[63] P. Chopade, J. Zhan, and M. Bikdash, “Micro-community detection
and vulnerability identification for large critical networks,” in IEEE
International Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security,
Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, May 2016.
[64] ——, “Node attributes and edge structure for large-scale big data
network analytics and community detection,” in IEEE International
Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security, Boston, USA,
April 2015.
[65] B. Kaur, M. Blow, and J. Zhan, “A novel approach for authentication
using steganography,” in International Conference on Cyber Security,
Stanford University, CA, USA, May 2015.
[66] P. Chopade and J. Zhan, “A game theoretic modeling approach to com-
munity detection in large-scale networks,” in International Conference
on Big Data, Stanford University, CA, USA, May 2015.
[67] P. Chopade, J. Zhan, and C. K., “Smart and effective large-scale system
risk analysis,” in Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) Annual meeting,
Crystal Gateway Marriot, Arlington, Virginia, USA, December 2015.
[68] P. Chopade, J. Zhan, K. Roy, and K. Flurchick, “Real-time large-
scale big data networks analytics and visualization architecture,” in The
12th International Conference on Emerging Technologies for a Smarter
World, Stony Brook University, Long Island, New York, USA, October
2015.
[69] Y. R. Bachupally and J. Zhan, “Towards a recommender system for
databridge,” in The Fourth ASE International Conference on Big Data,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, December 2014.
[70] B. Kaur, M. Blow, and J. Zhan, “Digital image authentication in
social media,” in The Sixth ASE International Conference on Privacy,
Security, Risk, and Trust, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA,
December 2014.
[71] A. Albu-Shamah and J. Zhan, “Discovering hidden networks based on
twitter texts,” in The Third ASE International Conference on Social
Informatics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, December
2014.
[72] H. Selim, P. Chopade, and J. Zhan, “Node degree and edge cluster-
ing correlation for community detection in big data and large-scale
networks,” in The Fourth ASE International Conference on Big Data,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, December 2014.
[73] B. Meyer and J. Zhan, “Drowning in opinions: Extracting the pearls,”
in The Third ASE International Conference on Social Informatics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, December 2014.
[74] P. Chopade, J. Zhan, and M. Bikdash, “Supervized community detec-
tion for big data and large-scale complex networks,” in The Fourth ASE
International Conference on Big Data, Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA, USA, December 2014.
[75] P. Chopade, K. Flurchick, J. Zhan, and M. Bikdash, “Visualization tech-
niques for large-scale big data networks: Smart power grid survivability
in a complex operating environment,” in The Fourth ASE International
Conference on Big Data, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA,
December 2014.
[76] Y.-T. Chiang, T.-S. Hsu, C.-J. Liau, Y.-C. Liu, C.-H. Shen, D.-W. Wang,
and J. Zhan, “An information-theoretic approach for secure protocol
composition,” in The Tenth International Conference on Security and
Privacy in Communication Networks, Beijing, China, September 2014.
[77] Y. Lu, X. Fang, and J. Zhan, “Data readiness level for unstructured
data with a focus on unindexed data,” in The Third ASE International
1006
 Conference on Big Data, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, August
2014.
[78] ——, “Towards data readiness level for structured data,” in The Sec-
ond ASE International Conference on Big Data, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, USA, May 2014.
[79] X. Fang and J. Zhan, “A novel approach for evaluating semantic
similarity measures,” in The Sixth ASE International Conference on
Social Computing, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, May 2014.
[80] P. Chopade, M. Bikdash, and J. Zhan, “Grid reliability: Need of
developing self-healing and self-mitigating smart power grid,” in The
Second International Symposium on Energy Challenges and Mechanics
(ECM2), Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, August 2014.
[81] H. Selim, P. Chopade, and J. Zhan, “Statistical modeling and scalable,
interactive visualization of large scale/big data networks,” in ASE Inter-
national Workshop on Big Data Analytics for Predictive Organization
and Big Transformations, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA,
May 2014.
[82] P. Chopade and J. Zhan, “Community detection in large scale big data
networks,” in The Second ASE International Conference on Big Data,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, May 2014.
[83] B. Kaur, M. Blow, and J. Zhan, “Authenticity of images in social
media,” in NSF Workshop on Big Data Security and Privacy, University
of Texas at Dallas, TX, USA, September 2014.
[84] B. Kaur and J. Zhan, “Malware detection using the weak estimator,” in
The Third ASE International Conference on Cyber Security, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, USA, May 2014.
[85] H. Selim, P. Chopade, and J. Zhan, “Structural analysis and interactive
visualization of large scale big data networks,” in The IEEE 11th
International Conference and Expo on Emerging Technologies for a
Smarter World, Stony Brook University, New York, USA, October
2014.
[86] ——, “Interactive visualization of large scale big data networks,” in
The Second ASE International Conference on Big Data Science and
Computing, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, May 2014.
[87] B. Meyer and J. Zhan, “A look inside the nodes cohesive attribute
micro-clustering,” in The Second ASE International Conference on Big
Data Science and Computing, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA,
2014.
[88] A. Albu-Shamah and J. Zhan, “Obesity in online social networks,” in
The Sixth ASE International Conference on Social Computing, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, USA, May 2014.
[89] C. Passmore and J. Zhan, “Determining appropriate staffing adjust-
ments in a call center staff group,” in 2013 ASE/IEEE International
Conference on Big Data, Washington D.C., USA, September 2013.
[90] C. T. C. J. C. M. K. G. K. H. L. H. S. S. Z. J. Rajasekar, A.,
“Sociometric methods for relevancy analysis of long tail science data,”
in 2013 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Big Data, Washington
D.C., USA, September 2013.
[91] X. Fang, J. Zhan, and N. Koceja, “Towards network reduction on
big data,” in 2013 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Big Data,
Washington D.C., USA, September 2013.
[92] A. Albu-Shamah and J. Zhan, “Towards obesity causes, prevalence and
prevention,” in 2013 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Biomedi-
cal Computing, Washington D.C., USA, September 2013.
[93] C. Barron, H. Yu, and J. Zhan, “Cloud computing security case
studies and research,” in 2013 International Conference of Parallel
and Distributed Computing, London, UK, July 2013.
[94] J. Lake, X. Yuan, and J. Zhan, “Towards authentication vulnerabilities
in openemr,” in The 2013 Symposium on Computing at Minority
Institutions, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, April 2013.
[95] H. Yu, J. Rann, and J. Zhan, “Such: A cloud computing management
tool,” in Proceedings of the 5th IFIP International Conference on New
Technologies, Mobility and Security. Brisbane, Australia: IEEE CS
Press, May 2012.
[96] X. Fang, N. Koceja, J. Zhan, G. Dozier, and D. Dasgupta, “An
artificial immune system for phishing detection,” in IEEE Congress
on Evolutionary Computation. Brisbane, Australia: IEEE Press, June
2012.
[97] M. Kanampiu, J. Zhan, and J. Baek, “A secure group collaboration
protocol for nonverbal human social signals featuring deception detec-
tion,” in 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk, and
Trust. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IEEE CS Press, September 2012.
[98] X. Fang and J. Zhan, “Task-oriented social ego network generation
via dynamic collaborator selection,” in 2012 International Conference
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
on Social Computing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IEEE CS Press,
September 2012.
[99] A. Albu-Shamah and J. Zhan, “Towards an optimizing model for older
people at risk of falls,” in 2012 International Conference on Biomedical
Computing. Washington D.C., USA: IEEE CS Press, December 2012.
[100] A. Doyal, J. Zhan, and A. Yu, “Towards defending ddos attacks,” in
2012 International Conference on Cyber Security. Washington D.C.,
USA: IEEE CS Press, December 2012.
[101] M. Kanampiu and J. Zhan, “A dynamic covert passive actors detection
scheme for a healthy networked community,” in 2012 International
Conference on Cyber Security. Washington D.C., USA: IEEE CS
Press, December 2012.
[102] X. Fang and J. Zhan, “A computational framework for detecting
malicious actors in communities,” in 2012 International Conference on
Social Informatics. Washington D.C., USA: IEEE CS Press, December
2012.
[103] J. Zhan and X. Fang, “Location privacy protection on social networks,”
in Proceedings of International Conference on Social Computing,
Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction, Maryland, USA, March
2011.
[104] ——, “Trust maximization in social networks,” in Proceedings of
International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural
Modeling and Prediction, Maryland, USA, March 2011.
[105] ——, “Authentication using multi-level social networks,” in Interna-
tional Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering
and Knowledge Management, Springer Series on Communications in
Computer and Information Science, vol. 128, 2011.
[106] J. Zhan, X. Fang, and P. Killion, “Protecting location data on social
networks,” in IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence.
Paris, France: IEEE, April 2011.
[107] J. Zhan, X. Fang, and N. Bandaru, “Protecting location data on social
networks,” in IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence.
Paris, France: IEEE, April 2011.
[108] T. L. P. V. Zhan, J., “Using gaming strategies for attacker and
defender in recommender systems,” in IEEE Symposium Series on
Computational Intelligence. Paris, France: IEEE, April 2011.
[109] J. Zhan and L. Thomas, “Phishing detection using stochastic learning-
based weak estimators,” in IEEE Symposium Series on Computational
Intelligence. Paris, France: IEEE, April 2011.
[110] J. Zhan, J. Oommen, and J. Crisostomo, “System call anomaly detec-
tion,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security
Informatics. Beijing, China: IEEE, July 2011.
[111] X. Fang, J. Zhan, N. Koceja, K. Williams, and J. Brewton, “Inte-
grating online social networks for enhancing reputation systems of
e-commerce,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and
Security Informatics. Beijing, China: IEEE, July 2011.
[112] J. Zhan, N. Jones, , and M. Purnell, “Top-k algorithm for recommenda-
tion in social networking kingdoms,” in IEEE International Conference
on Social Computing. MIT, Boston, USA: IEEE CS Press, October
2011.
[113] J. Zhan and X. Fang, “Anomaly detection in social-economic comput-
ing,” in IEEE International Conference on Social Computing. MIT,
Boston, USA: IEEE CS Press, October 2011.
[114] ——, “A novel trust computing system for social networks,” in IEEE
International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust. MIT,
Boston, USA: IEEE CS Press, October 2011.
[115] J. Zhan, L. Cabrera, G. Osman, and R. Shah, “Using private matching
for securely querying genomic sequences,” in IEEE International
Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust. MIT, Boston, USA:
IEEE CS Press, October 2011.
[116] T. Allan and J. Zhan, “Towards fraud detection methodologies,” in
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Financial Security.
Busan, Korea: IEEE CS Press, May 2010.
[117] C. Knopik and J. Zhan, “The effects of financial crises on american
financial institutions information security,” in Proceedings of the Inter-
national Symposium on Financial Security. Busan, Korea: IEEE CS
Press, May 2010.
[118] J. Henkel and J. Zhan, “Remote deposit capture in the consumer’s
hands,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Financial
Security. Busan, Korea: IEEE CS Press, May 2010.
[119] D. Erhardt and J. Zhan, “A proactive approach to detecting and reducing
information security threats in billing systems,” in Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Financial Security. Busan, Korea: IEEE
CS Press, May 2010.
1007
[120] K. Beck and J. Zhan, “Phishing in finance,” in Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Financial Security. Busan, Korea: IEEE
CS Press, May 2010.
[121] X. Fang and J. Zhan, “Online banking authentication using mobile
phones,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Financial
Security. Busan, Korea: IEEE CS Press, May 2010.
[122] Y. Duan, J. Canny, and J. Zhan, “Practical large-scale privacy-
preserving distributed computation robust against malicious users,” in
Proceedings of 19th USENIX Security Symposium, Washington, D.C.,
USA, August 2010.
[123] T. Yu, D. Lee, and J. Zhan, “Multi-party k-means clustering with
privacy consideration,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Sympo-
sium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications, Taipei,
Taiwan, September 2010.
[124] K. Beck and J. Zhan, “Phishing using a modified bayesian technique,”
in Proceedings of International Symposium on Social Computing
Applications. Minneapolis, USA: IEEE CS Press, August 2010, pp.
1–5.
[125] J. Zhan and X. Fang, “A computational trust framework for social
computing,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on
Social Computing. Minneapolis, USA: IEEE CS Press, August 2010,
pp. 1–5.
[126] C. Su, J. Zhan, and K. Sakurai, “Importance of data standardization
in privacy-preserving k- means clustering,” in Proceedings of the 2009
Symposium on Cryptography and Information Security, Otsu, Japan,
January 2009, pp. 1–5.
[127] B. Wasser and J. Zhan, “Practical values for privacy,” in Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Privacy and Security Applications.
Vancouver, Canada: IEEE CS Press, August 2009.
[128] J. Zhan, J. Oommen, and J. Crisostomo, “Anomaly detection in
dynamic social systems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Social Computing. Vancouver, Canada: IEEE CS Press,
August 2009, pp. 18–25.
[129] J. Zhan and V. Rajamani, “The economics of privacy: People, policy
and technology,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Information Security and Assurance. IEEE CS Press, April 2008, pp.
579–584.
[130] I. Wang, C. Shen, T. Hsu, C. Liau, D. Wang, and J. Zhan, “Towards
empirical aspect of secure scalar product protocol,,” in Proceedings of
the International Conference on Information Security and Assurance.
IEEE CS Press, April 2008, pp. 573–578.
[131] N. Mead, V. Viswanathan, and J. Zhan, “Incorporating security require-
ments engineering into the rational unified process,” in Proceedings of
the International Conference on Information Security and Assurance.
IEEE CS Press, April 2008, pp. 537–542.
[132] X. Xu and J. Zhan, “Security applications in dynamics evolution sys-
tems,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Security and Assurance. IEEE CS Press, April 2008, pp. 567–572.
[133] C. Hsieh, J. Zhan, D. Zeng, and F. Wang, “Privacy-preserving in joining
recommender systems,” in Proceedings of the International Conference
on Information Security and Assurance. IEEE CS Press, April 2008,
pp. 561–566.
[134] K. Prakobphol and J. Zhan, “A novel outlier detection scheme for net-
work intrusion detection systems,” in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Security and Assurance. IEEE CS Press,
April 2008, pp. 555–560.
[135] H. Park and J. Zhan, “Privacy-preserving sql queries,” in Proceedings
of the International Conference on Information Security and Assurance.
IEEE CS Press, April 2008, pp. 549–554.
[136] G. Blosser and J. Zhan, “Privacy-preserving collaborative social net-
works,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
Security and Assurance. IEEE CS Press, April 2008, pp. 543–548.
[137] J. Zhan, G. Blosser, C. Yang, and L. Singh, “Privacy-preserving
collaborative social networks,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
vol. 5075. Springer, 2008, pp. 114–125.
[138] G. Blosser and J. Zhan, “Privacy-preserving collaborative e-voting,” in
International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics, vol.
5075. Springer, 2008, pp. 508–513.
[139] C. Hsieh and J. Zhan, “Privacy-preserving collaborative recommender
systems for promoting sales in e-commerce,” in the Annual RAKUTEN
Conference, Japan, 2008.
[140] X. Xu, J. Zhan, and H. Zhu, “Using social networks to organize
researcher community,” in International Conference on Intelligence and
Security Informatics, vol. 5075. Springer, 2008, pp. 421–427.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[141] H. Park, J. Zhan, and D. Lee, “Privacy-aware access control through
negotiation in daily life service,” in International Conference on
Intelligence and Security, vol. 5075. Springer, 2008, pp. 514–519.
[142] H. Park, D. Lee, J. Zhan, and G. Blosser, “Efficient keyword index
search over encrypted data of groups,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics, June
2008, pp. 225–229.
[143] C. Hsu, J. Zhan, W. Fang, and J. Ma, “Towards improving qos-guided
scheduling in grids,” in Proceedings of the 3rd ChinaGrid Annual
Conference, Dunhuang,China, August 2008, pp. 89–95.
[144] J. Zhan and T. Lin, “Granular computing in privacy-preserving data
mining,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Granular Computing, Hangzhou, China, August 2008, pp. 86–92.
[145] J. Zhan, I. Cheng, C. Hsieh, T. Hsu, C. Liau, and D. Wang, “Towards
efficient privacy-preserving collaborative recommender systems,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Granular Com-
puting, Hangzhou, China, August 2008, pp. 778–783.
[146] H. Park, D. Lee, and J. Zhan, “Attribute-based access control using
combined authentication technologies,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Granular Computing, Hangzhou, China,
August 2008, pp. 518–523.
[147] J. Wang, J. Zhan, and J. Zhang, “Towards real-time performance of
data value hiding for frequent data updates,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing, Hangzhou,
China, August 2008, pp. 606–611.
[148] C. Shen, J. Zhan, T. Hsu, C. Liau, and D. Wang, “Scalar product-
based secure two party computation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Granular Computing, Hangzhou, China,
August 2008, pp. 600–605.
[149] S. Miyazaki, N. Mead, and J. Zhan, “Computer-aided privacy require-
ments elicitation techniques,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Asia Pacific
International Conference on Services Computing, Yilan, Taiwan, De-
cember 2008, pp. 367–372.
[150] Y. Duan, J. Canny, and J. Zhan, “Efficient privacy-preserving associa-
tion rule mining: P4p style,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on
Computational Intelligence and Data Mining, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA,
April 2007, pp. 654–660.
[151] J. Zhan, “Privacy preserving data mining in digital age,” in the Pacific
Asia Workshop on Intelligence and Security Informatics, Chengdu,
China, April 2007.
[152] ——, “Quantifying privacy for privacy preserving data mining,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence
and Data Mining, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, April 2007, pp. 630–636.
[153] ——, “Using homomorphic encryption and digital envelope techniques
for privacy preserving collaborative sequential pattern mining,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and
Security Informatics, New Jersey, USA, May 2007, pp. 331–334.
[154] ——, “Privacy preserving collaborative data mining,” in Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security
Informatics, New Jersey, USA, May 2007, pp. 208–218.
[155] ——, “Privacy preserving decision tree classification in horizontal
collaboration,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Security of Information and Networks, North Cyprus, May 2007, pp.
53–58.
[156] C. Purcell and J. Zhan, “Adapting us privacy laws to the internet: Is
patching enough?” in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Hong Kong, August 2007, pp.
3000–3005.
[157] G. Blosser and J. Zhan, “Maintaining k-anonymity on real-time data,”
in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning
and Cybernetics, Hong Kong, August 2007, pp. 3012–3015.
[158] R. Wei and J. Zhan, “A proposal for customers’ privacy preference
policy,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine
Learning and Cybernetics, Hong Kong, August 2007, pp. 3022–3027.
[159] C. Shen, J. Zhan, D. Wang, T. Hsu, and C. Liau, “Information
theoretically secure number product protocol,” in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Hong
Kong, August 2007, pp. 3006–3011.
[160] J. Zhan, “Privacy-preserving k-medoids clustering,” in Proceedings of
the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Montreal, Canada, October 2007, pp. 3323–3326.
[161] ——, “Privacy-preserving k-medoids clustering,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Montreal, Canada, October 2007, pp. 3600–3603.
1008
[162] R. Wei and J. Zhan, “Improved privacy preference policy,” in Proceed-
ings of the IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing,
Silicon Valley, USA, November 2007, pp. 787–787.
[163] W. Zhang and J. Zhan, “A scientific decoding of yinyang 1-2-4-8-
64 for equilibrium-based granular computing,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing, Silicon Valley,
USA, November 2007, pp. 374–380.
[164] K. Shin and J. Zhan, “A verification schemes for data aggregation in
data mining,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Granular Computing, Silicon Valley, USA, November 2007, pp. 374–
380.
[165] L. Singh and J. Zhan, “Measuring topological anonymity in social
networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Granular Computing, Silicon Valley, USA, November 2007, pp. 770–
774.
[166] H. Park, B. Kim, D. Lee, Y. Chung, and J. Zhan, “Secure similarity
search,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Granular Computing, Silicon Valley, USA, November 2007, pp. 598–
598.
[167] J. Zhan, “The economic aspects of privacy preserving data mining
(poster),” in the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland,
California, USA, May 2006, pp. 5–14.
[168] ——, “Privacy-preserving collaborative sequential pattern mining,”
in Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Workshop on Theory and
Practice of Temporal Data Mining, Philadelphia, USA, August 2006,
pp. 5–14.
[169] ——, “Privately mining applications in bioinformatics,” in the Seventh
International Conference on Systems Biology, Yokohama, Japan, Oc-
tober 2006, pp. 4102–4105.
[170] J. Zhan and S. Matwin, “Privacy-oriented learning systems,” in Pro-
ceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Taipei, Taiwan, October 2006, pp. 4102–4105.
[171] ——, “A crypto-approach to privacy-preserving data mining,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining
Workshop on Privacy Aspect of Data Mining, Hong Kong, December
2006, pp. 546–550.
[172] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “Collaborative association rule
mining by sharing private data,” in Proceedings of the Montreal
Conference On E-Technologies, Montreal, Canada, January 2005, pp.
193–197.
[173] J. Zhan, S. Matwin, and L. Chang, “Private mining of association
rules,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on In-
telligence and Security Informatics, Atlanta, Georgia, May 2005, pp.
72–80.
[174] J. Zhan, “Research directions in data mining and privacy,” in Inter-
national Conference on Services Systems and Services Management,
Chongqing, China, June 2005, pp. 49–58.
[175] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “How to construct support vector
machines without breaching privacy,” in Proceedings of Artificial Intel-
ligence Studies: VII International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
AI-20’2005, Poland, June 2005, pp. 49–58.
[176] J. Zhan, S. Matwin, and L. Chang, “Privacy-preserving clustering over
horizontally partitioned data,” in Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence
Studies: VII International Conference on Artificial Intelligence AI-
20’2005, Poland, June 2005, pp. 39–48.
[177] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “Building k-nearest neighbor
classification on vertically partitioned private data,” in Proceedings of
the IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing, Beijing,
China, July 2005, pp. 708–711.
[178] J. Zhan, S. Matwin, and L. Chang, “Privacy-preserving decision tree
classification over vertically partitioned data,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshop on Multi-
Agent Data Warehousing and Multi-Agent Data Mining, Houston,
Texas, USA, November 2005, pp. 121–129.
[179] ——, “Multi-party sequential pattern mining over private data,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining
Workshop on Multi-Agent Data Warehousing and Multi-Agent Data
Mining, Houston, Texas, USA, November 2005, pp. 112–120.
[180] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “Privacy-preserving naı̈ve bayesian
classification over vertically partitioned data,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshop on Foun-
dations of Semantic Oriented Data and Web Mining, Houston, Texas,
USA, November 2005, pp. 47–53.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Adelaide. Downloaded on February 02,2024 at 15:35:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[181] ——, “How to prevent private data from being disclosed to a malicious
attacker,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data
Mining Workshop on Foundations of Semantic Oriented Data and Web
Mining, Houston, Texas, USA, November 2005, pp. 41–46.
[182] J. Zhan and S. Matwin, “Privacy and security issues in medical infor-
matics,” in the Electronic Health Information and Privacy Conference,
Ottawa, Canada, November 2005.
[183] J. Zhan, S. Matwin, and L. Chang, “Privacy-preserving naı̈ve bayesian
classification over horizontally partitioned data,” in Proceedings of
the International Conference on Electronic Business, Hong Kong,
December 2005.
[184] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “Privacy-preserving sequential
pattern mining over vertically partitioned data,” in Proceedings of
the International Conference on Electronic Business, Hong Kong,
December 2005.
[185] J. Zhan, M. S., and L. Chang, “Privacy-preserving decision tree
classification over horizontally partitioned data,” in Proceedings of
the International Conference on Electronic Business, Hong Kong,
December 2005.
[186] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “Privacy-preserving support vector
machine learning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Electronic Business, Hong Kong, December 2005.
[187] J. Zhan, S. Matwin, and L. Chang, “Privacy-preserving association rule
mining,” in Proceedings of the 2005 Annual IFIP WG 11.3 Working
Conference on Data and Applications Security, Storrs, Connecticut,
USA, August 2005, pp. 153–165.
[188] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “Privacy-preserving naive bayesian
classification,” in Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference
on Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Innsbruck, Austria, Febru-
ary 2004, pp. 141–155.
[189] ——, “Privacy-preserving collaborative sequential pattern mining,” in
Proceedings of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining,
Workshop on Link Analysis, Counter-terrorism, and Privacy, Lake
Buena Vista, Florida, April 2004, pp. 61–72.
[190] J. Zhan and L. Chang, “Privacy-preserving collaborative sequential
pattern mining with horizontally partitioned datasets,” in Proceedings
of the International Conference on Data Privacy and Security in A
Global Society, Skiathos, Greece, May 2004, pp. 242–252.
[191] J. Zhan, L. Chang, and S. Matwin, “Privacy-preserving multi-party
decision tree classification,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Annual IFIP
WG 11.3 Working Conference on Data and Application Security, Sitges,
Catalonia, Spain, July 2004, pp. 341–355.
[192] ——, “Collaborative data mining and privacy protection,” in Founda-
tion and Novel Approach in Data Mining, Edited by T.Y. Lin, S. Ohsuga,
C.J. Liau, and X. Hu. Springer-Verlag, August 2004, pp. 213–227.
[193] J. Zhan and S. Matwin, “Privacy-preserving electronic surveys,” in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Business,
Beijing, China, December 2004, pp. 1179–1185.
[194] J. Zhan, S. Matwin, N. Japkowicz, and L. Chang, “Association rule
mining and privacy protection,” in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Electronic Business, Beijing, China, December 2004,
pp. 1172–1178.
[195] L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Machine learning, vol. 45, no. 1, pp.
5–32, 2001.
[196] Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire, “Experiments with a new boosting
algorithm,” ICML, vol. 96, 1996.
[197] D. Wolpert, “Stacked generalization,” Neural networks, vol. 5, no. 2,
pp. 241–259, 1992.
[198] M. Tavallaee, E. Bagheri, W. Lu, and A. A. Ghorbani, “A detailed anal-
ysis of the kdd cup 99 data set,” IEEE Symposium on Computational
Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.
1–6, 2009.
[199] C. Azad and V. K. Jha, “Genetic algorithm to solve the problem of
small disjunct in the decision tree based intrusion detection system,”
Int. J. Comput. Netw. Inf. Secur., vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 56–71, 2015.
[200] S.Vishwakarma, V.Sharma, and A.Tiwari, “An intrusion detection sys-
tem using knn-aco algorithm,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 171, no. 10,
pp. 18–23, 2017.
1009