Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Emily Peterson

dblp:266/3625 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Automata and formal languages · 78% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 22%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Deep learning architectures and training · 77% Learning theory · 23%
Network and information security
1 paper
Network security · 77% Usable security · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › sequence modeling
sequence classification
0.812024
MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Automata and formal languages
regular languages
0.812024
MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Automata and formal languages › grammatical inference
regular language learning
0.812024
MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
security games
0.412020
Draining the Water Hole: Mitigating Social Engineering Attacks with CyberTWEAK · AAAI 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

transformer · 1.5RNN · 1.5LSTM · 1.5GRU · 1.5optimization algorithm · 0.9game-theoretic model · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 MLRegTest: A Benchmark for the Machine Learning of Regular Languages
abstract
Synthetic datasets constructed from formal languages allow fine-grained examination of the learning and generalization capabilities of machine learning systems for sequence classification. This article presents a new benchmark for machine learning systems on sequence classification called MLRegTest, which contains training, development, and test sets from 1,800 regular languages. Different kinds of formal languages represent different kinds of long-distance dependencies, and correctly identifying long-distance dependencies in sequences is a known challenge for ML systems to generalize successfully. MLRegTest organizes its languages according to their logical complexity (monadic second order, first order, propositional, or restricted propositional) and the kind of logical literals (string, tier-string, subsequence, or combinations thereof). The logical complexity and choice of literal provides a systematic way to understand different kinds of long-distance dependencies in regular languages, and therefore to understand the capacities of different ML systems to learn such long-distance dependencies. Finally, the performance of different neural networks (simple RNN, LSTM, GRU, transformer) on MLRegTest is examined. The main conclusion is that performance depends significantly on the kind of test set, the class of language, and the neural network architecture.
Sam van der Poel, Dakotah Lambert, Kalina Kostyszyn, Tiantian Gao, Rahul Verma, Derek Andersen, Joanne Chau, Emily Peterson, Cody St. Clair, Paul Fodor, Chihiro Shibata, Jeffrey Heinz
J. Mach. Learn. Res.8
2020 Draining the Water Hole: Mitigating Social Engineering Attacks with CyberTWEAK
abstract
Cyber adversaries have increasingly leveraged social engineering attacks to breach large organizations and threaten the well-being of today's online users. One clever technique, the “watering hole” attack, compromises a legitimate website to execute drive-by download attacks by redirecting users to another malicious domain. We introduce a game-theoretic model that captures the salient aspects for an organization protecting itself from a watering hole attack by altering the environment information in web traffic so as to deceive the attackers. Our main contributions are (1) a novel Social Engineering Deception (SED) game model that features a continuous action set for the attacker, (2) an in-depth analysis of the SED model to identify computationally feasible real-world cases, and (3) the CyberTWEAK algorithm which solves for the optimal protection policy. To illustrate the potential use of our framework, we built a browser extension based on our algorithms which is now publicly available online. The CyberTWEAK extension will be vital to the continued development and deployment of countermeasures for social engineering.
Zheyuan Shi, Aaron Schlenker, Brian Hay, Daniel Bittleston, Siyu Gao, Emily Peterson, John Trezza, Fei Fang 0001
AAAI6