Cited by 9Information and Cyber SecurityNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies

Understanding Insider Threat Attacks Using Natural Language Processing: Automatically Mapping Organic Narrative Reports to Existing Insider Threat Frameworks

Open access
Paxton-Fear, Katie, Hodges, Duncan, Buckley, Oliver·2020·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-50309-3_42

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An LSTM model achieved a True Positive Rate of 97.29% and false positive rate of 0.38% on CERT datasets.

    “For example, an LSTM model achieved a True Positive Rate (TPR) of 97.29% and FPR of 0.38% on CERT datasets [61], while another with Word2vec reported 73.4% accuracy [3].”

    From A systematic review on insider threat detection using natural language processing (2025) · cites this paper as [61]

    Section 3.3 describes an unsupervised LDA topic model trained on insider-threat news reports, and Section 4 discusses mapping narrative sentences to a framework. Searches for the stated TPR and FPR, LSTM, and CERT datasets found no passage reporting the claimed evaluation; the available passages do not establish where those figures came from. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [28]28. Paxton-Fear, K., Hodges, D., Buckley, O.: Corpus expansion using topic modelling: Creating a library of insider threat attacks. Human-centric Computing and Infor- mation Systems (In Review)
  2. [31]31. Trilla, A.: Natural language processing techniques in text-to-speech synthesis and automatic speech recognition. Departament de Tecnologies Media pp. 1-5 (2009)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paxton-Fear, K., Hodges, D., & Buckley, O.
Affiliations
  • Cranfield University (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Paxton-Fear, Katie
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2020
Pages
619-636
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W3041713512
Cited by
9
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.76
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • CERES (Cranfield University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Keywords
insider threats, incident reporting, narrative reports

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review