In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.

Example Input: Intrusion detection systems (IDSs) fall into two high-level categories: network-based systems (NIDS) that monitor network behaviors, and host-based systems (HIDS) that monitor system calls. In this work, we present a general technique for both systems. We use anomaly detection, which identifies patterns not conforming to a historic norm. In both types of systems, the rates of change vary dramatically over time (due to burstiness) and over components (due to service difference). To efficiently model such systems, we use continuous time Bayesian networks (CTBNs) and avoid specifying a fixed update interval common to discrete-time models. We build generative models from the normal training data, and abnormal behaviors are flagged based on their likelihood under this norm. For NIDS, we construct a hierarchical CTBN model for the network packet traces and use Rao-Blackwellized particle filtering to learn the parameters. We illustrate the power of our method through experiments on detecting real worms and identifying hosts on two publicly available network traces, the MAWI dataset and the LBNL dataset. For HIDS, we develop a novel learning method to deal with the finite resolution of system log file time stamps, without losing the benefits of our continuous time model. We demonstrate the method by detecting intrusions in the DARPA 1998 BSM dataset.
Example Output: Intrusion Detection using Continuous Time Bayesian Networks

Example Input: An important use of machine learning is to learn what people value. What posts or photos should a user be shown? Which jobs or activities would a person find rewarding? In each case, observations of people’s past choices can inform our inferences about their likes and preferences. If we assume that choices are approximately optimal according to some utility function, we can treat preference inference as Bayesian inverse planning. That is, given a prior on utility functions and some observed choices, we invert an optimal decision-making process to infer a posterior distribution on utility functions. However, people often deviate from approximate optimality. They have false beliefs, their planning is sub-optimal, and their choices may be temporally inconsistent due to hyperbolic discounting and other biases. We demonstrate how to incorporate these deviations into algorithms for preference inference by constructing generative models of planning for agents who are subject to false beliefs and time inconsistency. We explore the inferences these models make about preferences, beliefs, and biases. We present a behavioral experiment in which human subjects perform preference inference given the same observations of choices as our model. Results show that human subjects (like our model) explain choices in terms of systematic deviations from optimal behavior and suggest that they take such deviations into account when inferring preferences.
Example Output: Learning the Preferences of Ignorant, Inconsistent Agents

Example Input: The combinatorial stochastic semi-bandit problem is an extension of the classical multi-armed bandit problem in which an algorithm pulls more than one arm at each stage and the rewards of all pulled arms are revealed. One difference with the single arm variant is that the dependency structure of the arms is crucial. Previous works on this setting either used a worst-case approach or imposed independence of the arms. We introduce a way to quantify the dependency structure of the problem and design an algorithm that adapts to it. The algorithm is based on linear regression and the analysis develops techniques from the linear bandit literature. By comparing its performance to a new lower bound, we prove that it is optimal, up to a poly-logarithmic factor in the number of pulled arms.
Example Output:
Combinatorial semi-bandit with known covariance