Rethinking Cybersecurity Ontology Classification and Evaluation: Towards a Credibility-Centered Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01651v1
• Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 13:25:05 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Cybersecurity Ontology Classification and Evaluation: Towards a Credibility-Centered Framework
• Authors: Antoine Leblanc, Jacques Robin, Nourhène Ben Rabah, Zequan Huang, Bénédicte Le Grand,
• Abstract summary: This paper analyzes the proliferation of cybersecurity, arguing that this surge cannot be explained solely by technical shortcomings but also by a credibility deficit.<n>We propose a revised framework for assessing credibility, introducing indicators such as institutional support, academic recognition, day-to-day practitioner validation, and industrial adoption.<n>We then apply this framework to a concrete use: the Franco-Luxembourgish research project ANCILE, which illustrates how a credibility-aware evaluation can reshape selection for operational contexts.
• Score: 0.19703625025720695
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper analyzes the proliferation of cybersecurity ontologies, arguing that this surge cannot be explained solely by technical shortcomings related to quality, but also by a credibility deficit - a lack of trust, endorsement, and adoption by users. This conclusion is based on our first contribution, which is a state-of-the-art review and categorization of cybersecurity ontologies using the Framework for Ontologies Classification framework. To address this gap, we propose a revised framework for assessing credibility, introducing indicators such as institutional support, academic recognition, day-to-day practitioner validation, and industrial adoption. Based on these new credibility indicators, we construct a classification scheme designed to guide the selection of ontologies that are relevant to specific security needs. We then apply this framework to a concrete use case: the Franco-Luxembourgish research project ANCILE, which illustrates how a credibility-aware evaluation can reshape ontology selection for operational contexts.

Related papers

• Safe and Certifiable AI Systems: Concepts, Challenges, and Lessons Learned [45.44933002008943]
  This white paper presents the T"UV AUSTRIA Trusted AI framework.<n>It is an end-to-end audit catalog and methodology for assessing and certifying machine learning systems.<n>Building on three pillars - Secure Software Development, Functional Requirements, and Ethics & Data Privacy - it translates the high-level obligations of the EU AI Act into specific, testable criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:52:08Z)
• A Conceptual Framework for AI Capability Evaluations [0.0]
  We propose a conceptual framework for analyzing AI capability evaluations.<n>It offers a structured, descriptive approach that systematizes the analysis of widely used methods and terminology.<n>It also enables researchers to identify methodological weaknesses, assists practitioners in designing evaluations, and provides policymakers with a tool to scrutinize, compare, and navigate complex evaluation landscapes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T00:19:27Z)
• Towards Reliable Forgetting: A Survey on Machine Unlearning Verification [26.88376128769619]
  This paper presents the first structured survey of machine unlearning verification methods.<n>We propose a taxonomy that organizes current techniques into two principal categories -- behavioral verification and parametric verification.<n>We examine their underlying assumptions, strengths, and limitations, and identify potential vulnerabilities in practical deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T03:33:59Z)
• Position: Certified Robustness Does Not (Yet) Imply Model Security [29.595213559303996]
  certified robustness is promoted as a solution to adversarial examples in Artificial Intelligence systems.<n>We identify critical gaps in current research, including the paradox of detection without distinction.<n>We propose steps to address these fundamental challenges and advance the field toward practical applicability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T01:18:33Z)
• Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation [12.55408229639344]
  We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence.<n>Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T20:36:22Z)
• Advancing Neural Network Verification through Hierarchical Safety Abstract Interpretation [52.626086874715284]
  We introduce a novel problem formulation called Abstract DNN-Verification, which verifies a hierarchical structure of unsafe outputs.<n>By leveraging abstract interpretation and reasoning about output reachable sets, our approach enables assessing multiple safety levels during the formal verification process.<n>Our contributions include a theoretical exploration of the relationship between our novel abstract safety formulation and existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T13:29:46Z)
• Advancing Embodied Agent Security: From Safety Benchmarks to Input Moderation [52.83870601473094]
  Embodied agents exhibit immense potential across a multitude of domains.<n>Existing research predominantly concentrates on the security of general large language models.<n>This paper introduces a novel input moderation framework, meticulously designed to safeguard embodied agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T08:34:35Z)
• Automating Semantic Analysis of System Assurance Cases using Goal-directed ASP [1.2189422792863451]
  We present our approach to enhancing Assurance 2.0 with semantic rule-based analysis capabilities. We examine the unique semantic aspects of assurance cases, such as logical consistency, adequacy, indefeasibility, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T15:22:43Z)
• The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concerns [51.370165245628975]
  Tokenization is a critical step in the NLP pipeline.<n>Despite its recognized importance as a standard representation method in NLP, the theoretical underpinnings of tokenization are not yet fully understood.<n>The present paper contributes to addressing this theoretical gap by proposing a unified formal framework for representing and analyzing tokenizer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T11:12:28Z)
• A Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attributions [60.06461883533697]
  We first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill.<n>We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.<n>Our analysis also offers insights into defending against neural Trojans by utilizing the attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• Confidence Estimation via Auxiliary Models [47.08749569008467]
  We introduce a novel target criterion for model confidence, namely the true class probability ( TCP) We show that TCP offers better properties for confidence estimation than standard maximum class probability (MCP)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-11T17:21:12Z)
• A general framework for defining and optimizing robustness [74.67016173858497]
  We propose a rigorous and flexible framework for defining different types of robustness properties for classifiers. Our concept is based on postulates that robustness of a classifier should be considered as a property that is independent of accuracy. We develop a very general robustness framework that is applicable to any type of classification model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-19T13:24:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.