File size: 20,741 Bytes
e2c4702
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
---
license: cc-by-nc-4.0
library_name: pytorch
tags:
  - cybersecurity
  - siem
  - security-logs
  - mitre-attack
  - apt
  - tabular-classification
  - synthetic-data
  - xgboost
  - baseline
  - leakage-diagnostic
pipeline_tag: tabular-classification
base_model: []
datasets:
  - xpertsystems/cyb010-sample
metrics:
  - accuracy
  - f1
  - roc_auc
model-index:
  - name: cyb010-baseline-classifier
    results:
      - task:
          type: tabular-classification
          name: 5-class attack lifecycle phase classification
        dataset:
          type: xpertsystems/cyb010-sample
          name: CYB010 Synthetic Security Event Log Dataset (Sample)
        metrics:
          - type: roc_auc
            value: 0.9904
            name: Test macro ROC-AUC OvR (XGBoost, seed 42)
          - type: accuracy
            value: 0.9493
            name: Test accuracy (XGBoost, seed 42)
          - type: f1
            value: 0.7781
            name: Test macro-F1 (XGBoost, seed 42)
          - type: accuracy
            value: 0.936
            name: Multi-seed accuracy mean ± 0.007 (XGBoost, 10 seeds)
          - type: roc_auc
            value: 0.988
            name: Multi-seed ROC-AUC mean ± 0.001 (XGBoost, 10 seeds)
---

# CYB010 Baseline Classifier

**Attack lifecycle phase classifier (5-class) trained on the CYB010
synthetic security event log sample. Predicts which of 5 attack phases
(`benign_background` / `initial_access` / `lateral_movement` /
`persistence_establishment` / `exfiltration_or_impact`) a security
event belongs to, from per-event features. ALSO ships a comprehensive
`leakage_diagnostic.json` documenting 11 oracle paths discovered
across the dataset's targets and 2 README-suggested targets that are
unlearnable on the sample after honest leak removal.**

> **Read this first.** This repo ships two related artifacts:
> (1) a working baseline classifier for `attack_lifecycle_phase` (the
> dataset's headline target), and (2) `leakage_diagnostic.json`
> documenting 11 separate oracle paths plus 2 unlearnable targets.
> Both files matter; the diagnostic is required reading for anyone
> evaluating CYB010 for SIEM ML work.

## Model overview

| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Primary task | 5-class `attack_lifecycle_phase` classification |
| Secondary artifact | `leakage_diagnostic.json` — 11 oracle paths + 2 unlearnable targets |
| Training data | `xpertsystems/cyb010-sample` (21,896 events / 500 incidents) |
| Models | XGBoost + PyTorch MLP |
| Input features | 87 (after one-hot encoding) |
| Split | **Group-aware** (GroupShuffleSplit on `incident_id`) |
| Validation | Single seed (artifact) + multi-seed aggregate across 10 seeds |
| License | CC-BY-NC-4.0 (matches dataset) |
| Status | Reference baseline + comprehensive leakage diagnostic |

## Why this task — and what was dropped

The CYB010 README's central concept is the "5-phase attack lifecycle
state machine", and `attack_lifecycle_phase` is the data's headline
target. We piloted six candidate targets and found:

- **`attack_lifecycle_phase` 5-class**: strongest honest result.
  Acc 0.936 ± 0.007, ROC-AUC 0.988 ± 0.001 (multi-seed). All 5 classes
  represented, per-class F1 range 0.48–1.00.

- **`threat_actor_profile` 5-class**: works at acc 0.84 but per-class
  F1 reveals it's almost entirely driven by `benign_user` separation
  (F1 1.00 vs F1 0.17-0.69 for the 4 malicious classes). The 4-class
  malicious-only formulation is below majority (acc 0.55 vs 0.61).

- **`label_true_positive` binary on alerts**: documented as a secondary
  finding. Has 7 oracle features; honest acc 0.80, AUC 0.89 after
  dropping all of them.

- **`mitre_tactic` 14-class**: hits acc 0.90 but macro-F1 0.37 -
  imbalance gaming (benign class dominates at 57%).

- **`event_class` 12-class**: unlearnable (acc 0.35 vs majority 0.42).

### Six oracle columns dropped from the phase task

CYB010 encodes the benign vs malicious distinction explicitly in
multiple columns. Each is a perfect or near-perfect oracle for the
`benign_background` phase:

| Column | Oracle relationship |
|---|---|
| `mitre_tactic` | `=="benign"` ↔ `benign_background` phase (12,448/12,448, perfect) |
| `mitre_technique_id` | Perfect ATT&CK-by-design oracle for `mitre_tactic` (54/54 techniques → single tactic) |
| `label_malicious` | `==False` ↔ `benign_background` (perfect) |
| `threat_actor_id` | `=="NONE"` ↔ `benign_background` (perfect) |
| `threat_actor_profile` | `=="benign_user"` ↔ `benign_background` (perfect) |
| `event_type` | Many values phase-specific (`c2_beacon_outbound` → 100% `exfiltration_or_impact`) |

With these six columns present, a plain XGBoost trivially separates
benign vs malicious. The published baseline trains with all six
excluded.

Two model artifacts are published. They are designed to be used
together:

- `model_xgb.json` — gradient-boosted trees (slightly higher F1)
- `model_mlp.safetensors` — PyTorch MLP

## Quick start

```bash
pip install xgboost torch safetensors pandas huggingface_hub
```

```python
from huggingface_hub import hf_hub_download, snapshot_download
import json, numpy as np, torch, xgboost as xgb
from safetensors.torch import load_file

REPO = "xpertsystems/cyb010-baseline-classifier"

paths = {n: hf_hub_download(REPO, n) for n in [
    "model_xgb.json", "model_mlp.safetensors",
    "feature_engineering.py", "feature_meta.json", "feature_scaler.json",
]}

import sys, os
sys.path.insert(0, os.path.dirname(paths["feature_engineering.py"]))
from feature_engineering import (
    transform_single, load_meta, build_host_lookup, INT_TO_LABEL,
)

meta = load_meta(paths["feature_meta.json"])

# Host features are joined from host_inventory.csv at inference time
ds = snapshot_download("xpertsystems/cyb010-sample", repo_type="dataset")
host_lookup = build_host_lookup(f"{ds}/host_inventory.csv")

xgb_model = xgb.XGBClassifier(); xgb_model.load_model(paths["model_xgb.json"])

# Predict (see inference_example.ipynb for the full pattern)
# Note: do NOT include mitre_tactic, mitre_technique_id, label_malicious,
# threat_actor_id, threat_actor_profile, or event_type - those were the
# oracle columns.
X = transform_single(my_event, meta, host_lookup=host_lookup)
proba = xgb_model.predict_proba(X)[0]
print(INT_TO_LABEL[int(np.argmax(proba))])
```

See [`inference_example.ipynb`](./inference_example.ipynb) for the full
copy-paste demo.

## Training data

Trained on the public sample of CYB010, 21,896 per-event records:

| Phase | Events | Class share |
|---|---:|---:|
| `benign_background` | 12,448 | 56.9% |
| `exfiltration_or_impact` | 6,205 | 28.3% |
| `initial_access` | 1,674 | 7.6% |
| `lateral_movement` | 968 | 4.4% |
| `persistence_establishment` | 601 | 2.7% |

### Group-aware split by incident_id

500 incidents × ~44 events each. Events from the same incident share
host, threat actor, and phase trajectory — so train/test contamination
is a real risk with random splitting. The baseline uses
**GroupShuffleSplit** on `incident_id` (nested 70/15/15):

| Fold | Events | Incidents |
|---|---:|---:|
| Train | 14,697 | ~350 |
| Validation | 3,473 | ~75 |
| Test | 3,726 | ~75 |

All 10 multi-seed evaluations yielded all 5 classes in the test fold.
Class imbalance is addressed with `class_weight='balanced'` (XGBoost
`sample_weight`) and weighted cross-entropy (MLP).

## Feature pipeline

The bundled `feature_engineering.py` is the canonical recipe. 87
features survive after encoding, drawn from:

- **Per-event numeric** (5): `source_port`, `dest_port`,
  `cvss_score_analogue`, `label_log_tampered`, `label_false_positive`
- **Per-event categorical** (3, one-hot): `event_class` (12 values),
  `log_source_type` (8 values), `severity_level` (5 values)
- **Host features** (joined from `host_inventory.csv`): 3 numeric +
  7 categorical (os_type, host_role, network_segment, defender_posture,
  criticality_rating, cloud_provider, siem_platform)
- **Engineered** (9): `hour_of_day`, `is_off_hours`, `is_weekend`,
  `log_cvss`, `is_high_cvss`, `is_well_known_port`, `is_dynamic_port`,
  `is_outbound_web`, `risk_composite`

### Partial-oracle features kept as legitimate observables

`event_class` (max purity 0.87, mean 0.72 across phases) is the
strongest non-oracle feature. C2 beacon traffic (`event_class =
network_flow`) is 65% exfiltration phase but also 29% benign and 6%
other phases — real overlap, not deterministic encoding. Kept.

`severity_level` and `cvss_score_analogue` correlate strongly with
phase (high-severity events skew toward exfil and initial_access) but
with substantial overlap. Kept.

`label_log_tampered` is a real observable — APTs tamper more than
script_kiddies — but is not phase-deterministic. Kept.

## Evaluation

### Test-set metrics, seed 42 (n = 3,726 events from ~75 test incidents)

**XGBoost** (the published `model_xgb.json` artifact)

| Metric | Value |
|---|---:|
| Macro ROC-AUC (OvR) | **0.9904** |
| Accuracy | **0.9493** |
| Macro-F1 | 0.7781 |
| Weighted-F1 | 0.9478 |

**MLP** (the published `model_mlp.safetensors` artifact)

| Metric | Value |
|---|---:|
| Macro ROC-AUC (OvR) | **0.9861** |
| Accuracy | **0.9412** |
| Macro-F1 | 0.7534 |
| Weighted-F1 | 0.9396 |

XGBoost slightly outperforms MLP on this task (acc 0.949 vs 0.941,
macro-F1 0.778 vs 0.753). The gap is consistent across seeds.

### Multi-seed robustness (XGBoost, 10 seeds)

| Metric | Mean | Std | Min | Max |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Accuracy | 0.936 | 0.007 | 0.923 | 0.949 |
| Macro-F1 | 0.759 | 0.015 | 0.741 | 0.781 |
| Macro ROC-AUC OvR | 0.988 | 0.001 | 0.986 | 0.990 |

**Tightest ROC-AUC std in the catalog** (0.001). All 10 seeds yielded
all 5 classes in the test fold. Full per-seed results in
[`multi_seed_results.json`](./multi_seed_results.json).

### Per-class F1 (seed 42)

| Phase | Class share | XGBoost F1 | MLP F1 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| `benign_background` | 56.9% | **0.998** | 0.994 |
| `exfiltration_or_impact` | 28.3% | **0.987** | 0.981 |
| `initial_access` | 7.6% | 0.720 | 0.651 |
| `persistence_establishment` | 2.7% | 0.703 | 0.690 |
| `lateral_movement` | 4.4% | **0.483** | 0.451 |

The two largest classes (`benign_background` and `exfiltration_or_impact`)
are nearly perfectly separable — `benign_background` because the
non-oracle features (severity, CVSS, log_source) still cleanly separate
non-malicious traffic, and `exfiltration_or_impact` because it's
dominated by network_flow events (C2 beacons). The three middle
classes overlap substantially in feature space; `lateral_movement` is
the hardest (F1 0.48) because lateral movement events look similar to
initial_access events at the per-event level. A sequence model that
considers event ordering within an incident would likely do better
than the per-event baseline.

### Ablation: which feature groups matter

| Configuration | Accuracy | Macro-F1 | ROC-AUC | Δ accuracy | Δ macro-F1 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Full feature set (published) | 0.9493 | 0.7781 | 0.9904 | — | — |
| No `event_class` | 0.9206 | 0.5969 | 0.9723 | **−0.0287** | **−0.181** |
| No CVSS features | 0.9383 | 0.7475 | 0.9812 | −0.0110 | −0.031 |
| No `log_source_type` | 0.9469 | 0.7655 | 0.9902 | −0.0024 | −0.013 |
| No engineered features | 0.9471 | 0.7655 | 0.9903 | −0.0022 | −0.013 |
| No ports | 0.9463 | 0.7621 | 0.9903 | −0.0030 | −0.016 |
| No `severity_level` | 0.9479 | 0.7688 | 0.9902 | −0.0014 | −0.009 |
| No tamper flags | 0.9469 | 0.7657 | 0.9905 | −0.0024 | −0.012 |
| No timing | 0.9501 | 0.7730 | 0.9907 | +0.0008 | −0.005 |
| No host features | 0.9522 | 0.7828 | 0.9917 | +0.0029 | +0.005 |

Three findings:

1. **`event_class` is the dominant signal** (drops 18pp macro-F1 when
   removed). Phase prediction without it loses most discrimination
   between the middle classes.
2. **CVSS features are second-strongest** (drops 3pp F1). Captures
   severity information that complements event_class.
3. **Host features and timing add modest noise.** The model performs
   marginally *better* without host features (+0.3pp accuracy), and
   timing features contribute essentially nothing. Kept in the
   pipeline as documented baseline reference.

### Architecture

**XGBoost:** multi-class gradient boosting (`multi:softprob`, 5 classes),
`hist` tree method, class-balanced sample weights, early stopping on
validation mlogloss.

**MLP:** `87 → 128 → 64 → 5`, each hidden layer followed by `BatchNorm1d``ReLU``Dropout(0.3)`, weighted cross-entropy loss, AdamW optimizer,
early stopping on validation macro-F1.

Training hyperparameters are held internally by XpertSystems.

## Limitations

**This is a baseline reference, not a production phase classifier.**

1. **The leakage diagnostic is required reading.** Six oracle columns
   for the phase task and seven for the alert TP task are documented
   in `leakage_diagnostic.json`. If you use CYB010 sample data for
   your own training, you MUST drop these or your model will learn
   the oracles instead of the task.

2. **`lateral_movement` F1 0.48 is the weakest class.** The 968-event
   sample with substantial overlap to `initial_access` makes this
   class hard. A sequence model that considers event ordering within
   incidents would likely do better than per-event classification.

3. **`threat_actor_profile` 4-class (malicious-only) is unlearnable
   on this sample** (acc 0.55 vs majority 0.61). The 5-class
   formulation with benign included works only because benign_user
   separation is structurally trivial.

4. **`event_class` 12-class is unlearnable on this sample** (acc 0.35
   vs majority 0.42). event_class is a structural property of the
   event itself, not something to predict from other features.

5. **Synthetic-vs-real transfer.** The dataset is synthetic, calibrated
   to 6 benchmarks from SANS / IBM / Mandiant / Verizon / CISA / MITRE
   ATT&CK Evaluations / Splunk. Real SIEM telemetry has different noise
   characteristics — and in particular, the explicit `mitre_tactic ==
   "benign"` marker and `threat_actor_id == "NONE"` benign sentinel
   would not be present in real data. Real telemetry has implicit
   benign-vs-malicious distinctions that emerge from event content.
   Do not assume metrics transfer end-to-end.

6. **21,896 events / 500 incidents is a modest training set.** The
   3,726-event / ~75-incident test fold yields stable multi-seed
   metrics (std 0.007 on accuracy) but per-class confidence intervals
   widen for the smallest classes (lateral_movement, persistence).

## Notes on dataset schema

The CYB010 sample dataset README describes some fields differently
from the actual schema. The model was trained on the actual schema;
this note helps buyers reconcile what they read with what they receive.

| What the README says | What the data actually contains |
|---|---|
| `security_events` has 16 columns | Data has **23 columns** |
| Field renames | `timestamp_utc``timestamp`, `user``user_id`, `log_format``log_source_type` |
| README missing from `security_events` | `event_class`, `severity_level`, `label_malicious`, `label_log_tampered`, `threat_actor_id`, `cvss_score_analogue` are in data but not documented |
| README claims `command_line` / `process_name` / `is_off_hours` columns | Not present in `security_events` (off-hours derived from timestamp in pipeline) |
| `alert_records` has 9 columns | Data has **21 columns** |
| Field renames | `alert_severity``severity_level`, `detection_rule``alert_rule_name` |
| README's `triage_outcome` (categorical) | Replaced by `label_true_positive` / `label_false_positive` (mirror booleans) |
| README's `ioc_matched` | Not present in `alert_records` |
| README missing from `alert_records` | `correlated_chain_length`, `time_to_detect_seconds`, `suppression_reason`, `analyst_triage_priority` are in data but not documented |
| `incident_summary` has 8 columns | Data has **24 columns** |
| `host_inventory` has 6 columns | Data has **15 columns** |
| `threat_actor_profile` has 4 values | Data has **5 values** (adds `benign_user` at 57% of events) |
| `attack_lifecycle_phase` 5-phase malicious lifecycle | Data adds `benign_background` as a phase value (57% of events) — so the lifecycle is 5-class with benign included |
| README says MITRE ATT&CK v14 with 50 techniques | Data has 54 unique technique IDs across 14 tactics + benign |

None of these affects model correctness — the feature pipeline uses
the actual column names. If you build your own pipeline against the
dataset, use the actual columns.

## Intended use

- **Evaluating fit** of the CYB010 dataset for your SIEM ML research
- **Baseline reference** for new model architectures on the
  attack-phase classification task
- **Reference example of structural-leakage diagnostics** for
  synthetic SIEM datasets — the methodology is reusable
- **Feature engineering reference** for per-event SIEM telemetry

## Out-of-scope use

- Production SIEM phase detection on real telemetry
- Threat actor attribution (4-class malicious-only is unlearnable
  on the sample)
- Event-class prediction (this is a structural property, not a
  learnable target)
- Any operational decision affecting actual security operations
  without further validation on your own data

## Reproducibility

Outputs above were produced with `seed = 42` (published artifact),
nested `GroupShuffleSplit` on `incident_id` (70/15/15), on the published
sample (`xpertsystems/cyb010-sample`, version 1.0.0, generated
2026-05-16). The feature pipeline in `feature_engineering.py` is
deterministic and the trained weights in this repo correspond exactly
to the metrics above.

Multi-seed results (seeds 42, 7, 13, 17, 23, 31, 45, 99, 123, 200)
in `multi_seed_results.json` confirm robust performance across splits
(std 0.007 on accuracy, 0.001 on ROC-AUC — the tightest ROC-AUC std
in the XpertSystems catalog).

The training script itself is private to XpertSystems.

## Files in this repo

| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| `model_xgb.json` | XGBoost weights (seed 42) |
| `model_mlp.safetensors` | PyTorch MLP weights (seed 42) |
| `feature_engineering.py` | Feature pipeline |
| `feature_meta.json` | Feature column order + categorical levels |
| `feature_scaler.json` | MLP input mean/std (XGBoost ignores) |
| `validation_results.json` | Per-class metrics, confusion matrix, architecture |
| `ablation_results.json` | Per-feature-group ablation |
| `multi_seed_results.json` | XGBoost metrics across 10 seeds |
| **`leakage_diagnostic.json`** | **11-oracle-path audit + 2 unlearnable targets** |
| `inference_example.ipynb` | End-to-end inference demo notebook |
| `README.md` | This file |

## Contact and full product

The full **CYB010** dataset contains **~550,000 rows** across four files,
with calibrated benchmark validation against 6 metrics drawn from
authoritative SOC operations and threat intelligence sources (SANS SOC
Survey, IBM Cost of Data Breach, Mandiant M-Trends, Verizon DBIR, CISA
Joint Advisories, MITRE ATT&CK Evaluations, Splunk State of Security).

The full XpertSystems.ai synthetic data catalogue spans 41 SKUs across
Cybersecurity, Healthcare, Insurance & Risk, Oil & Gas, and Materials
& Energy.

- 📧 **pradeep@xpertsystems.ai**
- 🌐 **https://xpertsystems.ai**
- 🗂  Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/xpertsystems/cyb010-sample
- 🤖 Companion models:
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb001-baseline-classifier (network traffic)
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb002-baseline-classifier (ATT&CK kill-chain)
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb003-baseline-classifier (malware execution phase)
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb004-baseline-classifier (phishing campaign phase)
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb005-baseline-classifier (ransomware actor-tier attribution)
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb006-baseline-classifier (user risk tier + leakage diagnostic)
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb007-baseline-classifier (insider threat type)
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb008-baseline-classifier (SOC alert triage + leakage diagnostic)
  - https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb009-baseline-classifier (vulnerability classification + leakage diagnostic)

## Citation

```bibtex
@misc{xpertsystems_cyb010_baseline_2026,
  title  = {CYB010 Baseline Classifier: XGBoost and MLP for Attack Lifecycle Phase Classification, with 11-Oracle-Path Leakage Diagnostic},
  author = {XpertSystems.ai},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://huggingface.co/xpertsystems/cyb010-baseline-classifier},
  note   = {Baseline reference model + comprehensive leakage audit trained on xpertsystems/cyb010-sample}
}
```