Enhanced Intrusion Detection in IIoT Networks: A Lightweight Approach with Autoencoder-Based Feature Learning

Abrar Hossain; Mufakir Qamar Ansari; Talha Hussain Syed; Tasnimul Hasan

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Enhanced Intrusion Detection in IIoT Networks: A Lightweight Approach with Autoencoder-Based Feature Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a cost-sensitive autoencoder that shrinks IIoT traffic to six latent features lets a decision tree reach 99.94% accuracy and F1 on 14 attack classes, with 0.187 ms per-sample inference on a Jetson Nano.

desk verdict The main accuracy claim is undermined by an internal inconsistency with the boosted-tree baselines, and the experimental write-up is too thin to rescue it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15266 v1 pith:DNTHV2CS submitted 2025-01-25 cs.LG

Tasnimul Hasan , Abrar Hossain , Mufakir Qamar Ansari , Talha Hussain Syed This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords IndustrialInternetofThingsIntrusionDetectionSystemAutoencoderDimensionalityReductionClassImbalanceEdgeComputingEdge-IIoTsetDecisionTree

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that a simple, lightweight classifier can handle the class imbalance and multiclass complexity that make IIoT intrusion detection hard, as long as the raw features are first passed through a cost-sensitive autoencoder. The authors report that a decision tree trained on the autoencoder's six-dimensional bottleneck reaches 99.94% accuracy and F1 on the Edge-IIoTset dataset across normal traffic and 14 attack types. They also report binary and multiclass inference times of 0.185 ms and 0.187 ms per sample on a Jetson Nano. If these numbers hold, a low-power edge device could screen industrial network traffic in real time without sacrificing detection quality.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cost-sensitive autoencoder: a deterministic feedforward network whose encoder maps 24 features to a six-unit bottleneck, $h = f(x) = \sigma(Wx+b)$, and whose decoder reconstructs the input, $\hat{x} = g(h) = \sigma(W'h+b')$. The reconstruction loss is weighted by class frequency, $L = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} w_{y_i}(x_i - \hat{x}_i)^2$, with $w_{y_i}$ larger for rare attack classes. That weighted bottleneck is what the downstream classifiers consume; the paper argues this is why a Decision Tree can reach 99.94% multiclass F1 without oversampling or data augmentation.

What would settle it

Take the Edge-IIoTset data, fit every preprocessing step—the correlation filter, the autoencoder, and the class weights—only on a training partition, and evaluate the same Decision Tree on a completely untouched test partition; if the multiclass F1 falls materially below 99.94%, the reported number depends on test-set information rather than on the autoencoder alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that deterministic autoencoding with class-weighted reconstruction loss converts an imbalanced, multiclass IIoT traffic dataset into a compact latent space where a plain decision tree saturates performance. The autoencoder compresses 24 normalized features down to six bottleneck units; the training loss is the per-sample squared reconstruction error multiplied by a weight inversely proportional to the class frequency, which the authors say lets rare attacks like MITM and fingerprinting shape the representation. The best multiclass result is 99.94% accuracy and F1 for the Decision Tree, with binary classification at 99.98% accuracy and the lightweight design running at 0.185 ms (binary) and 0.187 ms (multiclass) per sample on a Jetson Nano. The paper also claims this is the first intrusion-detection deployment on a Jetson Nano and that the cost-sensitive weighting removes the need for oversampling or augmentation.

Load-bearing premise

The headline accuracy is only as strong as the guarantee that the test set was never used to choose the correlation threshold, the six-feature bottleneck size, or the class weights; if those choices were tuned on the full dataset, the 99.94% reflects leakage rather than generalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the results hold, most of the original feature set is redundant: 24 features compressed to 6 are enough for near-perfect detection of 14 attack types plus normal traffic.
Edge screening becomes plausible on low-power hardware: per-sample inference near 0.19 ms means thousands of flows per second on a single Jetson Nano.
The cost-sensitive autoencoder offers an alternative to oversampling and synthetic augmentation for imbalanced network datasets, reducing preprocessing complexity.
A simple Decision Tree can match or beat far heavier deep classifiers once the representation is learned, which lowers the compute and energy budget for deployed IDS.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A strict reproducibility run with the correlation filter, bottleneck size, and class weights fit only on a training partition would settle whether the 99.94% number is a property of the method or of tuning on the full dataset.
The same 24-to-6 autoencoder could be tested on other imbalanced IIoT datasets such as MQTTset and WUSTL-IIoT-2021; if the bottleneck size must change per dataset, the method is a recipe rather than a fixed architecture.
Because the bottleneck has only six units, inspecting which input features activate each unit could turn the compressed representation into an explanation tool for why a flow is flagged as an attack.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on arXiv:2501.15266. The headline number, 99.94% multiclass F1 for a decision tree on six autoencoder-compressed features, is not credible on the evidence presented. The paper's own boosted-tree baselines get 81.8% (XGB) and 79.5% (LightGBM) on the same features. If the bottleneck features were that class-separable, boosted trees would match or beat a single tree; an 18-20 point gap points to an evaluation error or information leakage, not a validated result. That inconsistency is the load-bearing problem.

Credit where due: the authors do run a usable benchmark on Edge-IIoTset, a widely used public dataset, and report real inference latencies on a Jetson Nano. The sub-millisecond numbers for a decision tree are plausible, and that kind of edge deployment data is useful for engineers. The cost-sensitive autoencoder is standard inverse-frequency weighting, but it's implemented cleanly.

The soft spots are substantial. There's no stated train/test split; Table 2 implies a test set of roughly 30k samples while the dataset has 1.9M rows, and the subsampling is never described. No ablation compares the pipeline with and without the autoencoder, so the central claim that the autoencoder helps is unproven. No error bars or repeated trials. The 'first to deploy on Jetson Nano' claim has no citation and is likely false. And the comparison table shows several prior methods with equal or better accuracy, so the 99.94% isn't a new SOTA anyway.

For me this is a lightweight engineering report, not a research contribution. The methodology is textbook, the evaluation is underspecified, and the key result is internally inconsistent. I would not send it to peer review; I'd ask the authors to provide the split, add an ablation, and resolve the boosted-tree gap first.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a lightweight intrusion detection system for IIoT networks based on an autoencoder that compresses 24 features into a 6-dimensional bottleneck using a cost-sensitive MSE loss, followed by a set of classifiers (Decision Tree, XGBoost, LightGBM, LDA, TabNet, LSTM). The authors report that the Decision Tree achieves 99.94% accuracy and F1 on the multiclass Edge-IIoTset task, and that the model can be deployed on a Jetson Nano with 0.187 ms per-sample inference in multiclass mode. The paper also claims novelty for being the first to deploy such a model on a Jetson Nano.

Significance. If the reported results were reproducible, the main contributions would be a demonstration that six autoencoder-derived features plus a decision tree yield near-perfect multiclass intrusion-detection performance on a realistic imbalanced IIoT benchmark, together with a practical edge-deployment data point. The use of the public Edge-IIoTset dataset is a strength for reproducibility, and the Jetson Nano inference measurements are useful practical evidence. However, the experimental protocol as written does not establish the central claim: no train/test split is stated, no baseline without the autoencoder is provided, and the multiclass results contain a large unexplained performance gap between the Decision Tree and the gradient-boosted tree models.

major comments (5)

[Section 4.5, Table 4] The Decision Tree is reported with 0.9994 accuracy and F1, while XGB and LGBM on the same autoencoder features achieve only 0.8181 and 0.7946. For tabular data, gradient-boosted trees generally match or surpass a single decision tree; an 18-20 point shortfall is not explained by any stated hyperparameter choice or class imbalance. This gap suggests the DT and XGB/LGBM evaluations may not have used the same test set, or that the DT result benefits from information leakage. The authors must provide the exact evaluation protocol, the test-set definition, and per-class results for all models.
[Section 4.1, Section 3.2.1, Section 3.3] No train/test split is specified anywhere in the paper. The manuscript does not state whether the correlation-threshold filtering (>0.6), autoencoder training, and class-weight computation were performed only on the training partition. If any of these steps used the full dataset, the reported 99.94% accuracy is not an unbiased estimate of generalization. The authors must report the split ratio, stratification strategy, and a clear statement that all preprocessing and feature learning used training data only.
[Section 3.3, Section 4.5] The claim that the autoencoder 'enhances feature learning and overall detection accuracy' is not supported by an ablation. There is no comparison of the selected classifiers on the original 24 features versus the 6 autoencoder features, and no sensitivity analysis for the bottleneck size or the correlation threshold. Without these controls, the reported 99.94% figure cannot be attributed to the autoencoder.
[Section 4.3, Table 2] The confusion matrices are inconsistent with the dataset description. The counts in Table 2 sum to 30,440 instances, whereas Table 1 describes 1,927,304 records and no test-subset size is given. The authors should clarify the size and composition of the evaluation set and present confusion matrices whose counts can be reconciled with the stated data split.
[Section 3.3, Algorithm 1] The autoencoder is described only by input dimension and bottleneck dimension; the number of hidden layers, activation functions, optimizer settings, batch size, epochs, and early-stopping criteria are omitted. This makes the core contribution impossible to reproduce. The authors should provide these hyperparameters or a pointer to the exact implementation.

minor comments (6)

[Section 3.1, Table 1] Table 1 reports a total of 1,927,304 records, while the text in Section 3.1 states 2.2 million; please reconcile these numbers.
[Section 4.6] The inference-time section does not state the number of test instances used, so the reader cannot verify the reported per-sample averages of 0.184 ms and 0.187 ms.
[Table 4] The test time for TabNet is shown as '—'; please report it or state explicitly why it was not measured.
[Table 5] For Ferrag et al., the columns list accuracy as '94.67' and F1 as '99'; please clarify whether these are percentages and unify the formatting with the other rows.
[Figure 4] The panels in Figure 4 are captioned 'Tabnet/Binary Loss curve' and 'BiLSTM/Binary Loss curve', but the surrounding text sometimes refers to autoencoder loss curves; please align the captions with the actual content.
[Abstract and Section 4.7] The claim of being 'the first to deploy our model on a Jetson Nano' is a strong novelty statement that is difficult to verify; consider softening it to 'we report deployment on a Jetson Nano.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported 99.94% result is an empirical benchmark, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the fitted parameters or reduced to its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is not circular. The autoencoder learns a six-dimensional latent representation by minimizing reconstruction MSE with class weights (Section 3.3), and the decision tree is then trained on those latent features against ground-truth labels. No equation in the paper defines the final accuracy or F1 score as a function of the autoencoder weights, the class weights, or the feature-selection threshold; the class weights are computed inversely proportional to class frequencies, not from test performance. The paper's strongest claim is a benchmark result on the public Edge-IIoTset dataset, not a theorem derived from an assumed conclusion. The only self-citation to an overlapping author, [Hossain et al., 2025], is cited for the general motivation that lightweight ML models enable edge inference; it is not load-bearing for any specific result. The serious issues noted by the skeptical reading are evaluation-quality concerns rather than circularity: the anomalous 18-20 point gap between Decision Tree (99.94%) and XGBoost/LightGBM (81.81% and 79.46%) on the same features, the unspecified train/test split in Section 4.1, and the unstated handling of the correlation threshold in Section 3.2.1 could indicate information leakage or a reporting error, but leakage and circularity are distinct. Nothing in the paper reduces the claimed prediction to its own training input by construction, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical objects. The central results rest on hand-selected preprocessing thresholds and an unproven assertion that the autoencoder's latent representation improves classification. No ablation or code is provided to check these choices.

free parameters (3)

correlation threshold = 0.6
Features with Pearson correlation above 0.6 are dropped; the threshold is chosen without a sensitivity analysis, so the downstream accuracy depends on this hand-selected cutoff.
bottleneck dimension = 6
The autoencoder compresses 24 features to 6; no experiment varies this dimension, so the 99.94% result is tied to this specific choice.
autoencoder training hyperparameters = not reported
Epochs, batch size, learning rate, and early stopping details are omitted; the loss curves suggest many epochs, but reproducibility requires these settings.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Edge-IIoTset is a realistic and representative IIoT dataset
The paper relies on the benchmark's ground-truth labels and attack diversity without independent validation of the dataset's fidelity.
ad hoc to paper Removing features with correlation above 0.6 does not discard information needed for classification
This threshold is arbitrary and load-bearing; the entire feature space is reduced on this basis without sensitivity analysis.
ad hoc to paper A six-dimensional latent space preserves sufficient discriminative information
The bottleneck size is chosen by hand and no ablation is shown to justify it.
domain assumption The autoencoder reconstruction objective with class-weighted MSE aligns with classification accuracy
The paper asserts that weighting rare classes in the reconstruction loss improves downstream detection, but no class-wise results or comparison to unweighted features are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Intrusion Detection in IIoT Networks: A Lightweight Approach with Autoencoder-Based Feature Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNTHV2CS

@misc{pith2026250115266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Intrusion Detection in IIoT Networks: A Lightweight Approach with Autoencoder-Based Feature Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNTHV2CS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15266}
}

read the original abstract

The rapid expansion of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) has significantly advanced digital technologies and interconnected industrial systems, creating substantial opportunities for growth. However, this growth has also heightened the risk of cyberattacks, necessitating robust security measures to protect IIoT networks. Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) are essential for identifying and preventing abnormal network behaviors and malicious activities. Despite the potential of Machine Learning (ML)--based IDS solutions, existing models often face challenges with class imbalance and multiclass IIoT datasets, resulting in reduced detection accuracy. This research directly addresses these challenges by implementing six innovative approaches to enhance IDS performance, including leveraging an autoencoder for dimensional reduction, which improves feature learning and overall detection accuracy. Our proposed Decision Tree model achieved an exceptional F1 score and accuracy of 99.94% on the Edge-IIoTset dataset. Furthermore, we prioritized lightweight model design, ensuring deployability on resource-constrained edge devices. Notably, we are the first to deploy our model on a Jetson Nano, achieving inference times of 0.185 ms for binary classification and 0.187 ms for multiclass classification. These results highlight the novelty and robustness of our approach, offering a practical and efficient solution to the challenges posed by imbalanced and multiclass IIoT datasets, thereby enhancing the detection and prevention of network intrusions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15266 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Autoencoder Loss Curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Proposed AutoEncoder based IDS Module of class weighting into the training process eliminates the need for external methods like oversampling or data augmentation, which can introduce biases or increase computational costs. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of this strategy, as the model achieves superior performance on rare attack types without compromising overall accuracy. Compared to traditional auto… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Training and Validation Loss for Tabnet and BiLSTM for Binary and Multiclass Classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEcompsocconfonly \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthor...

work page
[2]

A., Foh, C

Abdulkareem, S. A., Foh, C. H., Carrez, F., and Moessner, K. (2024). A lightweight sel for attack detection in iot/iiot networks. Journal of Network and Computer Applications , 230:103980

work page 2024
[3]

Alani, M. M. (2023). An explainable efficient flow-based industrial iot intrusion detection system. Computers and Electrical Engineering , 108:108732

work page 2023
[4]

S., Saidani, O., Alrayes, F

Alshehri, M. S., Saidani, O., Alrayes, F. S., Abbasi, S. F., and Ahmad, J. (2024). A self-attention-based deep convolutional neural networks for iiot networks intrusion detection. IEEE Access

work page 2024
[5]

Buczak, A. L. and Guven, E. (2015). A survey of data mining and machine learning methods for cyber security intrusion detection. IEEE Communications surveys & tutorials , 18(2):1153--1176

work page 2015
[6]

Douiba, M., Benkirane, S., Guezzaz, A., and Azrour, M. (2023). An improved anomaly detection model for iot security using decision tree and gradient boosting. The Journal of Supercomputing , 79(3):3392--3411

work page 2023
[7]

F., Awad, A

Elrawy, M. F., Awad, A. I., and Hamed, H. F. (2018). Intrusion detection systems for iot-based smart environments: a survey. Journal of Cloud Computing , 7(1):1--20

work page 2018
[8]

A., Friha, O., Hamouda, D., Maglaras, L., and Janicke, H

Ferrag, M. A., Friha, O., Hamouda, D., Maglaras, L., and Janicke, H. (2022). Edge-iiotset: A new comprehensive realistic cyber security dataset of iot and iiot applications for centralized and federated learning. IEEE Access , 10:40281--40306

work page 2022

Show all 28 references

[9]

Hassan, W. H. et al. (2019). Current research on internet of things (iot) security: A survey. Computer networks , 148:283--294

2019
[10]

Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Saxena, V., Jain, D., Goyal, P., and Sikdar, B. (2019). A survey on iot security: application areas, security threats, and solution architectures. IEEE Access , 7:82721--82743

2019
[11]

Hassini, K., Khalis, S., Habibi, O., Chemmakha, M., and Lazaar, M. (2024). An end-to-end learning approach for enhancing intrusion detection in industrial-internet of things. Knowledge-Based Systems , 294:111785

2024
[12]

A., Islam, M

Hossain, A., Badawy, A.-H. A., Islam, M. A., Patki, T., and Ahmed, K. (2025). Hpc application parameter autotuning on edge devices: A bandit learning approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01057

2025 arXiv
[13]

Karatas, G., Demir, O., and Sahingoz, O. K. (2020). Increasing the performance of machine learning-based idss on an imbalanced and up-to-date dataset. IEEE access , 8:32150--32162

2020
[14]

Leu, F.-Y., Tsai, K.-L., Hsiao, Y.-T., and Yang, C.-T. (2015). An internal intrusion detection and protection system by using data mining and forensic techniques. IEEE Systems Journal , 11(2):427--438

2015
[15]

T., Ribeiro, A

Lynn, T., Endo, P. T., Ribeiro, A. M. N., Barbosa, G. B., and Rosati, P. (2020). The internet of things: definitions, key concepts, and reference architectures. The Cloud-To-Thing Continuum: Opportunities and Challenges in Cloud, Fog and Edge Computing , pages 1--22

2020
[16]

Mirsky, Y., Doitshman, T., Elovici, Y., and Shabtai, A. (2018). Kitsune: an ensemble of autoencoders for online network intrusion detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09089

2018 arXiv
[17]

Saadouni, R., Khacha, A., Harbi, Y., Gherbi, C., Harous, S., and Aliouat, Z. (2023). Secure iiot networks with hybrid cnn-gru model using edge-iiotset. In 2023 15th International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) , pages 150--155. IEEE

2023
[18]

Ullah, S., Boulila, W., Koubaa, A., and Ahmad, J. (2023). Magru-ids: A multi-head attention-based gated recurrent unit for intrusion detection in iiot networks. IEEE Access

2023
[19]

D., Xu, E

Xu, L. D., Xu, E. L., and Li, L. (2018). Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends. International journal of production research , 56(8):2941--2962

2018
[20]

and Chithra, S

Yugha, R. and Chithra, S. (2020). A survey on technologies and security protocols: Reference for future generation iot. Journal of Network and Computer Applications , 169:102763

2020
[21]

B., Miani, R

Zarpel \ a o, B. B., Miani, R. S., Kawakani, C. T., and De Alvarenga, S. C. (2017). A survey of intrusion detection in internet of things. Journal of Network and Computer Applications , 84:25--37

2017
[22]

Eason, B

G. Eason, B. Noble, and I. N. Sneddon, ``On certain integrals of Lipschitz-Hankel type involving products of Bessel functions,'' Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, vol. A247, pp. 529--551, April 1955

1955
[23]

Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., vol

J. Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892, pp.68--73
[24]

I. S. Jacobs and C. P. Bean, ``Fine particles, thin films and exchange anisotropy,'' in Magnetism, vol. III, G. T. Rado and H. Suhl, Eds. New York: Academic, 1963, pp. 271--350

1963
[25]

Elissa, ``Title of paper if known,'' unpublished

K. Elissa, ``Title of paper if known,'' unpublished
[26]

Nicole, ``Title of paper with only first word capitalized,'' J

R. Nicole, ``Title of paper with only first word capitalized,'' J. Name Stand. Abbrev., in press
[27]

Yorozu, M

Y. Yorozu, M. Hirano, K. Oka, and Y. Tagawa, ``Electron spectroscopy studies on magneto-optical media and plastic substrate interface,'' IEEE Transl. J. Magn. Japan, vol. 2, pp. 740--741, August 1987 [Digests 9th Annual Conf. Magnetics Japan, p. 301, 1982]

1987
[28]

Young, The Technical Writer's Handbook

M. Young, The Technical Writer's Handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science, 1989

1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEcompsocconfonly \@IEEEauthordefaulttextstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthor...

work page

[2] [2]

A., Foh, C

Abdulkareem, S. A., Foh, C. H., Carrez, F., and Moessner, K. (2024). A lightweight sel for attack detection in iot/iiot networks. Journal of Network and Computer Applications , 230:103980

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Alani, M. M. (2023). An explainable efficient flow-based industrial iot intrusion detection system. Computers and Electrical Engineering , 108:108732

work page 2023

[4] [4]

S., Saidani, O., Alrayes, F

Alshehri, M. S., Saidani, O., Alrayes, F. S., Abbasi, S. F., and Ahmad, J. (2024). A self-attention-based deep convolutional neural networks for iiot networks intrusion detection. IEEE Access

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Buczak, A. L. and Guven, E. (2015). A survey of data mining and machine learning methods for cyber security intrusion detection. IEEE Communications surveys & tutorials , 18(2):1153--1176

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Douiba, M., Benkirane, S., Guezzaz, A., and Azrour, M. (2023). An improved anomaly detection model for iot security using decision tree and gradient boosting. The Journal of Supercomputing , 79(3):3392--3411

work page 2023

[7] [7]

F., Awad, A

Elrawy, M. F., Awad, A. I., and Hamed, H. F. (2018). Intrusion detection systems for iot-based smart environments: a survey. Journal of Cloud Computing , 7(1):1--20

work page 2018

[8] [8]

A., Friha, O., Hamouda, D., Maglaras, L., and Janicke, H

Ferrag, M. A., Friha, O., Hamouda, D., Maglaras, L., and Janicke, H. (2022). Edge-iiotset: A new comprehensive realistic cyber security dataset of iot and iiot applications for centralized and federated learning. IEEE Access , 10:40281--40306

work page 2022