Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Convolutional Neural Networks and Mixture of Experts for Intrusion Detection in 5G Networks and beyond

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sparse mixture-of-experts layers, applied for the first time to network intrusion detection, classify 5G flows with up to 99.96% accuracy while activating only a subset of experts per input.

desk verdict A sensible first application of sparse MoE to 5G intrusion detection, with informative ablations, but the headline outperformance claim rests on single runs and cross-paper comparisons that need to be tightened. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03483 v2 pith:K7EW3WHV submitted 2024-12-04 cs.LG

Loukas Ilias , George Doukas , Vangelis Lamprou , Christos Ntanos , Dimitris Askounis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords intrusiondetection5GsecurityMixtureofExpertssparsegatingconvolutionalneuralnetworksnetworktrafficclassification5G-NIDDNANCYdataset
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 argues that a sparse Mixture of Experts layer, placed on top of a convolutional feature extractor, can classify malicious and benign flows in 5G networks with state-of-the-art accuracy while activating only a fraction of its parameters for each input. It claims to be the first study to apply MoE to network intrusion detection, converting each flow's 78 features into a 6×13 matrix, running it through CNN layers, and then routing the representation through the top-k of 128 expert networks. On the 5G-NIDD dataset the model reaches up to 99.96% accuracy and 99.95% weighted F1, outscoring published baselines in precision, recall, and accuracy; on the newer O-RAN NANCY dataset it reaches 79.59% accuracy. The point is that input-conditional computation—not simply a bigger static network—can carry intrusion detection for next-generation networks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is a sparsely gated mixture-of-experts layer with n expert networks (dense layers with 16 hidden units) and a router that computes gating weights g_i(x) = softmax(TopK(g(x;Θ)+noise,k))_i; only the k experts with the largest gate values contribute to the output y_o = Σ_i g_i(x) y_i(x). Two auxiliary losses, L_importance and L_load, penalize unequal router weights and unequal expert utilization, and the final loss is cross-entropy plus α times their sum. The CNN front end reshapes the 1D feature array into a 6×13 or 6×12 matrix and processes it with four 1D convolutional blocks (16, 32, 64, and 128 filters) of batch normalization, ReLU, and max pooling, producing a 128-dimensional representation. The mechanism is what makes the architecture input-conditional: each flow selects its own expert subset.

What would settle it

Re-run the 5G-NIDD and NANCY experiments with a strict protocol in which the per-class imputation means, the most-frequent categorical values, and the Min-Max bounds are computed only on the training split and applied unchanged to the test split; if accuracy drops materially below the reported 99.96% or 79.59%, the result is an artifact of leakage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a sparsely gated mixture-of-experts layer, fed by a CNN representation of reshaped network flow features, outperforms static deep classifiers for 5G intrusion detection. On 5G-NIDD, the paper reports precision 0.99894, recall 0.99893, F1-score 0.99894, accuracy 0.99958, and weighted F1-score 0.99958; it says these values beat the baselines in precision by 0.00044–0.00875, recall by 0.00043–0.01577, and accuracy by 0.00148–0.00835, with the only F1 comparison it loses being a 0.00001 margin to the Customized CNN baseline. On the NANCY dataset the model reaches 79.59% accuracy, detecting flood attacks strongly and SYN scans weakly. The paper positions this as the first MoE-based intrusion detection study and argues that activating only the top-k experts per input gives the model input-conditional computation and efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy assumes the missing-value imputer and Min-Max scaler are fit on the training partition alone, because the paper does not describe the split procedure in enough detail to rule out test-set statistics leaking into the preprocessing step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 5G or 6G intrusion detection system could run on conditional computation, activating only 32 of 128 experts per flow while matching or exceeding the accuracy of static deep classifiers on the 5G-NIDD benchmark.
  • The ablation results show that both the MoE layer and the load-balancing losses contribute: removing them lowers accuracy on 5G-NIDD from 0.99958 to 0.99829 and 0.99855, respectively.
  • Scaling the expert count helps: on 5G-NIDD, the (128, 32) configuration outperforms (64, 32), (32, 16), and (16, 4) configurations, indicating that a larger expert pool improves the router's specialization.
  • On the newer NANCY O-RAN dataset, the same architecture reaches only 79.59% accuracy and is notably weak on SYN Scan (F1-score 0.476), so deployment on O-RAN traffic would need further work.
  • Because the model activates only a subset of experts per input, the routing decision itself becomes a candidate mechanism for efficient inference and per-flow specialization in next-generation network security.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the strongest practical case for sparse MoE here is not the small accuracy margin (at most 0.9 percentage points over baselines) but the promise of lower per-input computation; the paper asserts lower training and inference time but reports no timing or FLOP measurements, so that promise is untested.
  • A testable extension is to use the router's gate weights as an interpretability signal: if experts specialize by attack type, the top-k selection for a misclassified SYN Scan sample could reveal which features push it toward benign and guide feature engineering.
  • A useful comparison would be to run the same CNN+MoE pipeline on NANCY with the two dropped classes restored (Reconnaissance Attack and Slow-rate DoS) under class weighting, to separate the effect of the architecture from the effect of the dataset's class-removal policy.
  • Since the two datasets differ in preprocessing (per-class mean imputation on 5G-NIDD versus numerical-only features on NANCY), applying identical preprocessing to both would test whether the accuracy gap is due to the model or the data pipeline.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a CNN backbone followed by a sparsely gated Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) classifier for network intrusion detection on the 5G-NIDD and NANCY datasets. The input feature vector is reshaped into a 2D matrix, processed by four CNN cells with batch normalization and max pooling, and then routed through a top-k MoE layer with load-balancing losses. Experiments report accuracy up to 99.958% on 5G-NIDD and 79.592% on NANCY, plus ablation studies varying the number of experts, removing the MoE layer, and removing the CNN. The authors claim state-of-the-art outperformance on 5G-NIDD and novelty as the first application of MoE to intrusion detection task.

Significance. If the central empirical claims were rigorously established, the paper would make a modest but useful contribution: it demonstrates that a sparse-MoE classifier can be coupled with a CNN feature extractor for network-flow classification, and it evaluates on two public 5G-related datasets. The ablation study is a genuine strength because it isolates the contributions of the CNN, the MoE layer, and the load-balancing losses. However, the headline 'outperforms state-of-the-art' claim is currently not supported by the experimental protocol: baseline numbers are taken from prior publications without a common evaluation framework, and all results come from single runs without variance estimates. The paper also contains internal inconsistencies in the reported NANCY accuracy and in the F1 comparison text. Because the core quantitative claims are load-bearing and are not yet secured, the contribution remains plausible but unproven.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V.B, Table IV] The central outperformance claim rests on comparing the proposed model's single-run metrics with numbers copied from prior publications, none of which is rerun under the same 60/40 stratified split and the same preprocessing (per-class mean imputation, MinMax scaling, one-hot encoding, and reshaping). At the reported accuracy levels (0.99958), the margins claimed, e.g. 0.00044–0.00875 in precision and 0.00148–0.00835 in accuracy, are within the range of typical seed-to-seed variation for deep networks. The paper provides no confidence intervals, no multiple seeds, and no statistical significance test, so the claim that the proposed model outperforms existing studies is not supported by the evidence presented. Please rerun the baselines in a common framework, report mean and standard deviation over multiple runs, and state whether the differences are statistically significant.
  2. [§V.D, Table V, Conclusion] The reported NANCY accuracy is internally inconsistent: Table V reports an overall accuracy of 0.79592 for the proposed model, while the Conclusion states the proposed approach reaches accuracy up to 0.78614, which is instead the value reported in Table VII for the variant with importance and load losses set to zero. Similarly, the discussion in Section V.D contains a contradiction: the text says the proposed method outperforms Customized CNN (N=100) [24] in F1-score by 0.01228-0.00194 but then says [24] outperforms the proposed study by a small margin of 0.00001. Please correct these inconsistencies and ensure every number quoted in the abstract, conclusion, and text matches the corresponding table entry.
  3. [§III.A.1, §III.B] The preprocessing pipeline is described as imputing missing values with the mean/most frequent value per class and applying MinMax scaling, but the paper does not state that the imputer and scaler are fitted exclusively on the training partition and then applied to the test partition. If class statistics or scaling parameters computed on the full dataset are used before splitting, the test set receives indirect supervision and the reported 99.96% accuracy would be inflated. Please specify explicitly that all preprocessing parameters (per-class means, most frequent categories, MinMax minima/maxima) are learned on the training split only, or revise the experimental protocol to prevent leakage.
  4. [§V.B] All experiments appear to be single runs: no random seed is reported, no multiple restarts are performed, and no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests accompany the results. Given that the decisive comparisons in Table IV involve differences as small as 0.00001 and that the ablation conclusions in Table VI rely on accuracy differences as small as 0.00001–0.00103, the results cannot be distinguished from noise without repeated runs. Please provide at least mean±std over several seeds, and ideally a paired test for the comparison against the rerun baselines.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §V.D] The abstract and Section V.D use both 'Accuracy up to 99.96%' and 'weighted F1-score up to 99.95%'; please make the metric names consistent and indicate that the accuracy figure is dataset-specific, since the NANCY accuracy is much lower.
  2. [§II.B] The related work contains a typo: 'LSMT autoencoders' should be 'LSTM autoencoders'.
  3. [§III.A.1] The sentence 'Several methods have been used for imputing missing values' is followed by examples, but the paragraph would benefit from a precise description of how the per-class mean/mode imputation is applied to categorical versus numerical features, including whether the class label is used during imputation in a way that could leak target information when the imputer is applied to test data.
  4. [Tables III and V] The column layout of Tables III and V is misleading: 'Accuracy' appears as a column header but only a single value is reported per table, and the per-row values under Precision/Recall/F1-score are not labeled as class-specific. Please restructure the tables so that Accuracy is clearly a global scalar and the class-wise metrics are unambiguously attributed.
  5. [§IV.B, Eq. (2)] The noise term R_noise is defined via StandardNormal() and Softplus((x · W_noise)_i), but the input to Softplus is not explicitly normalized and the formula as written mixes a scalar normal with a vector; please clarify the intended dimensionality and initialization of W_noise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claims are empirical evaluations on held-out splits, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical accuracies and ablations on two public datasets, 5G-NIDD and NANCY. The proposed CNN+MoE architecture is defined by standard convolutional components and a sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer whose equations (1)-(10) are taken from the external reference [9] (Shazeer et al.), not from the present authors' prior work. No target quantity is defined in terms of the model's own output: the reported Precision, Recall, F1-score, and Accuracy are computed on stratified held-out test splits (60/40 for 5G-NIDD, 70/30 for NANCY), and the comparisons in Table IV use previously published baseline numbers from other groups. The ablation study removes components (MoE layer, CNN layers, auxiliary losses) and reports resulting accuracy changes; those comparisons are architectural, not circular. The manuscript's explicit limitation that simple imputation 'may influence the evaluation performance' is a validity caution, and the inconsistency between the NANCY accuracy in Table V (0.79592) and the Conclusion (0.78614) is a reporting error, not a circular derivation. The preprocessing concern about fitting the imputer/scaler on the training partition only is a potential leakage risk, but even if true it would inflate results empirically rather than make the claim true by definition. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation is load-bearing. Thus the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its central claim rests on model hyperparameters and on three unstated dataset and preprocessing assumptions. Free parameters are numerous but standard for deep learning.

free parameters (5)
  • n (number of experts) = 128 (5G-NIDD), 64 (NANCY)
    Chosen by hand, not optimized; ablation shows accuracy changes with n.
  • k (top experts) = 32
    Chosen by hand for both datasets; ablations vary k.
  • alpha (MoE loss weight) = 0.1
    Chosen by hand for both datasets.
  • CNN filter counts = 16, 32, 64, 128
    Fixed architecture choice, not tuned.
  • batch size = 1024 (5G-NIDD), 256 (NANCY)
    Chosen by hand.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 5G-NIDD and NANCY datasets are accurate and representative of real 5G traffic and attacks.
    The paper relies on dataset labels and collection processes from external authors without independent verification.
  • ad hoc to paper Reshaping a 78-feature vector into a 6x13 matrix (and 72 into 6x12) creates a meaningful spatial layout for convolutions.
    The feature order is arbitrary; the paper provides no evidence that adjacent cells in the matrix correspond to related information.
  • domain assumption Mean imputation per class and MinMax scaling are fit on the training split only.
    The paper does not specify this, but any leakage would invalidate the test metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convolutional Neural Networks and Mixture of Experts for Intrusion Detection in 5G Networks and beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7EW3WHV

@misc{pith2026241203483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convolutional Neural Networks and Mixture of Experts for Intrusion Detection in 5G Networks and beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7EW3WHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03483}
}
read the original abstract

The advent of 6G/NextG networks comes along with a series of benefits, including extreme capacity, reliability, and efficiency. However, these networks may become vulnerable to new security threats. Therefore, 6G/NextG networks must be equipped with advanced Artificial Intelligence algorithms, in order to evade these attacks. Existing studies on the intrusion detection task rely on the train of shallow machine learning classifiers, including Logistic Regression, Decision Trees, and so on, yielding suboptimal performance. Others are based on deep neural networks consisting of static components, which are not conditional on the input. This limits their representation power and efficiency. To resolve these issues, we present the first study integrating Mixture of Experts (MoE) for identifying malicious traffic. Specifically, we use network traffic data and convert the 1D array of features into a 2D matrix. Next, we pass this matrix through convolutional neural network (CNN) layers followed by batch normalization and max pooling layers. After obtaining the representation vector via the CNN layers, a sparsely gated MoE layer is used. This layer consists of a set of experts (dense layers) and a router, where the router assigns weights to the output of each expert. Sparsity is achieved by choosing the most relevant experts of the total ones. Finally, we perform a series of ablation experiments to prove the effectiveness of our proposed model. Experiments are conducted on the 5G-NIDD dataset, a network intrusion detection dataset generated from a real 5G test network. Results show that our introduced approach reaches weighted F1-score up to 99.95% achieving comparable performance to existing approaches. Findings also show that our proposed model achieves multiple advantages over state-of-the-art approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed Methodology (a) CNN Architecture (fθ) (b) CNN cell structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Description of fθ , where: condition : if g(x; Θ)i is in the top-k elements of g(x; Θ). (4) For load-balancing purposes and balancing expert utiliza￾tion, we design two losses based on the study of [9]. • Limportance: [9] observe that large weights are assigned to specific experts by the router. To adddress this issue and ensure uniform routing weights across all experts, the authors in [9] design the following loss… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ablation Study (5G-NIDD dataset). Varying the number of experts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Real-time network packet classification exploiting computer vision ar- chitectures

    Emilio Paolini, Luca Valcarenghi, Luca Maggiani, and Nicola Andriolli. Real-time network packet classification exploiting computer vision ar- chitectures. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , 5:1155– 1166, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    A vision of 6g wireless systems: Applications, trends, technologies, and open research problems

    Walid Saad, Mehdi Bennis, and Mingzhe Chen. A vision of 6g wireless systems: Applications, trends, technologies, and open research problems. IEEE Network , 34(3):134–142, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Ai and 6g security: Opportunities and challenges

    Yushan Siriwardhana, Pawani Porambage, Madhusanka Liyanage, and Mika Ylianttila. Ai and 6g security: Opportunities and challenges. In 2021 Joint European Conference on Networks and Communications & 6G Summit (EuCNC/6G Summit) , pages 616–621, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    The road towards 6g: A comprehensive survey

    Wei Jiang, Bin Han, Mohammad Asif Habibi, and Hans Dieter Schotten. The road towards 6g: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , 2:334–366, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    The roadmap to 6g security and privacy

    Pawani Porambage, G ¨urkan G ¨ur, Diana Pamela Moya Osorio, Madhu- sanka Liyanage, Andrei Gurtov, and Mika Ylianttila. The roadmap to 6g security and privacy. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 2:1094–1122, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Dynamic neural networks: A survey

    Yizeng Han, Gao Huang, Shiji Song, Le Yang, Honghui Wang, and Yulin Wang. Dynamic neural networks: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 44(11):7436–7456, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Jacobs, Michael I

    Robert A. Jacobs, Michael I. Jordan, Steven J. Nowlan, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Computation , 3(1):79–87, 1991

    work page 1991

  8. [7]

    Expert gate: Lifelong learning with a network of experts

    Rahaf Aljundi, Punarjay Chakravarty, and Tinne Tuytelaars. Expert gate: Lifelong learning with a network of experts. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 7120–7129, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    A survey on mixture of experts, 2024

    Weilin Cai, Juyong Jiang, Fan Wang, Jing Tang, Sunghun Kim, and Jiayi Huang. A survey on mixture of experts, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer

    Noam Shazeer, *Azalia Mirhoseini, *Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    5g-nidd: A comprehensive network intrusion detection dataset generated over 5g wireless network

    Sehan Samarakoon, Yushan Siriwardhana, Pawani Porambage, Mad- husanka Liyanage, Sang-Yoon Chang, Jinoh Kim, Jonghyun Kim, and Mika Ylianttila. 5g-nidd: A comprehensive network intrusion detection dataset generated over 5g wireless network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01298, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Nancy sns ju project - cyberattacks on o-ran 5g testbed dataset, 2024

    Athanasios Liatifis, Dimitrios Pliatsios, Ioannis Makris, Nikolaos Ntam- pakis, Sotirios Tegos, Nikolaos Mitsiou, Konstantinos Kyranou, Thomas Lagkas, and Panagiotis Sarigiannidis. Nancy sns ju project - cyberattacks on o-ran 5g testbed dataset, 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    Performance analysis of intrusion detection systems using a feature selection method on the unsw-nb15 dataset

    Sydney M Kasongo and Yanxia Sun. Performance analysis of intrusion detection systems using a feature selection method on the unsw-nb15 dataset. Journal of Big Data , 7(1):105, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Fusion of statistical importance for feature selection in deep neural network-based intrusion detection system

    Ankit Thakkar and Ritika Lohiya. Fusion of statistical importance for feature selection in deep neural network-based intrusion detection system. Information Fusion , 90:353–363, 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    Real-time fusion multi-tier dnn-based collaborative idps with complementary features for secure uav-enabled 6g networks

    Hassan Jalil Hadi, Yue Cao, Sifan Li, Lexi Xu, Yulin Hu, and Mingxin Li. Real-time fusion multi-tier dnn-based collaborative idps with complementary features for secure uav-enabled 6g networks. Expert Systems with Applications , 252:124215, 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    Shamim Towhid, and Mohammad Sadegh Khosravani

    Behnam Farzaneh, Nashid Shahriar, Abu Hena Al Muktadir, Md. Shamim Towhid, and Mohammad Sadegh Khosravani. Dtl-5g: Deep transfer learning-based ddos attack detection in 5g and beyond networks. Computer Communications , 228:107927, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Dos/ddos attack dataset of 5g network slicing, 2023

    Md Sajid Khan, Behnam Farzaneh, Nashid Shahriar, and Md Mahibul Hasan. Dos/ddos attack dataset of 5g network slicing, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    5g-siid: an intelligent hybrid ddos intrusion detector for 5g iot networks

    Sapna Sadhwani, Aakar Mathur, Raja Muthalagu, and Pranav M Pawar. 5g-siid: an intelligent hybrid ddos intrusion detector for 5g iot networks. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics , pages 1– 21, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Early network intrusion detection enabled by attention mechanisms and rnns

    Taki Eddine Toufik Djaidja, Bouziane Brik, Sidi Mohammed Senouci, Abdelwahab Boualouache, and Yacine Ghamri-Doudane. Early network intrusion detection enabled by attention mechanisms and rnns. IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , 19:7783–7793, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    A cognitive security framework for detecting intrusions in iot and 5g utilizing deep learning

    Umesh Kumar Lilhore, Surjeet Dalal, and Sarita Simaiya. A cognitive security framework for detecting intrusions in iot and 5g utilizing deep learning. Computers & Security , 136:103560, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Ddosnet: A deep-learning model for detecting network attacks

    Mahmoud Said Elsayed, Nhien-An Le-Khac, Soumyabrata Dev, and Anca Delia Jurcut. Ddosnet: A deep-learning model for detecting network attacks. In 2020 IEEE 21st International Symposium on ”A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks” (WoWMoM) , pages 391–396, 2020

    2020

  14. [21]

    Ghorbani

    Iman Sharafaldin, Arash Habibi Lashkari, Saqib Hakak, and Ali A. Ghorbani. Developing realistic distributed denial of service (ddos) attack dataset and taxonomy. In 2019 International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST) , pages 1–8, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    A deep learning- based malware traffic classifier for 5g networks employing protocol- agnostic and pcap-to-embeddings techniques

    Georgios Agrafiotis, Eftychia Makri, Antonios Lalas, Konstantinos V o- tis, Dimitrios Tzovaras, and Nikolaos Tsampieris. A deep learning- based malware traffic classifier for 5g networks employing protocol- agnostic and pcap-to-embeddings techniques. In Proceedings of the 2023...

    2023

  16. [23]

    Gan augmentation to deal with imbalance in imaging-based intrusion detection

    Giuseppina Andresini, Annalisa Appice, Luca De Rose, and Donato Malerba. Gan augmentation to deal with imbalance in imaging-based intrusion detection. Future Generation Computer Systems, 123:108–127, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Wu, and Zhanbo Li

    Hongpo Zhang, Lulu Huang, Chase Q. Wu, and Zhanbo Li. An effective convolutional neural network based on smote and gaussian mixture model for intrusion detection in imbalanced dataset. Computer Networks, 177:107315, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Manticore: An unsupervised intrusion detection system based on contrastive learning in 5g networks

    Lu Yuan, Jiyan Sun, Shangyuan Zhuang, Yinlong Liu, Liru Geng, Jing Zou, Peizhe Xin, Weiqing Huang, and Wei Ma. Manticore: An unsupervised intrusion detection system based on contrastive learning in 5g networks. In ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, ...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Kitsune: an ensemble of autoencoders for online network intrusion detection

    Yisroel Mirsky, Tomer Doitshman, Yuval Elovici, and Asaf Shabtai. Kitsune: an ensemble of autoencoders for online network intrusion detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09089 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Real-time clustering based on deep embeddings for threat detection in 6g networks

    Emilio Paolini, Luca Valcarenghi, Luca Maggiani, and Nicola Andriolli. Real-time clustering based on deep embeddings for threat detection in 6g networks. IEEE Access , 11:115827–115835, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Unsupervised deep learning approach for network intrusion detection combining convolutional au- toencoder and one-class svm

    Adel Binbusayyis and Thavavel Vaiyapuri. Unsupervised deep learning approach for network intrusion detection combining convolutional au- toencoder and one-class svm. Applied Intelligence , 51(10):7094–7108, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Unsw-nb15: a comprehensive data set for network intrusion detection systems (unsw-nb15 network data set)

    Nour Moustafa and Jill Slay. Unsw-nb15: a comprehensive data set for network intrusion detection systems (unsw-nb15 network data set). In 2015 Military Communications and Information Systems Conference (MilCIS), pages 1–6, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    A detailed analysis of cicids2017 dataset for designing intrusion detection systems

    Ranjit Panigrahi and Samarjeet Borah. A detailed analysis of cicids2017 dataset for designing intrusion detection systems. International Journal of Engineering & Technology , 7(3.24):479–482, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Toward generating a new intrusion detection dataset and intrusion traffic characterization

    Iman Sharafaldin, Arash Habibi Lashkari, Ali A Ghorbani, et al. Toward generating a new intrusion detection dataset and intrusion traffic characterization. ICISSp, 1:108–116, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Rajalakshmi, Dinh Duc Nha Nguyen, and Yong Xiang

    Gurpreet Singh, Keshav Sood, P. Rajalakshmi, Dinh Duc Nha Nguyen, and Yong Xiang. Evaluating federated learning-based intrusion detection scheme for next generation networks. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , 21(4):4816–4829, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    PyTorch: an imper- ative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Brad- bury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas K ¨opf, Edward Yang, Zach DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu...

    2019

  27. [35]

    GAIN: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets

    Jinsung Yoon, James Jordon, and Mihaela van der Schaar. GAIN: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learni...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.