Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Hybrid Deep Learning-Based Model for Anomaly Detection in Cloud Datacenter Networks

Open access
Garg, Sahil, Kaur, Kuljeet, Kumar, Neeraj, Kaddoum, Georges, Zomaya, Albert Y., Ranjan, Rajiv·2019·IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management

Abstract

With the emergence of the Internet-of-Things (IoT) and seamless Internet connectivity, the need to process streaming data on real-time basis has become essential. However, the existing data stream management systems are not efficient in analyzing the network log big data for real-time anomaly detection. Further, the existing anomaly detection approaches are not proficient because they cannot be applied to networks, are computationally complex, and suffer from high false positives. Thus, in this paper a hybrid data processing model for network anomaly detection is proposed that leverages grey wolf optimization (GWO) and convolutional neural network (CNN). To enhance the capabilities of the proposed model, GWO and CNN learning approaches were enhanced with: 1) improved exploration, exploitation, and initial population generation abilities and 2) revamped dropout functionality, respectively. These extended variants are referred to as Improved-GWO (ImGWO) and Improved-CNN (ImCNN). The proposed model works in two phases for efficient network anomaly detection. In the first phase, ImGWO is used for feature selection in order to obtain an optimal trade-off between two objectives, i.e., reduced error rate and feature-set minimization. In the second phase, ImCNN is used for network anomaly classification. The efficacy of the proposed model is validated on benchmark (DARPA'98 and KDD'99) and synthetic datasets. The results obtained demonstrate that the proposed cloud-based anomaly detection model is superior in comparison to the other state-of-the-art models (used for network anomaly detection), in terms of accuracy, detection rate, false positive rate, and F-score. In average, the proposed model exhibits an overall improvement of 8.25%, 4.08%, and 3.62% in terms of detection rate, false positives, and accuracy, respectively; relative to standard GWO with CNN.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnsm.2019.2927886

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Garg, S., Kaur, K., Kumar, N., Kaddoum, G., Zomaya, A. Y., & Ranjan, R.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management
Published
2019-09
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
924-935
ISSN
  • 1932-4537 (ISSN-L)
  • 2373-7379
OpenAlex
W2959716986
Cited by
287
References
22
FWCI
21.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Hybrid Deep Learning-Based Model for Anomaly Detection in Cloud Datacenter Networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tnsm.2019.2927886
The paper
Garg, S., Kaur, K., Kumar, N., Kaddoum, G., Zomaya, A. Y., & Ranjan, R. (2019). A Hybrid Deep Learning-Based Model for Anomaly Detection in Cloud Datacenter Networks. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsm.2019.2927886

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.