The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Naive Bayes vs decision trees in intrusion detection systems
Abstract
Bayes networks are powerful tools for decision and reasoning under uncertainty. A very simple form of Bayes networks is called naive Bayes, which are particularly efficient for inference tasks. However, naive Bayes are based on a very strong independence assumption. This paper offers an experimental study of the use of naive Bayes in intrusion detection. We show that even if having a simple structure, naive Bayes provide very competitive results. The experimental study is done on KDD'99 intrusion data sets. We consider three levels of attack granularities depending on whether dealing with whole attacks, or grouping them in four main categories or just focusing on normal and abnormal behaviours. In the whole experimentations, we compare the performance of naive Bayes networks with one of well known machine learning techniques which is decision tree. Moreover, we compare the good performance of Bayes nets with respect to existing best results performed on KDD'99.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Constructing optimal binary decision trees is NP-complete
Hyafil, L., & Rivest, R. L. (1976) · Information Processing Letters · doi:10.1016/0020-0190(76)90095-8 · Cited by 959
Adaptive, model-based monitoring for cyber attack detection
Valdes, A., & Skinner, K. (2000) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-39945-3_6 · Cited by 309
Cited by
A Survey of Data Mining and Machine Learning Methods for Cyber Security Intrusion Detection
Buczak, A. L., & Guven, E. (2016) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2015.2494502 · Cited by 3,332
Boutaba, R., Salahuddin, M. A., Limam, N., Ayoubi, S., Shahriar, N., Estrada-Solano, F., & Caicedo, O. M. (2018) · Journal of Internet Services and Applications · doi:10.1186/s13174-018-0087-2 · Cited by 1,036
Li, Y., Xia, J., Zhang, S., Yan, J., Ai, X., & Dai, K. (2012) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.032 · Cited by 386
Using probabilistic generative models for ranking risks of Android apps
Peng, H., Gates, C., Sarma, B., Li, N., Qi, Y., Potharaju, R., Nita-Rotaru, C., & Molloy, I. (2012) · Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security · doi:10.1145/2382196.2382224 · Cited by 375
Artificial intelligence, cyber-threats and industry 4.0: challenges and opportunities
Bécue, A., Praça, I., & Gama, J. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-020-09942-2 · Cited by 368
Metadata
- Authors
- Amor, N. B., Benferhat, S., & Elouedi, Z.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2004-03-14
- Pages
- 420-424
- OpenAlex
- W2169768310
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Naive Bayes vs decision trees in intrusion detection systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/967900.967989
- The paper
- Amor, N. B., Benferhat, S., & Elouedi, Z. (2004). Naive Bayes vs decision trees in intrusion detection systems. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing. https://doi.org/10.1145/967900.967989
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.