Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 479

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

Amor, Nahla Ben, Benferhat, Salem, Elouedi, Zied·2004·Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/967900.967989

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 479

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.