Cited by 208Network Security and Intrusion DetectionNetwork Packet Processing and OptimizationInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting

Classification and Explanation for Intrusion Detection System Based on Ensemble Trees and SHAP Method

Open access
Le, Thi-Thu-Huong, Kim, Haeyoung, Kang, Hyoeun, Kim, Howon·2022·Sensors

Abstract

In recent years, many methods for intrusion detection systems (IDS) have been designed and developed in the research community, which have achieved a perfect detection rate using IDS datasets. Deep neural networks (DNNs) are representative examples applied widely in IDS. However, DNN models are becoming increasingly complex in model architectures with high resource computing in hardware requirements. In addition, it is difficult for humans to obtain explanations behind the decisions made by these DNN models using large IoT-based IDS datasets. Many proposed IDS methods have not been applied in practical deployments, because of the lack of explanation given to cybersecurity experts, to support them in terms of optimizing their decisions according to the judgments of the IDS models. This paper aims to enhance the attack detection performance of IDS with big IoT-based IDS datasets as well as provide explanations of machine learning (ML) model predictions. The proposed ML-based IDS method is based on the ensemble trees approach, including decision tree (DT) and random forest (RF) classifiers which do not require high computing resources for training models. In addition, two big datasets are used for the experimental evaluation of the proposed method, NF-BoT-IoT-v2, and NF-ToN-IoT-v2 (new versions of the original BoT-IoT and ToN-IoT datasets), through the feature set of the net flow meter. In addition, the IoTDS20 dataset is used for experiments. Furthermore, the SHapley additive exPlanations (SHAP) is applied to the eXplainable AI (XAI) methodology to explain and interpret the classification decisions of DT and RF models; this is not only effective in interpreting the final decision of the ensemble tree approach but also supports cybersecurity experts in quickly optimizing and evaluating the correctness of their judgments based on the explanations of the results.

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 · 10.3390/s22031154

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple techniques have been employed to uncover meaningful information from intrusion datasets, such as clustering, neural networks, association rules, decision trees, genetic algorithms, and nearest-neighbour methods.

    “Multiple techniques have been employed to uncover meaningful information from intrusion datasets, such as clustering, neural networks, association rules, decision trees, genetic algorithms, and nearest-neighbour methods [136] evaluate the importance of features in IDS [77].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [8]Spadaccino P. Cuomo F. Intrusion Detection Systems for IoT: Opportunities and Challenges offered by Edge Computing arXiv 1 20 Available online: Https://arxiv.org/pdf/2012.01174.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2021) · arXiv
  2. [12]Lundberg S.M. Erion G.G. Lee S.I. Consistent individualized feature attribution for tree ensembles arXiv 2018 1802.03888
  3. [46]Sarhan M. Layeghy S. Moustafa N. Portmann M. Towards a standard feature set of nids datasets arXiv 2021 2101.11315
  4. [56]Sarhan M. Layeghy S. Portmann M. Feature Analysis for ML-based IIoT Intrusion Detection arXiv 2021 2108.12732
  5. [64]Mane S. Rao D. Explaining Network Intrusion Detection System Using Explainable AI Framework arXiv 2021 2103.07110
  6. [68]Sarhan M. Layeghy S. Portmann M. An Explainable Machine Learning-based Network Intrusion Detection System for Enabling Generalisability in Securing IoT Networks arXiv 2021 2104.07183v1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Le, T.-T.-H., Kim, H., Kang, H., & Kim, H.
Affiliations
  • Hung Yen University of Technology and Education (VN)
  • Pusan National University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Howon
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-02-03
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
1154
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210659135
Cited by
208
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 14
FWCI
18.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Network Packet Processing and Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Keywords
intrusion detection systems, Internet of Things security, decision tree ensembles, random forest, decision tree, SHAP, explainable AI, attack detection, Bot-IoT dataset, ToN-IoT, model interpretability
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Computer Security, Neural Networks, Computer

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