HuntGPT: Integrating Machine Learning-Based Anomaly Detection and Explainable AI with Large Language Models (LLMs)
Open accessAbstract
Machine learning (ML) is crucial in network anomaly detection for proactive threat hunting, reducing detection and response times significantly. However, challenges in model training, maintenance, and frequent false positives impact its acceptance and reliability. Explainable AI (XAI) attempts to mitigate these issues, allowing cybersecurity teams to assess AI-generated alerts with confidence, but has seen limited acceptance from incident responders. Large Language Models (LLMs) present a solution through discerning patterns in extensive information and adapting to different functional requirements. We present HuntGPT, a specialized intrusion detection dashboard applying a Random Forest classifier using the KDD99 dataset, integrating XAI frameworks like SHAP and Lime for user-friendly and intuitive model interaction, and combined with a GPT-3.5 Turbo, it delivers threats in an understandable format. The paper delves into the system's architecture, components, and technical accuracy, assessed through Certified Information Security Manager (CISM) Practice Exams, evaluating response quality across six metrics. The results demonstrate that conversational agents, supported by LLM and integrated with XAI, provide robust, explainable, and actionable AI solutions in intrusion detection, enhancing user understanding and interactive experience.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Ali and Kostakos (2023) introduces HuntGPT, a system that integrates LLMs with traditional machine learning for anomaly detection, using a random forest classifier trained on KDD99 and XAI techniques with GPT-3.5.
“introduces HuntGPT, a system that integrates LLMs with traditional machine learning for anomaly detection. The system utilizes a random forest classifier trained on the KDD99 dataset to identify cyber threats. To enhance interpretability, the system employs XAI techniques such as SHAP and Lime and combines them with the GPT -3.5 conversational agent.”
From When LLMs meet cybersecurity: a systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Ali and Kostakos (2023)
Traditional log-based IDS struggle with the volume of log data and sophistication of modern attacks; signature-based and statistical methods often fail to detect novel, multi-stage intrusions and overwhelm analysts with false positives.
“Traditional log-based intrusion detection systems (IDS) struggle with the volume of log data and sophistication of modern attacks. Signature-based and statistical methods often fail to detect novel, multi-stage intrusions and overwhelm analysts with false positives [17], [19].”
From Can Large Language Models Be Trusted for AI-Based Intrusion Detection in Cybersecurity? An Evidence-Grounded Log Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Yao, Y., Duan, J., Xu, K., Cai, Y., Sun, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · High-Confidence Computing · doi:10.1016/j.hcc.2024.100211 · Cited by 1,083 · see citing works
The application of large language models in medicine: A scoping review
Meng, X., Yan, X., Zhang, K., Liu, D., Cui, X., Yang, Y., Zhang, M., Cao, C., Wang, J., Wang, X., et al. (2024) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109713 · Cited by 414 · see citing works
When LLMs meet cybersecurity: a systematic literature review
Zhang, J., Bu, H., Wen, H., Liu, Y., Fei, H., Xi, R., Li, L., Yang, Y., Zhu, H., & Meng, D. (2025) · Cybersecurity · doi:10.1186/s42400-025-00361-w · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Jaffal, N. O., Alkhanafseh, M., & Mohaisen, D. (2025) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai6090216 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
AI-Augmented SOC: A Survey of LLMs and Agents for Security Automation
Srinivas, S., Kirk, B., Zendejas, J., Espino, M., Boskovich, M., Bari, A., Dajani, K., & Alzahrani, N. (2025) · Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy · doi:10.3390/jcp5040095 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Beyzavi, H., Shiraskar, S., Albluwi, A., Albalawi, M., Rizk, D., Rizk, F., Rizk, P., Nehmetallah, G., Rizk, R., & Santosh, K. (2026) · 2026 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) · doi:10.1109/cai68641.2026.11536239
- Authors
- Ali, T., & Kostakos, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Oulu (FI)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 73-73
- ISSN
- 2673-4001 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2309.16021
- OpenAlex
- W4387210439
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 22.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Telecom (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- European Commission (101021911, 318927)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- network anomaly detection, threat hunting, explainable AI, large language models, intrusion detection systems, random forest, SHAP, lime, GPT-3.5-turbo, chatbots, KDD Cup 1999 dataset, false positives, incident response
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