The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Large Language Models for Network Intrusion Detection Systems: Foundations, Implementations, and Future Directions
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized various fields with their exceptional capabilities in understanding, processing, and generating human-like text. This paper investigates the potential of LLMs in advancing Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS), analyzing current challenges, methodologies, and future opportunities. It begins by establishing a foundational understanding of NIDS and LLMs, exploring the enabling technologies that bridge the gap between intelligent and cognitive systems in AI-driven NIDS. While Intelligent NIDS leverage machine learning and deep learning to detect threats based on learned patterns, they often lack contextual awareness and explainability. In contrast, Cognitive NIDS integrate LLMs to process both structured and unstructured security data, enabling deeper contextual reasoning, explainable decision-making, and automated response for intrusion behaviors. Practical implementations are then detailed, highlighting LLMs as processors, detectors, and explainers within a comprehensive AI-driven NIDS pipeline. Furthermore, the concept of an LLM-centered Controller is proposed, emphasizing its potential to coordinate intrusion detection workflows, optimizing tool collaboration and system performance. Finally, this paper identifies critical challenges and opportunities, aiming to foster innovation in developing reliable, adaptive, and explainable NIDS. By presenting the transformative potential of LLMs, this paper seeks to inspire advancement in next-generation network security systems.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
LLMs offer a promising avenue to analyze unstructured logs and derive insights in a more flexible manner, potentially correlating diverse events, interpreting log semantics, and generating intuitive explanations.
“Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue to analyze unstructured logs and derive insights in a more flexible manner, potentially correlating diverse events, interpreting log semantics, and generating intuitive explanations [17], [18].”
From Can Large Language Models Be Trusted for AI-Based Intrusion Detection in Cybersecurity? An Evidence-Grounded Log Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Out-of-the-box LLMs may lack cybersecurity knowledge, requiring careful prompt design through few-shot exemplars, chain-of-thought prompting, and retrieval augmentation.
“Out-of-the-box LLMs may lack cybersecurity knowledge, requiring careful prompt design through few-shot exemplars, chain-ofthought prompting, and retrieval augmentation [17], [22].”
From Can Large Language Models Be Trusted for AI-Based Intrusion Detection in Cybersecurity? An Evidence-Grounded Log Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
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 [17]
LLMs are known to sometimes produce convincing yet ungrounded statements or hallucinated details.
“LLMs are known to sometimes produce convincing yet ungrounded statements or hallucinated details [2], [17].”
From Can Large Language Models Be Trusted for AI-Based Intrusion Detection in Cybersecurity? An Evidence-Grounded Log Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, S., Zheng, X., Zhang, X., Xu, J., Li, J., Xie, D., Long, W., & Ngai, E. C. H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2507.04752
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
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
