Machine Learning-Based Intrusion Detection: Feature Selection versus Feature Extraction
July 04, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Cluster Computing
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Vu-Duc Ngo, Tuan-Cuong Vuong, Thien Van Luong, Hung Tran
arXiv ID
2307.01570
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Cross-listed
cs.AI
Citations
50
Venue
Cluster Computing
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Internet of things (IoT) has been playing an important role in many sectors, such as smart cities, smart agriculture, smart healthcare, and smart manufacturing. However, IoT devices are highly vulnerable to cyber-attacks, which may result in security breaches and data leakages. To effectively prevent these attacks, a variety of machine learning-based network intrusion detection methods for IoT networks have been developed, which often rely on either feature extraction or feature selection techniques for reducing the dimension of input data before being fed into machine learning models. This aims to make the detection complexity low enough for real-time operations, which is particularly vital in any intrusion detection systems. This paper provides a comprehensive comparison between these two feature reduction methods of intrusion detection in terms of various performance metrics, namely, precision rate, recall rate, detection accuracy, as well as runtime complexity, in the presence of the modern UNSW-NB15 dataset as well as both binary and multiclass classification. For example, in general, the feature selection method not only provides better detection performance but also lower training and inference time compared to its feature extraction counterpart, especially when the number of reduced features K increases. However, the feature extraction method is much more reliable than its selection counterpart, particularly when K is very small, such as K = 4. Additionally, feature extraction is less sensitive to changing the number of reduced features K than feature selection, and this holds true for both binary and multiclass classifications. Based on this comparison, we provide a useful guideline for selecting a suitable intrusion detection type for each specific scenario, as detailed in Tab. 14 at the end of Section IV.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative Execution
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
How To Backdoor Federated Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted