An Explanation of the LSTM Model Used for DDoS Attacks Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rise of DDoS attacks, several machine learning-based attack detection models have been used to mitigate malicious behavioral attacks. Understanding how machine learning models work is not trivial. This is particularly true for complex and nonlinear models, such as deep learning models that have high accuracy. The struggle to explain these models creates a tension between accuracy and explanation. Recently, different methods have been used to explain deep learning models and address ambiguity issues. In this paper, we utilize the LSTM model to classify DDoS attacks. We then investigate the explanation of LSTM using LIME, SHAP, Anchor, and LORE methods. Predictions of 17 DDoS attacks are explained by these methods, where common explanations are obtained for each class. We also use the output of the explanation methods to extract intrinsic features needed to differentiate DDoS attacks. Our results demonstrate 51 intrinsic features to classify attacks. We finally compare the explanation methods and evaluate them using descriptive accuracy (DA) and descriptive sparsity (DS) metrics. The comparison and evaluation show that the explanation methods can explain the classification of DDoS attacks by capturing either the dominant contribution of input features in the prediction of the classifier or a set of features with high relevance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".