Evaluation of Machine Learning Models for Attack Detection in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly utilized in various civil and military applications, highlighting the growing need for robust security in UAV networks. Cyberattacks on these networks can lead to operational disruptions and the loss of critical information. This study evaluates five machine learning models—Random Forest (RF), CatBoost, XGBoost, AdaBoost, and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)—for detecting attacks on UAV networks using the CICIOT2023 (Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity Internet of Things 2023) dataset. Performance metrics such as accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and F1 score were used to assess these models. Among them, CatBoost demonstrated superior performance, achieving the highest accuracy and the fastest prediction time of 6.487 seconds, making it particularly advantageous for real-time attack detection. This study underscores the effectiveness of CatBoost in both accuracy and efficiency, positioning it as an ideal choice for enhancing UAV network security. The findings contribute to addressing cybersecurity vulnerabilities in UAV networks and support the development of more secure network infrastructures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".