Enhancing IDS performance through a comparative analysis of Random Forest, XGBoost, and Deep Neural Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) face major challenges in network security, notably the need to combine a high detection rate with reliable performance. This reliability is often affected by class imbalances and inadequate hyperparameter optimization. This article addresses the issue of improving the detection rate of IDS by evaluating and comparing three machine learning algorithms: Random Forest (RF), XGBoost, and Deep Neural Networks (DNN), using the NSL-KDD dataset. In our methodology, we integrate SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique) to tackle the unbalanced nature of the data, ensuring a more balanced representation of the different classes. This approach helps optimize model performance, reduce bias, and enhance robustness. Additionally, hyperparameter optimization is performed using Optuna, ensuring that each algorithm operates at its optimal level. The results show that our model, using the Random Forest algorithm, achieves an accuracy of 99.80%, surpassing the performance of XGBoost and Deep Neural Networks (DNN). This makes our approach a true asset for intrusion detection methods in computer networks. • Random Forest achieved 99.80% accuracy and 0.9988 AUC on the NSL-KDD dataset. • Comparative performance evaluation of RF, XGBoost, and DNN for IDS. • Data imbalance in IDS addressed using the SMOTE technique. • The proposed approach outperforms the most comparable IDS models in detection accuracy. • IDS framework adaptable to various network datasets.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it