Exploring the Effect of DNN Depth on Adversarial Attacks in Network Intrusion Detection Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adversarial attacks pose significant challenges to Machine Learning (ML) systems and especially Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) by subtly manipulating inputs to induce incorrect predictions. This paper investigates whether increasing the layer depth of deep neural networks affects their robustness against adversarial attacks in the Network Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) domain. We compare the adversarial robustness of various deep neural networks across both \ac{NIDS} and computer vision domains (the latter being widely used in adversarial attack experiments). Our experimental results reveal that in the NIDS domain, adding more layers does not necessarily improve their performance, yet it may actually significantly degrade their robustness against adversarial attacks. Conversely, in the computer vision domain, adding more layers exhibits a more modest impact on robustness. These findings can guide the development of robust neural networks for (NIDS) applications and highlight the unique characteristics of network security domains within the (ML) landscape.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".