MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

XAI-Driven Security Systems: Enhancing Trust and Clarity in Automated Threat Detection and Response

2025· article· W7129262759 on OpenAlexaff
Balajee Maram, Swathi Balija, M. Chandra Sekhar, Lade Gunakar Rao, Maram Sai Shashank Raj, V. E. Sathishkumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYNISTBenchmark (surveying)Artificial neural networkTriageFidelityApplications of artificial intelligenceIntrusion detection system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybersecurity threats are on an exponential rise thus necessitating the need to develop advanced level artificial intelligence (AI) systems to respond and detect threats automatically. But conventional artificial intelligence models in security operations centers (SOCs) have posed a major trust deficit between security analysts and significantly weakened the performance of the systems. This study proposes a full-scale XAI-based security model that incorporates the explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods with the sophisticated machine learning algorithms in providing superior visibility and user trust to the threat-detection autonomous systems. We combined SHAP and LIME explanation frameworks with ensemble models such as Random Forest, XGBoost, CNN and LSTM architectures to achieve an accuracy of 95% on the detection with an explanation fidelity score of more than 0.85. Based on such a thorough testing on benchmark datasets such as CIC-IDS2017 and UNSW-NB15 totaling to more than 5.3 million network flows, the system can deliver processing rates of maximum 10,000 events/sec per core with a maximum end-to-end latency of less than 100 ms. Researching 30 SOC analysts in a human-factors study, the scores on trust increased notably, with systems utilizing XAI reducing the amount of time needed to triage an alert by 34 percent and the analysts confidence of the system by 68 percent, according to a human-factors study utilizing XAIenhanced systems. The system satisfies serious requirements of compliance in future regulations such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024 and NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and gives auditable, explainable choices on security. The findings show that explainable AI integration into the processes of cybersecurity can improve false positive rates by as much as 22 percent without compromising on detection performance hence providing a new paradigm of an acceptable AI in security applications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207