Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39943488›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

An Intrusion Detection System over the IoT Data Streams Using eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI).

Adel Alabbadi, Fuad Bajaber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adel AlabbadiFaculty of Computing and Information Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0009-0009-5376-9132
Fuad BajaberFaculty of Computing and Information Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rise in intrusions on network and IoT systems has led to the development of artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies in intrusion detection systems (IDSs). However, traditional AI or machine learning (ML) methods can compromise accuracy due to the vast, diverse, and dynamic nature of the data generated. Moreover, many of these methods lack transparency, making it challenging for security professionals to make predictions. To address these challenges, this paper presents a novel IDS architecture that uses deep learning (DL)-based methodology along with eXplainable AI (XAI) techniques to create explainable models in network intrusion detection systems, empowering security analysts to use these models effectively. DL models are needed to train enormous amounts of data and produce promising results. Three different DL models, i.e., customized 1-D convolutional neural networks (1-D CNNs), deep neural networks (DNNs), and pre-trained model TabNet, are proposed. The experiments are performed on seven different datasets of TON_IOT. The CNN model for the network dataset achieves an impressive accuracy of 99.24%. Meanwhile, for the six different IoT datasets, in most of the datasets, the CNN and DNN achieve 100% accuracy, further validating the effectiveness of the proposed models. In all the datasets, the least-performing model is TabNet. Implementing the proposed method in real time requires an explanation of the predictions generated. Thus, the XAI methods are implemented to understand the essential features responsible for predicting the particular class.

Indexed as

CNNdeep learningIDSLIMEmachine learningnetworksneural networksSHAP

Identifiers

PMID39943488
PMCPMC11820747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.