ArticlePloS one2025
Adaptive TreeHive: Ensemble of trees for enhancing imbalanced intrusion classification.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Imbalanced intrusion classification is a complex and challenging task as there are few number of instances/intrusions generally considered as minority instances/intrusions in the imbalanced intrusion datasets. Data sampling methods such as over-sampling and under-sampling methods are commonly applied for dealing with imbalanced intrusion data. In over-sampling, synthetic minority instances are generated e.g. SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique) and on the contrary, under-sampling methods remove the majority-class instances to create balanced data e.g. random under-sampling. Both over-sampling and under-sampling methods have the disadvantages as over-sampling technique creates overfitting and under-sampling technique ignores a large portion of the data. Ensemble learning in supervised machine learning is also a common technique for handling imbalanced data. Random Forest and Bagging techniques address the overfitting problem, and Boosting (AdaBoost) gives more attention to the minority-class instances in its iterations. In this paper, we have proposed a method for selecting the most informative instances that represent the overall dataset. We have applied both over-sampling and under-sampling techniques to balance the data by employing the majority and minority informative instances. We have used Random Forest, Bagging, and Boosting (AdaBoost) algorithms and have compared their performances. We have used decision tree (C4.5) as the base classifier of Random Forest and AdaBoost classifiers and naïve Bayes classifier as the base classifier of the Bagging model. The proposed method Adaptive TreeHive addresses both the issues of imbalanced ratio and high dimensionality, resulting in reduced computational power and execution time requirements. We have evaluated the proposed Adaptive TreeHive method using five large-scale public benchmark datasets. The experimental results, compared to data balancing methods such as under-sampling and over-sampling, exhibit superior performance of the Adaptive TreeHive with accuracy rates of 99.96%, 85.65%, 99.83%, 99.77%, and 95.54% on the NSL-KDD, UNSW-NB15, CIC-IDS2017, CSE-CIC-IDS2018, and CICDDoS2019 datasets, respectively, establishing the Adaptive TreeHive as a superior performer compared to the traditional ensemble classifiers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.