ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Advancing Machine Learning Strategies for Power Consumption-Based IoT Botnet Detection.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices has amplified botnet risks, while traditional network-based intrusion detection systems (IDSs) struggle under encrypted and/or sparse traffic. Power consumption offers an effective side channel for device-level detection. Yet, prior studies typically focus on a single model family (often a convolutional neural network (CNN)) and rarely assess generalization across devices or compare broader model classes. In this paper, we conduct unified benchmarking and comparison of classical (SVM and RF), deep (CNN, LSTM, and 1D Transformer), and hybrid (CNN + LSTM, CNN + Transformer, and CNN + RF) models on the CHASE'19 dataset and a newly curated three-class botnet dataset, using consistent preprocessing and evaluation across single- and cross-device settings, reporting both accuracy and efficiency (latency and throughput). Experimental results demonstrate that Random Forest achieves the highest single-device accuracy (99.43% on the Voice Assistant with Seed 42), while CNN + Transformer shows a strong accuracy-efficiency trade-off in cross-device scenarios (94.02% accuracy on the combined dataset at ∼60,000 samples/s when using the best-performing Seed 42). These results offer practical guidance for selecting models under accuracy, latency, and throughput constraints and establish a reproducible baseline for power-side-channel IDSs.
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.