ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Cross-Protocol Domain Gap in Internet of Things Intrusion and Anomaly Detection: An Empirical Internet Protocol-to-Bluetooth Low Energy Study of Domain-Adversarial Training.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Closed-Set Heterogeneous Domain Adaptation for IoT Intrusion Detection: An Anchor-Based Benchmark Across Single- and Multi-Source Transfer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intrusion and anomaly detectors trained on Internet Protocol (IP) traffic are increasingly deployed in heterogeneous IoT environments where Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) links coexist with IP networks. We quantify the cross-protocol domain gap in an IP → BLE transfer setting under unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA), where target labels are unavailable for training and model selection. Using 14 lightweight window-level statistics and leakage-aware splits, we benchmark classical baselines and alignment methods (CORAL and MMD) against domain-adversarial neural networks (DANNs). Under random window splits, DANNs can yield modest target gains but exhibit strong seed sensitivity and non-monotonic domain confusion. We propose R3, a domain-aware checkpoint rule that combines near-best source validation with domain discriminator accuracy as a proxy for alignment, improving the target ROC-AUC by ~+0.053 across three representative seeds and producing more consistent AP gains over 20 seeds. However, under a stricter capture-wise leave-one-capture-out (LOCO) protocol, UDA collapses to near-chance ranking and can underperform simple baselines, highlighting the risk of optimistic random splits. Finally, we show that transferring a source-tuned threshold can trigger unsafe operating points (micro-FPR = 1.0 on benign-only captures), motivating PR-based metrics and calibration/operating-point audits. We have released derived feature tables, split definitions, and scripts to support reproducibility under restricted raw data access.
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.