Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41803168›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Anomaly-based intrusion detection on benchmark datasets for network security: a comprehensive evaluation.

L K Suresh Kumar, Srihith Reddy Nethi, Ravi Uyyala, Padmavathi Vurubindi, Sujatha Canavoy Narahari, Ashok Kumar Das, Vivekananda Bhat K, Mohammed J F Alenazi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

8 authors.

L K Suresh KumarDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad, 500 007, India.
Srihith Reddy NethiDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad, 500 007, India.
Ravi UyyalaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, 500 075, India.
Padmavathi VurubindiDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, 500 075, India.
Sujatha Canavoy NarahariDepartment of ECE, Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Hyderabad, 501 302, India.
Ashok Kumar DasCenter for Security, Theory and Algorithmic Research, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, 500 032, India. iitkgp.akdas@gmail.com.
Vivekananda Bhat KManipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India. kv.bhat@manipal.edu.
Mohammed J F AlenaziDepartment of Computer Engineering, College of Computer and Information Sciences (CCIS), King Saud University, 11451, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study discusses two widely-recognized deep learning approaches for network intrusion detection: a Deep Neural Network (DNN) and a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN). Both models are trained and evaluated on three widely used benchmark datasets: KDDCup99, NSL-KDD (each with five classes), and UNSW-NB15 (ten classes). Multiple optimizers, including Adam, SGD, Adamax, AdamW, and Adadelta, are then explored, with Adam consistently providing the best performance. CrossEntropyLoss is found to be the most effective loss function for these multi-class classification tasks. Designed to automatically learn and extract relevant features from raw data, the models reduce reliance on manual feature engineering. Performance is assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and false positive rate. Experimental results show that both models achieve over 99% accuracy on KDDCup99, with improved detection rates and false positive rates below 1% for KDDCup99 and NSL-KDD. On the more complex UNSW-NB15 dataset, false positive rates also remain under 8%, demonstrating the models’ robustness and generalizability across diverse intrusion scenarios.

Indexed as

CybersecurityIntrusion Detection System (IDS)Multi-class classificationNetwork attacksNetwork security

Identifiers

PMID41803168
PMCPMC12972132

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.