ArticleScientific reports2026
Anomaly-based intrusion detection on benchmark datasets for network security: a comprehensive evaluation.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing anomaly-based zero-day attack detection framework using CNN-driven feature extraction and OC-SVM.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Intrusion Detection in the Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques, Architectures, Datasets, and Emerging Trends.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Relational Modelling for Automotive Cybersecurity: Structural Transition and Graph-Topology-Based CAN Intrusion Detection.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.