ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
XAI-Driven Intrusion Detection for Internet of Things Networks.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
Abstract
Systems that can reliably detect intrusion are increasingly in demand as the scale and heterogeneity of Internet of Things (IoT) networks rise. However, when strong tabular models are employed as a benchmark, it is not clear whether the complexity of ensembling actually pays off. The aim of this work is to systematically assess the reliability and accuracy of soft-voting ensembles across three benchmark datasets (CICIoT2023, TON_IoT, and Edge-IIoTset), applying a leakage-free protocol with twice-repeated stratified 10-fold cross-validation. Ensembles of varying sizes and compositions were benchmarked against Decision Tree, KNN, Random Forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, and CatBoost and the results revealed that ensemble complexity did not lead to a consistent increase in performance. For example, SoftVote-2 increased macro-F1 over LightGBM on CICIoT2023 from 0.8506 to 0.8563, whereas LightGBM remained superior on TON_IoT and Edge-IIoTset. A leakage analysis demonstrated that resampling before data partitioning increased accuracy by around 8 percentage points and macro-F1 by 14 to 17 percentage points. To assess the trade-off between performance and complexity, training time, inference latency, memory, and model size were all evaluated, and LIME and SHAP were also assessed for explanation stability, local fidelity, and attribution agreement. XAI-guided feature selection showed that the 15 most important features retained 98.4-99.4% of the original macro-F1 and decreased inference latency by up to 38%. The results indicate that the value of ensemble complexity varies by dataset and should be weighed against its computational cost. The main contribution of this study is a leakage-aware and explainability-informed framework that can be used to judge when ensemble complexity yields genuine predictive and practical benefits for the detection of IoT intrusion.
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.