Papers › Evaluating Standard Feature Sets Towards Increased Generalisability and Explainability...
Evaluating Standard Feature Sets Towards Increased Generalisability and Explainability of ML-based Network Intrusion Detection
Mohanad Sarhan, Siamak Layeghy, Marius Portmann
Machine Learning (ML)-based network intrusion detection systems bring many benefits for enhancing the cybersecurity posture of an organisation. Many systems have been designed and developed in the research community, often achieving a close to perfect detection rate when evaluated using synthetic datasets. However, the high number of academic research has not often translated into practical deployments. There are several causes contributing towards the wide gap between research and production, such as the limited ability of comprehensive evaluation of ML models and lack of understanding of internal ML operations. This paper tightens the gap by evaluating the generalisability of a common feature set to different network environments and attack scenarios. Therefore, two feature sets (NetFlow and CICFlowMeter) have been evaluated in terms of detection accuracy across three key datasets, i.e., CSE-CIC-IDS2018, BoT-IoT, and ToN-IoT. The results show the superiority of the NetFlow feature set in enhancing the ML models detection accuracy of various network attacks. In addition, due to the complexity of the learning models, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), an explainable AI methodology, has been adopted to explain and interpret the classification decisions of ML models. The Shapley values of two common feature sets have been analysed across multiple datasets to determine the influence contributed by each feature towards the final ML prediction.
Code
No code repository is listed for this paper in the archive or in Syntology's graph.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Datasets
Introduced by this paper, per the archive.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections