Papers › Beyond Detection Accuracy: Measuring Explanation Cost, Stability, and Utility for...
Beyond Detection Accuracy: Measuring Explanation Cost, Stability, and Utility for Resource-Aware IoT Intrusion Detection
Abdurrahman Tolay
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Machine-learning intrusion-detection studies commonly emphasize predictive accuracy while treating explanation generation as a computationally free post-processing step. This study jointly evaluates predictive effectiveness, explanation cost, local explanation stability, and selective explanation for binary Internet of Things (IoT) intrusion detection. A leakage-safe CICIoT2023 corpus was constructed using exact 39-feature hashes, non-finite-value handling, exact-feature deduplication, conservative label-collision removal, and deterministic hash-level partitioning. Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and XGBoost were evaluated on natural and balanced test distributions. TreeSHAP cost was measured, stability was assessed under prediction-preserving perturbations, and validation-calibrated policies were used to allocate explanation workload. XGBoost provided the strongest overall predictive profile, while Random Forest produced the lowest false-positive rate. At 5,000 samples, TreeSHAP required 700.759 s for Random Forest and 1.471 s for XGBoost. Random Forest showed the strongest overall base-level explanation stability; XGBoost retained high rank and directional consistency but showed greater top-feature turnover and attribution-magnitude drift. On the balanced test, about 90% false-negative explanation coverage permitted 28-32% compute savings, while about 95% coverage permitted 15-23% savings. Savings were much smaller under the attack-heavy natural prevalence. These results show that operationally useful explainable IoT intrusion detection depends on predictive quality, explanation cost, local stability, workload prevalence, and selective invocation rather than detection accuracy alone.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.10349")
Code
Syntology Ran 14 of 16 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 14 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 16 samples from 1 repository, 14 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
16 samples harvested; 14 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 16 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from AbdurrahmanTolay/resource-aware-iot-xai. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
bce74005f2544c69 · report
1bf15a2a4bc747c9 · report
bedfcb55f418f9e7 · report
e8649d6ec6d231ce · report
87dc77652cde67a0 · report
a1ce90e9dc05076a · report
e0cdff46960a6e91 · report
258c4bfd571683bf · report
f5ab8d99e657a037 · report
1deae7d68341312f · report
3d49ed2d45d7942f · report
0936286bc7b2f2dc · report
aaf05fd5da12780a · report
41a8c26143c09e15 · report
ac3a4538c41a1ca0 · report
a9dacb9bdc6c4f7c · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.10349, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
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