LLM-Based Threat Detection and Prevention Framework for IoT Ecosystems

Amiya Nayak; Arghavan Asad; Yazan Otoum

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

LLM-Based Threat Detection and Prevention Framework for IoT Ecosystems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A fine-tuned BERT-small LLM detects IoT cyber threats at 99.75% accuracy and triggers automated edge countermeasures in real time.

desk verdict The 99.75% accuracy figure is likely a temporal-leakage artifact, and the abstract's latency and prevention claims are untested; the paper is coherent but poorly evaluated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00240 v2 pith:INZFCRIH submitted 2025-05-01 cs.CR cs.AIcs.ETcs.LG

Yazan Otoum , Arghavan Asad , Amiya Nayak This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CRcs.AIcs.ETcs.LG

keywords IoTsecuritylargelanguagemodelsintrusiondetectionpreventionBERTfine-tuningDDoSmitigationT-23datasetTON_Io

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a two-component security system—an LLM-based detector plus a decision-tree preventer—can keep IoT networks safe in real time without human intervention. The detector is a lightweight BERT variant fine-tuned on the IoT-23 and TON_IoT datasets, whose flow records are converted into natural-language prompts. In a simulated edge-cloud test, the authors report 99.75 percent test accuracy and F1 for BERT-small, with roughly 288 inferences per second and 0.14 joules per request. The practical significance, if the claim holds, is that LLM-driven security can run on constrained devices and act immediately rather than waiting for cloud instructions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a fine-tuned BERT-small classifier with a decision-tree prevention policy. The classifier treats each network connection as a text prompt summarizing ports, protocol, duration, bytes, packets, and connection state, and outputs one of 21 labels via softmax over logits with cross-entropy training. The decision tree then maps a DDoS label to concrete countermeasures using attack intensity, source-IP count, system load, and attack duration. The container-based deployment is what lets the authors simulate edge and cloud tiers and measure accuracy, latency, and resource use in a reproducible way.

What would settle it

Re-run the experiment with a time-ordered split—train on the earliest 60% of each dataset's flow records and test on the latest 40%, using the records' timestamps—and compare accuracy and F1. A large drop would show the reported 99.75% comes from overlapping connections or time windows rather than from detecting unseen attack patterns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that lightweight language models, fine-tuned on IoT traffic data and fed with prompt-structured flow summaries, can both detect and help mitigate cyber threats at the edge. The paper reports that BERT-small reaches 99.75 percent test accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 across 21 classes, with the lowest training and validation loss among the three BERT variants considered (BERT-small, BERT-mini, TinyBERT). The prevention half uses a decision tree that takes the LLM's DDoS label and applies context-dependent actions—rate limiting for moderate intensity, IP blocking and traffic redirection for extreme intensity, CAPTCHA for many source IPs, and honeypot redirection for long attacks. The authors interpret these results as evidence that an LLM-driven framework can overcome the limitations of traditional rule-based and cloud-centered IoT security.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that a random 60/20/20 split of network flow records creates independent training and test samples; if flows from the same connection or time window appear in both splits, the reported 99.75% accuracy may reflect temporal leakage rather than generalization to new attacks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A BERT-small flow classifier can run at about 288 requests per second while using roughly 0.14 joules per request, making on-device LLM detection plausible for resource-constrained IoT gateways.
Once the LLM labels a flow as DDoS, the decision-tree layer can immediately select rate limiting, IP blocking, CAPTCHA, or honeypot redirection, so prevention does not wait for a cloud round-trip.
Fine-tuning on IoT-23 and TON_IoT gives the detector coverage of 21 traffic classes spanning DDoS, scanning, botnet C&C, XSS, backdoor, injection, ransomware, and MITM.
Because the deployment is modular and containerized, the detector and preventer can be evaluated and swapped independently across simulated edge and cloud environments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension beyond the paper is to feed the LLM's confidence or attention weights into the decision-tree policy, so low-confidence detections could trigger more conservative actions.
If the reported accuracy survives a time-ordered split, the same prompt-plus-classifier recipe could transfer to other telemetry domains, such as industrial control or 5G edge slices, by swapping the fine-tuning data and prompt template.
Because the reported metrics are per-flow classification, a deployment study should also measure how often benign traffic is rate-limited or blocked, capturing the real cost of false positives.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Alison—

The abstract promises significant improvements in detection accuracy, response latency, and resource efficiency over traditional security methods. The paper delivers none of those comparisons. That is the headline. The one quantitative result that might support the accuracy claim—99.75% test accuracy for BERT-small on IoT-23 plus TON_IoT—is undermined by how the split was done. A 60/20/20 random split of individual flow records is almost certainly leaking temporal and connection-level duplicates into the test set. IoT-23 in particular contains many rows from the same TCP connection or botnet session, so the model can memorize near-copies rather than learn to generalize. I think the stress-test note is right: this is a load-bearing flaw, not a quibble.

To be fair, the paper does some things well. It chooses a real problem, uses two standard public datasets, and describes a clean two-component design—fine-tuned lightweight BERT for detection, decision-tree rules for mitigation. The prompt template is concrete. The loss curves and confusion matrices indicate actual training runs, and the prose is readable. The authors also cite their own prior work in a relevant way; that is not a problem by itself.

The soft spots are, in order of severity: (1) no baselines at all, so 'over traditional methods' is an assertion, not a finding; (2) no latency or resource-usage measurements despite those being in the abstract; (3) the prevention component, Algorithm 1, is never executed; (4) no error bars, hyperparameters, code, or Docker artifacts, so the numbers are not reproducible; and (5) the leakage issue above. None of these are hidden flaws—they are visible from the text itself.

If the authors re-ran with a grouped split (by connection or time), added a couple of classical baselines, actually ran the decision-tree prevention logic, and reported per-attack performance, the paper could become a modest but useful applied contribution. As submitted, I would not accept it. I would, however, send it out rather than desk-reject: the architecture is coherent, the datasets are appropriate, and the evaluation gaps are concrete and fixable. A competent referee should have no trouble writing the revision checklist.

For you: probably not worth citing in your own work in its current form, but if you teach or read about evaluation pitfalls, it is a good example of temporal leakage destroying a high-accuracy claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes an LLM-based threat detection and prevention framework for IoT. The detection component fine-tunes lightweight BERT variants (BERT-Small, BERT-Mini, TinyBERT) on the IoT-23 and TON_IoT datasets after converting flow records into textual prompts; the prevention component is a decision-tree rule layer intended to trigger edge countermeasures, especially for DDoS. The authors report 99.75% test accuracy for BERT-Small, inference throughput around 287-294 req/s, and energy per request around 0.12-0.15 J/Req, and claim in the abstract that the system improves detection accuracy, response latency, and resource efficiency over traditional methods. The implementation is presented as a Docker-based edge-cloud simulation, but no code or artifact is supplied.

Significance. The idea of applying small fine-tuned language models to tabular network flow data via prompt encoding is worth exploring, and the use of public benchmark datasets (IoT-23, TON_IoT) is appropriate. If the experiments were valid, the reported near-perfect accuracy would be useful, although the practical relevance would still depend on the untested prevention and latency claims. However, the current evidence does not support the central contributions: the main accuracy figure may be inflated by an ungrouped random split, no baseline comparison exists for the headline improvement claim, and the prevention component is never evaluated. The paper's strengths are limited to a clear architecture description and a plausible deployability story; reproducibility is claimed but not demonstrated.

major comments (4)

[Section IV] Section IV (evaluation split): the 60/20/20 split is described at the level of individual flow records, but both IoT-23 and TON_IoT contain many records belonging to the same TCP connections, botnet C&C sessions, or attack bursts. Without grouping by connection, session, or time window, near-duplicate flows will appear on both sides of the split, so the 99.75% test accuracy in Table III may reflect memorization rather than generalization to unseen attacks. The manuscript gives no evidence of a grouped split and no per-dataset or per-attack-class breakdown, so the central detection claim is not supported as stated.
[Abstract and Section IV] The abstract claims 'significant improvements in detection accuracy, response latency, and resource efficiency over traditional security methods,' but Section IV compares only the three BERT variants and reports no traditional IDS, ML baseline, or response-latency measurement. The 'Inference (Req/Sec)' column in Table III is throughput, not latency, and the 'Energy Consumption' values are not compared with any alternative. These headline claims are therefore unsupported.
[Algorithm 1 and Section III-A2] Algorithm 1 is presented as the DDoS prevention mechanism, and Section III-A2 promises 'real-time, rule-based prevention optimized for resource-constrained IoT environments,' yet Section IV contains no implementation or evaluation of this algorithm. There are no results for the decisions it makes, no end-to-end edge latency, no false-positive/false-negative analysis of the mitigation actions, and no resource-usage measurements for the decision tree. As a result, the paper's conclusion that the system demonstrates effective automated response is not evidence-based.
[Tables I-III] Tables I and II show strong class imbalance, and Table III reports micro-averaged F1, precision, and recall. Micro-averages weight the majority classes heavily, so a 99.75% micro-F1 can accompany poor performance on rare attack types; indeed, Section IV concedes that all models 'struggle more with less frequent classes.' Per-class precision/recall or macro-averaged metrics are needed before the paper can claim detection of sophisticated or rare attacks.

minor comments (6)

[Section II] Figure 1 appears as a floating figure before Section III with no in-text callout or explanatory caption, making the architecture figure difficult to interpret.
[Section III-B2] The prompt example gives one concrete record, but the manuscript does not specify how arbitrary records are converted into prompts (selected fields, normalization, tokenization, truncation length, prompt template variations), which prevents reproduction.
[Introduction and Index Terms] The text uses 'Large Learning Models' where 'Large Language Models' is intended, and Section IV writes 'To IoT' instead of 'TON_IoT'; these should be corrected throughout.
[Tables I and II] The label assignments are inconsistent: label '5' is used for both C&C-HeartBeat and C&C-FileDownload in Table II, and the text refers to 21 classes while the listed label ranges and duplicates do not make the mapping clear. The authors should provide a single unambiguous label table.
[Section III-B2] The paper says the evaluation uses 'a combination of the IoT23 and To IoT datasets' but does not state how the two datasets are merged, re-labeled, or subsampled, nor how the class proportions in Tables I and II relate to the final training set.
[Section V] The conclusion claims robustness against 'evolving cyber threats' and mentions adversarial robustness, but no experiments on new, zero-day, or adversarial traffic are reported; the wording should be limited to the static benchmark that was actually evaluated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the detection result is a held-out empirical measurement, and the authors' self-citations are background only.

full rationale

This is an empirical supervised-learning paper rather than a derivation chain. The central quantitative claim is the 99.75% test accuracy in Table III, obtained by fine-tuning BERT variants on IoT-23 and TON IoT and evaluating on a 20% test split after training on a 60% split (Section IV). The paper supplies the standard softmax, cross-entropy, and micro-F1 definitions, and the reported accuracy is a measured outcome on held-out records, not a quantity forced by the fitting procedure. No equation in the paper defines the claimed result in terms of the fitted parameters, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The two references to the authors' own prior work ([2] and [13]) support only background statements about IoT complexity and federated learning; neither is load-bearing for the detection or prevention claims. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation, and no renaming of a known result. The unsupported comparison to traditional methods and the untested Algorithm 1 are completeness or external-validity concerns rather than circularity. A possible temporal leakage from the record-level split would be an evaluation-validity threat, not a reduction by construction, because the test accuracy is not equal to the training fit by definition. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on trained model weights and unspecified decision thresholds, plus three domain assumptions about data labeling, data splitting, and prompt sufficiency. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

BERT-small fine-tuned weights = not reported
The model parameters are learned from the 60/20/20 split of IoT-23 and TON IoT data, and the central detection accuracy depends on them. Hyperparameters are not reported.
Decision tree thresholds Lmax and Tmax = not specified
Algorithm 1 requires a system-load threshold and a duration threshold to trigger aggressive blocking and honeypot redirection. The values are not given, and no evaluation tests their effectiveness.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption IoT-23 and TON IoT labels correctly represent ground-truth attack types.
The paper relies entirely on these public labels as supervision for fine-tuning and as the reference for computing accuracy.
domain assumption A random 60/20/20 split of network flows yields independent and identically distributed samples.
Section IV describes the random split, but network flows are temporally correlated, so this assumption is questionable and may inflate accuracy.
ad hoc to paper The handcrafted prompt preserves enough information for BERT to classify network flows.
The prompt selects a few flow features such as ports, protocol, duration, and byte counts. No ablation is provided to show that this feature set is sufficient.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-Based Threat Detection and Prevention Framework for IoT Ecosystems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INZFCRIH

@misc{pith2026250500240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-Based Threat Detection and Prevention Framework for IoT Ecosystems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INZFCRIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00240}
}

read the original abstract

The increasing complexity and scale of the Internet of Things (IoT) have made security a critical concern. This paper presents a novel Large Language Model (LLM)-based framework for comprehensive threat detection and prevention in IoT environments. The system integrates lightweight LLMs fine-tuned on IoT-specific datasets (IoT-23, TON_IoT) for real-time anomaly detection and automated, context-aware mitigation strategies optimized for resource-constrained devices. A modular Docker-based deployment enables scalable and reproducible evaluation across diverse network conditions. Experimental results in simulated IoT environments demonstrate significant improvements in detection accuracy, response latency, and resource efficiency over traditional security methods. The proposed framework highlights the potential of LLM-driven, autonomous security solutions for future IoT ecosystems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00240 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Model Architecture Overview In recent years, IoT security has been an active research area, with numerous studies exploring Machine Learning (ML) techniques for anomaly detection and intrusion prevention. Several works have demonstrated the potential of ML algorithms to identify unusual patterns in IoT network traffic and provide adequate responses to emerging threats. For instance, the work [8] presented a compreh… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Training and Validation Loss of LLMs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Confusion Matrix of Tiny BERT with BERT Small slightly edging out the others at 99.75% for test accuracy, F1-score, precision, and recall. Notably, BERT Small also shows the lowest training and validation losses (0.0089 and 0.0086, respectively), suggesting more effective optimization. Although BERT Mini achieves a marginally faster inference rate (293.56 req/sec vs. 287.82 req/sec for BERT Small), its slightly high… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Federated Learning and LLM-Driven Threat Intelligence for Zero Trust IoT Architecture
cs.CR 2026-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

An FL autoencoder plus LoRA-tuned LLM on MQTT/TLS reports perfect separation on self-generated IoT attacks, without external validation or baselines.
From Large AI Models to Agentic AI: A Tutorial on Future Intelligent Communications
cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

This paper is a broad tutorial on applying LAMs and agentic AI to 6G, largely restating existing research rather than introducing new results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

An advanced strategy for addressing heterogeneity in sdn-iot networks for ensuring qos,

A. Zafar, F. Samad, H. J. Syed, A. O. Ibrahim, M. Alohaly, and M. Elsadig, “An advanced strategy for addressing heterogeneity in sdn-iot networks for ensuring qos,” Applied Sciences , vol. 13, no. 13, p. 7856, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Advancing iomt defenses: Deep collaborative learning for robust healthcare security,

Y . Otoum, P. Singh, and A. Nayak, “Advancing iomt defenses: Deep collaborative learning for robust healthcare security,” in GLOBECOM 2024 IEEE Global Communications Conference . IEEE, 2024, pp. 2966– 2971

work page 2024
[3]

LLMs for Cyber Security: New Opportunities

D. M. Divakaran and S. T. Peddinti, “Llms for cyber security: New opportunities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11338 , 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[4]

Learning graph structures with transformer for multivariate time-series anomaly detection in iot,

Z. Chen, D. Chen, X. Zhang, Z. Yuan, and X. Cheng, “Learning graph structures with transformer for multivariate time-series anomaly detection in iot,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 9179–9189, 2021

2021
[5]

Efficient federated intrusion detection in 5g ecosystem using optimized bert-based model,

F. Adjewa, M. Esseghir, and L. Merghem-Boulahia, “Efficient federated intrusion detection in 5g ecosystem using optimized bert-based model,” in 2024 20th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 62–67

work page 2024
[6]

Ai-driven irm: Transforming insider risk management with adaptive scoring and llm- based threat detection,

L. Koli, S. Kalra, R. Thakur, A. Saifi, and K. Singh, “Ai-driven irm: Transforming insider risk management with adaptive scoring and llm- based threat detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03796 , 2025

arXiv 2025
[7]

Distributed threat intelligence at the edge devices: A large language model-driven approach,

S. M. Hasan, A. M. Alotaibi, S. Talukder, and A. R. Shahid, “Distributed threat intelligence at the edge devices: A large language model-driven approach,” in 2024 IEEE 48th Annual Computers, Software, and Appli- cations Conference (COMPSAC) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1496–1497

2024
[8]

A comparative analysis of anomaly detection methods in iot networks: An experimental study,

E. Krzyszto ´n, I. Rojek, and D. Mikołajewski, “A comparative analysis of anomaly detection methods in iot networks: An experimental study,” Applied Sciences , vol. 14, no. 24, p. 11545, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 16 references

[9]

Fast and effective intrusion detection using multi-layered deep learning networks,

P. Chellammal, S. K. Malarchelvi, K. Reka, and G. Raja, “Fast and effective intrusion detection using multi-layered deep learning networks,” International Journal of Web Services Research (IJWSR) , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2022

2022
[10]

Utilising deep learning techniques for effective zero-day attack detection,

H. Hindy, R. Atkinson, C. Tachtatzis, J.-N. Colin, E. Bayne, and X. Bellekens, “Utilising deep learning techniques for effective zero-day attack detection,” Electronics, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 1684, 2020

2020
[11]

Appli- cation of deep reinforcement learning for intrusion detection in internet of things: A systematic review,

S. Jamshidi, A. Nikanjam, K. W. Nafi, F. Khomh, and R. Rasta, “Appli- cation of deep reinforcement learning for intrusion detection in internet of things: A systematic review,” Internet of Things , p. 101531, 2025

2025
[12]

A unified framework for context-aware iot management and state-of-the-art iot traffic anomaly detection,

D. A. Worae, A. Sheikh, and S. Mastorakis, “A unified framework for context-aware iot management and state-of-the-art iot traffic anomaly detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19830 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Llms meet federated learning for scalable and secure iot management,

Y . Otoum, A. Asad, and A. Nayak, “Llms meet federated learning for scalable and secure iot management,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16032 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[14]

Iot-23: A labeled dataset with malicious and benign iot network traffic,

S. Garcia, A. Parmisano, and M. J. Erquiaga, “Iot-23: A labeled dataset with malicious and benign iot network traffic,” 2020

2020
[15]

A new distributed architecture for evaluating ai-based security systems at the edge: Network ton iot datasets,

N. Moustafa, “A new distributed architecture for evaluating ai-based security systems at the edge: Network ton iot datasets,” Sustainable Cities and Society , vol. 72, p. 102994, 2021

2021
[16]

Tinybert: Distilling bert for natural language understanding,

X. Jiao, Y . Yin, L. Shang, X. Jiang, X. Chen, L. Li, F. Wang, and Q. Liu, “Tinybert: Distilling bert for natural language understanding,” 2019, arXiv preprint. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.10351

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

An advanced strategy for addressing heterogeneity in sdn-iot networks for ensuring qos,

A. Zafar, F. Samad, H. J. Syed, A. O. Ibrahim, M. Alohaly, and M. Elsadig, “An advanced strategy for addressing heterogeneity in sdn-iot networks for ensuring qos,” Applied Sciences , vol. 13, no. 13, p. 7856, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Advancing iomt defenses: Deep collaborative learning for robust healthcare security,

Y . Otoum, P. Singh, and A. Nayak, “Advancing iomt defenses: Deep collaborative learning for robust healthcare security,” in GLOBECOM 2024 IEEE Global Communications Conference . IEEE, 2024, pp. 2966– 2971

work page 2024

[3] [3]

LLMs for Cyber Security: New Opportunities

D. M. Divakaran and S. T. Peddinti, “Llms for cyber security: New opportunities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11338 , 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Learning graph structures with transformer for multivariate time-series anomaly detection in iot,

Z. Chen, D. Chen, X. Zhang, Z. Yuan, and X. Cheng, “Learning graph structures with transformer for multivariate time-series anomaly detection in iot,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 9179–9189, 2021

2021

[5] [5]

Efficient federated intrusion detection in 5g ecosystem using optimized bert-based model,

F. Adjewa, M. Esseghir, and L. Merghem-Boulahia, “Efficient federated intrusion detection in 5g ecosystem using optimized bert-based model,” in 2024 20th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 62–67

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Ai-driven irm: Transforming insider risk management with adaptive scoring and llm- based threat detection,

L. Koli, S. Kalra, R. Thakur, A. Saifi, and K. Singh, “Ai-driven irm: Transforming insider risk management with adaptive scoring and llm- based threat detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03796 , 2025

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Distributed threat intelligence at the edge devices: A large language model-driven approach,

S. M. Hasan, A. M. Alotaibi, S. Talukder, and A. R. Shahid, “Distributed threat intelligence at the edge devices: A large language model-driven approach,” in 2024 IEEE 48th Annual Computers, Software, and Appli- cations Conference (COMPSAC) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1496–1497

2024

[8] [8]

A comparative analysis of anomaly detection methods in iot networks: An experimental study,

E. Krzyszto ´n, I. Rojek, and D. Mikołajewski, “A comparative analysis of anomaly detection methods in iot networks: An experimental study,” Applied Sciences , vol. 14, no. 24, p. 11545, 2024

work page 2024