Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

A Contrastive Federated Semi-Supervised Learning Intrusion Detection Framework for Internet of Robotic Things

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A federated framework for robotic IoT intrusion detection trains on unlabeled robot data plus one labeled server set and beats fully supervised baselines on NSL-KDD.

desk verdict Plausible FedSSL framework for IoRT intrusion detection, but the reported gains are the product of tuning on KDDTest+, so the empirical claim does not survive contact with the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06636 v1 pith:LU7N65NB submitted 2025-05-10 cs.CR

Yifan Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords InternetofRoboticThingsfederatedsemi-supervisedlearningcontrastiveintrusiondetectionNSL-KDDexponentialmovingaveragelightweightCNNprivacy-preserving
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

This paper claims that a network intrusion detector for the Internet of Robotic Things can be trained well even when robot clients hold no labeled data. The proposed framework, CFedSSL-NID, lets each robot client learn traffic representations by contrastive learning on unlabeled local data—pulling together weak and strong augmentations of the same sample—while a server, which alone holds labels, fine-tunes the aggregated model through an exponential moving average. On the NSL-KDD benchmark the framework reports 85.33% binary accuracy and 80.82% multi-class accuracy, ahead of federated semi-supervised and even fully supervised baselines that use all labeled training data. It also uses the smallest model in the comparison: a 49,469-parameter one-dimensional CNN taking 0.636 ms per sample. If these results hold, IoRT deployments could get privacy-preserving, real-time intrusion detection without asking robots to label their own traffic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the client–server training loop with an EMA bridge. On each robot client, every unlabeled sample is perturbed twice—weakly and strongly—to make a positive pair; a lightweight one-dimensional CNN encoder plus a projection head maps the pair into a latent space, where a temperature-scaled contrastive loss (cosine similarity, $\tau=0.5$, batch size 1024) pulls those two representations together and pushes every other sample's augmentations apart. Clients upload only encoder parameters; the server aggregates them as in FedAvg, then updates the global model with $\theta_{t+1}^{\mathrm{Glo}} = \xi\,\theta_t^{\mathrm{Glo}} + (1-\xi)\,\theta_t^{\mathrm{Agg}}$ and refines it with cross-entropy loss on the server's labeled data. The EMA term is what carries the supervised signal back into the contrastively pretrained encoder, and the contrastive loss is what lets unlabeled robot traffic shape the feature space at all.

What would settle it

Run a neighborhood audit on KDDTest+: apply the paper's weak and strong augmentations to each test sample, then check whether a majority of each augmented sample's nearest neighbors in the original feature space share the original sample's class label; if strong augmentation regularly relocates samples into neighborhoods dominated by a different attack class, the semantic-preservation premise that makes contrastive positives meaningful is empirically false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CFedSSL-NID's central claim is that combining unsupervised contrastive representation learning on unlabeled robot clients with a small supervised fine-tuning step on a label-holding server can outperform federated and centralized methods that train on fully labeled data, while reducing model cost. The paper attributes the gain to three coordinated mechanisms: random weak and strong augmentations that preserve sample semantics, a contrastive loss in a projection-head latent space that organizes the encoder's features without labels, and an EMA update on the server that blends the contrastively trained client model with the supervised global model. On NSL-KDD's KDDTest+, the framework reaches 85.33% binary and 80.82% multi-class accuracy, and its lightweight CNN has 49,469 parameters, roughly one-quarter to one-fiftieth the size of compared models. For minority attack classes—R2L and U2R—the framework still struggles (F1 45.23 and 18.47), but it beats all listed baselines on aggregate weighted metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the paper's weak and strong random noise added to NSL-KDD traffic samples always preserves the attack's class, so that contrastive positive pairs are genuinely similar; if that fails, robot-client pretraining would teach the encoder to merge different attack classes and the reported gains would vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robot clients with zero local labels can still improve a global intrusion detector: CFedSSL-NID reports 85.33% binary accuracy and 80.82% multi-class accuracy on KDDTest+, exceeding every listed baseline, including fully supervised ones that train on all 125,973 labeled NSL-KDD samples.
  • The detector can run on constrained robot hardware: the lw-CNN has 49,469 parameters and 729,000 FLOPs, and the paper measures 0.636 ms per sample, the smallest model in the comparison.
  • Privacy is preserved structurally: raw traffic stays on robot clients and only encoder parameters are uploaded and averaged on the server.
  • The gains are carried by the combination of contrastive pretraining and EMA fine-tuning; removing the contrastive component drops multi-class accuracy from 80.82% to 76.67% in the paper's ablation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the method's only real assumption is that noise-based augmentations preserve class semantics, the same recipe should transfer to other tabular traffic benchmarks, such as CICIDS or BoT-IoT, where feature scales and noise magnitudes differ; the paper provides no evidence for that transfer, so this is a testable extension rather than a claim.
  • The EMA weight $\xi$ is a hidden dial between the two learning signals: near 1 it makes the server ignore client contrastive updates, and near 0 it makes the server discard its own supervised history; tuning it per round could adapt to shifts in either data distribution.
  • A protocol-aware augmentation scheme, with noise scaled by per-feature variance rather than by a fixed magnitude, would likely make the positive-pair assumption hold on real IoRT captures, whose feature scales differ from NSL-KDD's.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes CFedSSL-NID, a federated semi-supervised learning framework for network intrusion detection in the Internet of Robotic Things. Robot clients with unlabeled data apply weak and strong augmentations and an InfoNCE-style contrastive loss on a lightweight CNN encoder; the server aggregates client encoders, applies an EMA update, and trains a supervised classification head on its own labeled data. Experiments on NSL-KDD use an artificial split of 50,000 labeled server samples and 69,070 unlabeled client samples, with binary and multi-class comparisons against FedAvg/FedProx combined with CR, UDA, and FixMatch, plus fully supervised baselines; the paper also reports a model-complexity comparison centered on a lw-CNN. The central claim is that CFedSSL-NID outperforms existing federated semi-supervised and fully supervised methods while having lower resource requirements.

Significance. If the empirical claims were established, the framework would be a useful practical contribution: it addresses a realistic federated setting in which robot clients lack labels, it combines contrastive pretraining with a lightweight encoder, and it includes an ablation study separating the contributions of augmentation, contrastive learning, and EMA update. The complexity comparison in Table VIII is a useful sanity check for deployability. However, the current evidence does not support the headline outperformance claim. The reported final configuration is selected by tuning on KDDTest+, the same test set used for all reported comparisons, and no code, error bars, or confidence intervals are provided. The paper also does not verify the key semantic-preservation assumption behind its contrastive positive pairs. These issues affect the central empirical claim rather than merely the presentation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B–IV.C, Tables II, III, V, VI] The final CFedSSL-NID configuration is selected by hyperparameter tuning on KDDTest+, and Section IV.B states that all following evaluations were conducted on KDDTest+. Table III shows that accuracy falls from 80.82% at B=1024, tau=0.5, BN=0 to roughly 76–78% for other batch sizes, so the value reported in Tables V and VI is the maximum of a grid search on the test set. The baselines are not shown to have received equivalent test-set tuning, and no confidence intervals are reported despite the statement that results are averaged over more than five runs. With accuracy margins of only 2.08 points (binary) and 1.23 points (multi-class) over the best baseline, the selection effect alone could account for the reported advantage. The central claim of outperformance is therefore not supported by the experiments as presented.
  2. [Section III.A, Eq. (1)] The method assumes that weak and strong augmentations preserve class semantics: the text states that the augmented pair (ai, bi) is a positive pair because its semantic information remains unchanged. No experiment verifies this assumption for tabular NSL-KDD features. Additive noise can alter class-discriminative features such as service types or count-based attributes, in which case the positive pair in Eq. (1) may contain samples of different classes and the contrastive objective could pull together unrelated representations. The t-SNE visualization in Fig. 6 only shows cluster separation without labels; it does not measure label consistency between augmented and original samples. The ablation gain of 4.15% accuracy attributed to contrastive learning in Table IV is only meaningful if semantic preservation actually holds.
  3. [Section IV.B and IV.D] NSL-KDD is a network intrusion benchmark, not IoRT traffic, and the paper does not justify why its distribution represents robotic or vehicular network connections. The artificial split of KDDTrain+ into 50,000 labeled server samples and 69,070 unlabeled client samples also sidesteps the real label-availability process in IoRT, and no sensitivity analysis is given for different label ratios, client heterogeneity, or non-IID data. These choices limit the external validity of the IoRT-specific claims, including the runtime and complexity claims in Table VIII.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The denominator sums over k=1 to B including the case k=i, which adds exp(sim(z_ai,z_ai)/tau)=1 and, together with the second sum, counts the positive pair twice when i=k. Please clarify whether self-similarity is deliberately included or define the negative set as k≠i.
  2. [Section IV.A] The configuration text says servers aggregate 10 times and clients update for 5 epochs, but these numbers are not mapped to the notation R_s and P_c introduced in Section III; please specify the exact server rounds and local epochs used for the tables.
  3. [Section IV.D] The baselines are described only as combinations such as FedAvg+Fixmatch; please provide the exact hyperparameters used for each baseline, including learning rate, local epochs, augmentation magnitudes, and any pseudo-label thresholds, so the comparison is reproducible.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and unclear expressions, including 'In pratical IoRT system' in the Fig. 1 caption, 'Futhermore' in the Conclusion, and 'network comunication' in the Conclusion. A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reported outperformance is the argmax of a hyperparameter grid evaluated on KDDTest+; the headline accuracy is a fitted quantity, not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-B, Section IV-C (Hyperparameter tuning), Tables II, III, V, VI]
    "All of the following evaluations were conducted on KDDTest+. ... Hyperparameter tuning. To tune the batch size B of the robot clients, the temperature τ in ContrastiveLoss, and the number of Batch Normalization (BN) in Projection Head."

    The hyperparameter sweep in Tables II and III selects B=1024, τ=0.5, BN=0, reporting Acc=80.82, and the final multi-class comparison in Table VI reports CFedSSL-NID Acc=80.82 on the same KDDTest+ set. Because the tuning metrics and the evaluation metrics come from the same test set, the reported multi-class accuracy is not an out-of-sample prediction but the maximum of the tuning grid. The binary result (85.33) uses the same test-set-selected configuration, and the baselines in Tables V–VI are not reported with equivalent test-set tuning. The claimed outperformance is therefore partly a selection artifact rather than the performance of a predetermined method.

full rationale

No equation-level circularity is present: the contrastive loss (Eqs. 1–2), server cross-entropy loss (Eq. 3), FedAvg aggregation, and EMA update (Eq. 4) are defined independently of the reported outcomes, and the ablation and complexity comparisons are externally checkable. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no imported uniqueness theorem. The one substantial circularity is the hyperparameter tuning protocol: Section IV-B states that all following evaluations were conducted on KDDTest+, and Section IV-C performs hyperparameter tuning for B, τ, and BN without any held-out validation set. The final multi-class accuracy of 80.82 in Table VI exactly equals the best value in the tuning grid (Table III, B=1024, τ=0.5, BN=0), showing that the headline number is the argmax of a search over the test set. The binary comparison also uses this test-selected configuration while baselines are not given equivalent tuning, so the claimed superiority in Tables V and VI is not an independent evaluation. This warrants a score of 6: the central claim of outperformance partially reduces to a fitted quantity, even though the framework itself is not circular by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of tunable hyperparameters, at least one of which (EMA weight) is never given, and on strong domain assumptions about the benchmark and the augmentations. No code or data artifacts support the numbers.

free parameters (6)
  • Contrastive temperature tau = 0.5
    Selected by evaluating on KDDTest+ (Table III); directly controls the sharpness of the softmax in Eq. 1 and the trade-off between hard negatives and uniformity.
  • Robot-client batch size B = 1024
    Selected by evaluating on KDDTest+ (Table III); determines the number of negative samples in the contrastive loss and memory use on clients.
  • BatchNorm layers in projection head = 0
    Selected by evaluating on KDDTest+ (Table II); the paper concludes BN degrades contrastive representation stability.
  • EMA weight xi = not reported
    Appears in Eq. 4 and controls how quickly the global model incorporates client contrastive signals versus server supervised signals; its value is never stated.
  • Weak/strong augmentation magnitudes = not specified
    The augmentation is described only as adding small-scale noise (Section III.A); the actual scales, noise distribution, and dropout rate are not given, yet they define the contrastive positives.
  • Learning rate / local epochs / server rounds = 0.01 / 5 / 10
    Chosen by hand and reported in Section IV.A; the final model behavior depends on these training hyperparameters.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption NSL-KDD is a valid proxy for IoRT network intrusion traffic.
    All conclusions are drawn from this single 1999-era benchmark; Section IV.B asserts it is authentic IoT traffic without IoRT-specific validation.
  • domain assumption Weak and strong augmentations preserve the semantic class of traffic samples.
    Section III.A states augmentations preserve semantic information, but no experiment verifies that class labels are invariant under the added noise.
  • domain assumption The server's labeled data and client unlabeled data come from similar distributions.
    The framework pre-trains client encoders on unlabeled data and trains the classification head on server data; no analysis of distribution shift is provided.
  • standard math FedAvg aggregation and EMA averaging converge usefully for the non-convex CNN objective.
    The method relies on FedAvg [10] and the EMA update (Eq. 4) without a convergence or stability proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Contrastive Federated Semi-Supervised Learning Intrusion Detection Framework for Internet of Robotic Things." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LU7N65NB

@misc{pith2026250506636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Contrastive Federated Semi-Supervised Learning Intrusion Detection Framework for Internet of Robotic Things},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LU7N65NB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06636}
}
read the original abstract

In intelligent industry, autonomous driving and other environments, the Internet of Things (IoT) highly integrated with robotic to form the Internet of Robotic Things (IoRT). However, network intrusion to IoRT can lead to data leakage, service interruption in IoRT and even physical damage by controlling robots or vehicles. This paper proposes a Contrastive Federated Semi-Supervised Learning Network Intrusion Detection framework (CFedSSL-NID) for IoRT intrusion detection and defense, to address the practical scenario of IoRT where robots don't possess labeled data locally and the requirement for data privacy preserving. CFedSSL-NID integrates randomly weak and strong augmentation, latent contrastive learning, and EMA update to integrate supervised signals, thereby enhancing performance and robustness on robots' local unlabeled data. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CFedSSL-NID outperforms existing federated semi-supervised and fully supervised methods on benchmark dataset and has lower resource requirements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In pratical IoRT system, server can get labeled data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Brief summary of challenges in practical IoRT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the proposed CFedSSL-NID framework. Each robot client k updates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example diagram comparing the numerical features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualizations of strong/weak augmentations noises [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: T-SNE visualizations to compared the projection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CFedSSL-NID multi-classification confusion matrix. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Fedcon: A contrastive framework for federated semi-supervised learning,

    Z. Long, J. Wang, Y . Wang, H. Xiao, and F. Ma, “Fedcon: A contrastive framework for federated semi-supervised learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04533, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    Internet of robotic things intelligent connectivity and platforms,

    O. Vermesan, R. Bahr, Ottella, and et al., “Internet of robotic things intelligent connectivity and platforms,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 7, p. 509753, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Multi- objective resource allocation for edge cloud based robotic workflow in smart factory,

    M. Afrin, J. Jin, A. Rahman, Y .-C. Tian, and A. Kulkarni, “Multi- objective resource allocation for edge cloud based robotic workflow in smart factory,” Future generation computer systems , vol. 97, pp. 119–130, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Internet of robotic things– converging sensing/actuating, hyperconnectivity, artificial intelligence and iot platforms,

    O. Vermesan, A. Br ¨oring, and et al., “Internet of robotic things– converging sensing/actuating, hyperconnectivity, artificial intelligence and iot platforms,” in Cognitive hyperconnected digital transformation. River Publishers, 2022, pp. 97–155

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    A novel multi-module integrated intrusion detection system for high-dimensional imbalanced data,

    J. Cui, L. Zong, J. Xie, and M. Tang, “A novel multi-module integrated intrusion detection system for high-dimensional imbalanced data,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 272–288, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Big data manage- ment algorithms, deep learning-based object detection technologies, and geospatial simulation and sensor fusion tools in the internet of robotic things,

    M. Andronie, G. L ˘az˘aroiu, M. Iatagan, and et al., “Big data manage- ment algorithms, deep learning-based object detection technologies, and geospatial simulation and sensor fusion tools in the internet of robotic things,” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information , vol. 12, no. 2, p. 35, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Automatic robot manoeuvres detection using computer vision and deep learning techniques: a perspective of internet of robotics things (iort),

    H. B. Mahajan, N. Uke, P. Pise, M. Shahade, V . G. Dixit, S. Bhavsar, and S. D. Deshpande, “Automatic robot manoeuvres detection using computer vision and deep learning techniques: a perspective of internet of robotics things (iort),” Multimedia Tools and Applications , vol. 82, no. 15, pp. 23 251–23 276, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Internet of things applications, security challenges, attacks, intrusion detection, and future visions: A system- atic review,

    N. Mishra and S. Pandya, “Internet of things applications, security challenges, attacks, intrusion detection, and future visions: A system- atic review,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 59 353–59 377, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Attack and anomaly detection in iot sensors in iot sites using machine learning approaches,

    M. Hasan, M. M. Islam, M. I. I. Zarif, and et al., “Attack and anomaly detection in iot sensors in iot sites using machine learning approaches,” Internet of Things , vol. 7, p. 100059, 2019

    2019

  2. [9]

    Internet of things intrusion detection: Centralized, on-device, or federated learning?

    S. A. Rahman, H. Tout, C. Talhi, and et al., “Internet of things intrusion detection: Centralized, on-device, or federated learning?” IEEE Network, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 310–317, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, and et al., “Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” in Arti- ficial Intelligence and Statistics , 2017, pp. 1273–1282

    2017

  4. [11]

    Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training,

    Q. Xie, Z. Dai, E. Hovy, T. Luong, and Q. Le, “Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training,” vol. 33, pp. 6256–6268, 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,

    D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, I. Goodfellow, N. Papernot, A. Oliver, and C. A. Raffel, “Mixmatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,” vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  6. [13]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi- supervised learning with consistency and confidence,

    K. Sohn, D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, C. A. Raffel, E. D. Cubuk, A. Kurakin, and C.-L. Li, “Fixmatch: Simplifying semi- supervised learning with consistency and confidence,” Advanced in Neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 596–608, 2020

    2020

  7. [14]

    Federated cycling (fedcy): Semi-supervised federated learning of surgical phases,

    H. Kassem, D. Alapatt, P. Mascagni, A. Karargyris, and N. Padoy, “Federated cycling (fedcy): Semi-supervised federated learning of surgical phases,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1920–1931, 2022

    1920

  8. [15]

    Federated semi- supervised learning with inter-client consistency & disjoint learning,

    W. Jeong, J. Yoon, E. Yang, and S. J. Hwang, “Federated semi- supervised learning with inter-client consistency & disjoint learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.12097 , 2020

    2006 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Improving semi-supervised federated learning by reducing the gradient diversity of models,

    Z. Zhang, Y . Yang, Z. Yao, Y . Yan, J. E. Gonzalez, K. Ramchandran, and M. W. Mahoney, “Improving semi-supervised federated learning by reducing the gradient diversity of models,” in 2021 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Big Data (Big Data) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1214– 1225

    2021

  10. [18]

    A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations,

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton, “A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations,” in Interna- tional conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 1597–1607

    2020

  11. [19]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning,

    J.-B. Grill, F. Strub, F. Altch ´e, C. Tallec, and et al., “Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning,” Advanced in Neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 21 271–21 284, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Perfect alignment may be poisonous to graph contrastive learning,

    J. Liu, H. Tang, and Y . Liu, “Perfect alignment may be poisonous to graph contrastive learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03977 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Simcse: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings,

    T. Gao, X. Yao, and D. Chen, “Simcse: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08821 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A detailed analysis of the kdd cup 99 data set,

    M. Tavallaee, E. Bagheri, W. Lu, and A. A. Ghorbani, “A detailed analysis of the kdd cup 99 data set,” in 2009 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence for security and defense applications. Ieee, 2009, pp. 1–6

    2009

  15. [23]

    A smart anomaly-based intrusion detection system for the internet of things (iot) network using gwo–pso–rf model,

    P. K. Keserwani, M. C. Govil, E. S. Pilli, and P. Govil, “A smart anomaly-based intrusion detection system for the internet of things (iot) network using gwo–pso–rf model,” Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Machine learning-driven intru- sion detection for contiki-ng-based iot networks exposed to nsl-kdd dataset,

    J. Liu, B. Kantarci, and C. Adams, “Machine learning-driven intru- sion detection for contiki-ng-based iot networks exposed to nsl-kdd dataset,” in Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on wireless security and machine learning , 2020, pp. 25–30

    2020

  17. [25]

    Anomaly-based intrusion detection system for iot application,

    M. Bhavsar, K. Roy, J. Kelly, and O. Olusola, “Anomaly-based intrusion detection system for iot application,” Discover Internet of things, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 5, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Iot intrusion detection using machine learning with a novel high performing feature selection method,

    K. Albulayhi, Q. Abu Al-Haija, S. A. Alsuhibany, A. A. Jillepalli, M. Ashrafuzzaman, and F. T. Sheldon, “Iot intrusion detection using machine learning with a novel high performing feature selection method,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 5015, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Uids: a unified intrusion detection system for iot environment,

    V . Kumar, A. K. Das, and D. Sinha, “Uids: a unified intrusion detection system for iot environment,” Evolutionary intelligence, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 47–59, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning,

    K. He, H. Fan, Y . Wu, S. Xie, and R. Girshick, “Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 9729–9738

    2020

  21. [29]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne.” Journal of machine learning research , vol. 9, no. 11, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learning,

    S. Laine and T. Aila, “Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learning,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    On convergence of fedprox: Local dissimilarity invariant bounds, non-smoothness and beyond,

    X. Yuan and P. Li, “On convergence of fedprox: Local dissimilarity invariant bounds, non-smoothness and beyond,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 10 752–10 765, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Intrusion detection system for nsl-kdd dataset using convolutional neural networks,

    Y . Ding and Y . Zhai, “Intrusion detection system for nsl-kdd dataset using convolutional neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International conference on computer science and artificial intelli- gence, 2018, pp. 81–85

    2018

  25. [33]

    A soft actor-critic reinforcement learning algorithm for network intrusion detection,

    Z. Li, C. Huang, S. Deng, W. Qiu, and X. Gao, “A soft actor-critic reinforcement learning algorithm for network intrusion detection,” Computers & Security , vol. 135, p. 103502, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Gan augmen- tation to deal with imbalance in imaging-based intrusion detection,

    G. Andresini, A. Appice, L. De Rose, and D. Malerba, “Gan augmen- tation to deal with imbalance in imaging-based intrusion detection,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 123, pp. 108–127, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    A two stage lightweight approach for intrusion detection in internet of things,

    Z. Li and W. Yao, “A two stage lightweight approach for intrusion detection in internet of things,” Expert Systems with Applications , p. 124965, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Optimized intrusion detection in iot and fog computing using ensemble learning and advanced feature selection,

    M. Tawfik, “Optimized intrusion detection in iot and fog computing using ensemble learning and advanced feature selection,” PloS one , vol. 19, no. 8, p. e0304082, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    A multiscale intrusion detection system based on pyramid depthwise separable convolution neural network,

    J. He, X. Wang, Y . Song, and Q. Xiang, “A multiscale intrusion detection system based on pyramid depthwise separable convolution neural network,” Neurocomputing, vol. 530, pp. 48–59, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    A deep learning approach for intrusion detection systems in cloud computing environments,

    W. H. Aljuaid and S. S. Alshamrani, “A deep learning approach for intrusion detection systems in cloud computing environments,”Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 13, p. 5381, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.