Skip to main content

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Hybrid extreme learning machine-based approach for IDS in smart Ad Hoc networks

This article was retracted on 13 May 2024

This article has been updated


In recent years, intrusion detection systems (IDSs) have increasingly come to be regarded as a significant method due to their potential to develop into a key component that is necessary for the safety of computer networks. This work focuses on the usage of extreme learning machines, which are also known as ELMs, with the purpose of spotting prospective intrusions and assaults. The proposed method combines the self-adaptive differential evolution method for optimising network input weights and hidden node biases and multi-node probabilistic approach with the extreme learning machine for deriving network output weights. This body of work presents an innovative method of learning that can be put into practice in order to determine whether or not an incursion has taken place in the system that is the focus of the investigation that is being carried out by this body of work. A hybrid extreme learning machine is used in the execution of this strategy. When there is one thousand times more traffic on a network, the ability of regular IDS systems to detect malicious network intrusions is lowered by a factor of one hundred. This is because there are less opportunities to detect the intrusions. This is due to the fact that there are less probabilities to identify potential dangers. This paper lays the groundwork for a novel methodology for identifying malicious network breaches. The findings of the simulation demonstrated that putting into practice the approach that was proposed resulted in an improvement in the accuracy of the scenario's classification while it was being investigated. The implementation of the method seems to have produced the desired results.

1 Introduction

Today's network-dependent society faces a serious danger from unauthorised access to computer networks and systems. DoS assaults, DDoS attacks, probing-based attacks, and account takeovers are just a few of the most common types of intrusion attacks. Intrusion detection can spot hacking attempts by monitoring data transfers across a network. There are two main types of intrusion detection models; those that look for abuse and those that look for anomalies. Intruders may be uncovered by signature-based misuse detection [1]. By monitoring for unusual behaviour in network data, anomaly detection may pinpoint hostile actions [2]. As a result, new abnormalities may be uncovered by using anomaly detection. Current developing methods suffer from a high false positive rate and a low false negative rate, respectively.

Internet technology has advanced swiftly along with other areas of contemporary technology. The development of internet technology has introduced us to a new interconnected world, elevating the importance of networks in our daily lives by facilitating our work and leisure activities and accelerating global development [3]. However, it also introduces several security concerns. In reality, as mobile networking grows in popularity, so do assaults on mobile devices for malicious mobile software. This only makes the problem worse.

Because of the benefits of the internet, industrial control systems (ICSs) are becoming common, and many different types of businesses utilise the internet to share information and collaborate. Most ICSs are used in "critical infrastructures", which are essential to the functioning of a country's economy, public welfare, and defence. Cyberattacks are becoming more common as a result of the widespread availability of attack tools that may be downloaded at random and used with no technical expertise. There will be endless problems when cyber assaults have been launched against these institutions. As a consequence, preventing malicious assaults on devices and systems is a pressing concern, since any breach may result in significant financial loss. To counteract these threats, a specialised technique for detecting intrusions into computer networks was developed. Our study proposes a technique for detecting malicious network activity which achieves significant improvements in both speed and accuracy.

In this paper, a novel approach is proposed (hybrid ELM) that uses ELM and differential self-adaptation-based optimization in IDS, which not only improves performance but also decreases the amount of time needed to complete the task. The increased computational capability afforded by this strategy makes it an excellent choice for processing large amounts of data.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows: Sect. 2 presents literature review; Sect. 3 details proposed method; Sect. 4 presents the results and discussion and Sect. 5 concludes the paper.

2 Literature review

2.1 Extreme learning machines

Recently developed is the very fast learning neural algorithm known as the extreme learning machine (ELM) [4, 5]. In contrast to conventional neural network learning algorithms (e.g. BP algorithms [6]), which may have trouble with manually modifying control parameters (learning rate, learning epochs, etc.), ELM is implemented fully automatically and without repeated tuning. In contrast, ELM does not need any such fine-tuning by a person to get desirable outcomes.

In addition, its rapid training time [7,8,9,10,11] was a major selling point: this was accomplished by the use of randomly chosen parameters for the hidden nodes and a least-squares-based method for calculating the output weights. When training using ELM, however, the number of hidden nodes is set beforehand, and those nodes' parameters are both randomly selected and held constant throughout the process. It is likely that many of the network's nodes are inefficient and provide little to nothing to the effort to keep expenses down as a whole. In addition, Huang et al. [12] noted that compared to conventional tuning-based methods, ELM often requires a larger number of hidden nodes.

Differential evolution (DE), also known as population-based stochastic direct searching, is often used in network parameter selection [13,14,15,16]. DE is an approach that is both straightforward and efficient. According to [14], all of the parameters of the network may be represented by a single population vector. The fitness function evaluates how effectively a network is able to discriminate between the outputs that are estimated and those that are predicted. On the other hand, in [15] authors that the DE approach by itself could result in a slower convergence speed while the network is being trained. As a result of this, in the year [16], an SLFN learning system was developed that was based on evolutionary extreme learning machines (DE-ELM).

Combining the DE technique for optimising the network's input parameters with the ELM algorithm for generating the network's output weights, the DE-ELM approach has been proven to have a number of useful qualities. In addition to outperforming ELM in terms of generalisation, it guarantees a smaller total network size.

DE-based neural network training processes, however, need human selection of trial vector generation algorithms and DE control parameters. In DE-ELM, for instance, we use a standard method of random generation to construct our trial vector. However, the control values are chosen by hand, following an empirical recommendation. Several studies have shown that the DE algorithm's performance is highly dependent on the trial vector generation technique and the control parameters, and that poor decisions in either of these two areas can lead to either early convergence or stagnation in the optimisation process. The self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm is responsible for improving the hidden node learning parameters.

Since the 1998, Intrusion Detection Evaluation Programme 1999 data are used as a baseline for evaluating intrusion detection systems [17,18,19]. We used this data to evaluate our method. In specifically, this standard accounts for the following four forms of assault: DDoS, user-to-root, remote-to-user, and probing attacks all fall under this category. A denial of service attack is any effort to render a service or network resource unusable or sluggish to react for its intended users. A successful attack of this kind may be quite annoying to regular users. A user-to-root attack is an attempt to utilise a security hole to elevate the attacker's privileges until they have complete control of the targeted system. By remotely exploiting a machine's vulnerability and then signing in locally as a legitimate user, an attacker may carry out an attack known as a remote to user attack. The term "probing" is used to describe any kind of attack whose end purpose is to breach security and get unauthorised access to a computer, network, or application.

2.2 Intrusion detection

Anderson is credited as the inventor of the intrusion detection system (IDS), a kind of network device created to identify harmful cyber activity on data transmission networks. Data packet size, packet characteristics, attacker behaviour models, access rules, etc., are all examples of the kinds of information that an IDS can glean from networks and computers to safeguard a system from attack. In the realm of cyber security, it is the gold standard of active defence strategies.

Many individuals have dedicated their time to researching and developing an IDS that can spot unusual behaviour. Typically, classical IDS relies on blacklists or statistical analysis techniques to identify suspicious activity in a network environment [20]. However, conventional IDS isn't up to the task of detecting sophisticated assaults. As a result, more sophisticated algorithms [21,22,23,24,25,26,27] have been suggested for use in the construction of IDS. In practice, spotting anomalies falls into one of two categories. That is to say, it is capable of using its function to distinguish between typical and anomalous data. Researchers are working to optimise a wide variety of deep learning algorithms in order to address their drawbacks, such as lengthy training times and inapplicability to large-scale data sets [28,29,30]. In order to construct a model of IDS, the authors of article [31] offer an approach that combines a pre-process of SOM networks with BP neural networks. But these approaches are not without flaws.

When working with large amounts of data that span several classes, SVM is inadequate. Back propagation (BP) and convolutional neural networks (CNN) need excessive time to train the network due to the presence of weight parameter backward iteration. These issues do not lend themselves to the discovery of anomalies or the resolution of the over-fitting problem.

IDS uses a machine learning algorithm called ELM and its refined techniques to detect malicious activity in the network. In order to increase the efficiency of IDS, the authors of paper [32] choose ELM as the central learning algorithm for the construction of a new multiple kernel learning frameworks. To identify malicious network intrusions, we offer a unique dual adaptive regularised online sequential ELM [33] that uses ridge regression component selection based on Tikhonov regularisation to avoid over-fitting. By initially using PCA to lower the dimensionality of the data collection, Huang et al. [33] propose an ELM based on PCA to improve the detection rate.

However, the development of new technologies, the study of potential targets, and the proliferation of cyber devices all contribute to the generation of huge amounts of data that are nonlinear and high dimensional in nature. As data sets grow in size and repetition, even the best updated ELMs will be unable to keep up with the need for instantaneous detection in IDS systems. Therefore, in this paper, we employ ELM as our fundamental technique of IDS and train the network construct using samples that are chosen at random from the data set in a predetermined proportion, all in an effort to speed up the detection time, increase the detection accuracy, and limit the degree of over-fitting.

3 Proposed method

In this paper, the algorithmic ideas behind ELM have been introduced which is crucial for IDS detection method. In contrast to other algorithms for machine learning, such as back propagation neural network, ELM is a feed-forward neural network, as described in [4, 5]. The proposed hybrid ELM is a unique learning method that employs a neural network with just a single hidden layer followed by differential self-adaptation. Figure 1 shows the block diagram of the proposed method. This work also employs a probability-based multi-node attack detection method to track occurrence of any event in ad hoc network.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Block diagram of proposed method

3.1 The extreme learning machine

Extreme learning machine (ELM) is an example of a single-hidden-layer feedforward neural network that has been shown to be useful for the detection of intrusions in ad hoc networks. ELM is a straightforward and effective method that doesn't need any training data to function properly. Instead, the output weights are calculated by applying a least-squares solution, and the weights of the hidden layer are given a random starting point when they are initialised. When it comes to IDS in ad hoc networks, ELM provides some benefits that standard neural networks do not have. ELM may be trained relatively quickly. This is due to the fact that the weights of the hidden layer are randomly initialised, while the weights of the output layer are computed using a solution based on the least squares. ELM has a high degree of precision. This is because the solution that uses the least squares guarantees that the output weights are optimised for the training data. ELM has a high tolerance for background noise. This is due to the fact that the hidden layer's initialisation is based on random numbers, which helps to avoid the network from overfitting the training data. ELM has been found to be successful for detecting a number of intrusions in ad hoc networks, including denial-of-service attacks, flooding assaults, and unauthorised access attacks. These are only some of the types of attacks that may be detected with ELM.

Due to the lack of a pre-existing feedback error iteration calculation, this machine learning algorithm has a greater learning capacity, higher computing ability, quicker convergence, and faster training speed than other machine learning techniques.

The hypothesis is that there are \(N\) independent nodes in the network of the following form:

$$N = \left( {x_{i} , y_{i} } \right), i = 1 \ldots N, \;{\text{where}} \;x_{i} = \left[ {x_{i1} , x_{i2} , \ldots , x_{{{\text{in}}}} } \right]^{T} \in H^{in}$$

\(y_{i} = \left[ {y_{i1} , y_{i2} , \ldots , y_{{{\text{in}}}} } \right]^{T} \in H^{{{\text{out}}}}\), with \(x_{i}\) is matrix of input nodes, i.e. \(H^{{{\text{in}}}}\) and \(y_{i}\) is matrix of output nodes, i.e. \(H^{{{\text{out}}}}\). In order to prove ELM, we need to reveal the additive hidden nodes \(L\).

\({\text{ELM}}\left( x \right) = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{L} \beta_{i} G_{i} \left( {\alpha_{i} .x_{i} + b_{i} } \right), \alpha_{i} \in H^{{{\text{in}}}} .\) \(b_{i}\) is bias of hidden node. The output weight of hidden node is \(\beta_{i} = \beta_{i1} ,\beta_{i2} , \ldots ,\beta_{{{\text{in}}}}\). \(G_{i}\) is the activation function of the ith hidden node's output. \(\beta = \left[ {\beta_{1}^{T} ,\beta_{2}^{T} , \ldots ,\beta_{L}^{T} } \right]^{T}\) and \(Y = \left[ {y_{1}^{T} ,y_{2}^{T} , \ldots ,y_{L}^{T} } \right]^{T}\) The goal of this machine learning training process is to determine a set of parameters that will provide an accurate representation of the training data so that nodes on the ad hoc network will undergo reliable communication. By simplifying Eq. (1) we get,

\({\text{ELM}}\left( x \right) = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{L} \beta_{i} G_{i} \left( {\alpha_{i} .x_{i} + b_{i} } \right) = y_{i}\), such that the output node matrix \(Y\) is written \(Y = H\beta\). Here,

$$H = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {G\left( {\alpha_{1} .x_{1} + b_{1} } \right)} & \cdots & {G\left( {\alpha_{L} .x_{1} + b_{1} } \right)} \\ {G\left( {\alpha_{1} .x_{2} + b_{2} } \right)} & \cdots & {G\left( {\alpha_{L} .x_{2} + b_{2} } \right)} \\ \cdot & \cdots & \cdot \\ \cdot & \cdots & \cdot \\ \cdot & \cdots & \cdot \\ {G\left( {\alpha_{1} .x_{N} + b_{N} } \right)} & \cdots & {G\left( {\alpha_{L} .x_{N} + b_{N} } \right)} \\ \end{array} } \right]$$

Here, \(H\) is the output matrix of the hidden layer. After the initialisation of a random input weight and bias of ELM, we are able to finish the ad hoc network training by identifying the solution of \(H \beta = Y\). This brings the total number of steps involved in the process.

3.2 Multi-node Ad Hoc network: a probabilistic approach

In the Multi-Node Ad Hoc Network (MNAN) we use a simple approach to making decisions, and to choose nodes for reliable communication. Assuming that each node in the network is independent and nodes are uniformly distributed. The probabilistic approach can provide theoretical optimum result to choose the node. The probability of occurrence of attack (referred as an event or any intrusion) is always specified as \(p\). Taking \(N\) votes as an example, we calculate the theoretical probability of occurrence of attack as \(P = \mathop \sum \limits_{{j = \frac{N + 1}{2}}}^{N} C_{N}^{j} p^{j} \left( {1 - p} \right)^{{\left( {N - j} \right)}}\), where \(C_{N}^{j}\) denotes that \(j\) events happened in \(N\) votes. It is feasible to calculate the probability that an event will take place given the assumptions that all occurrences are independent of one another and that the probabilities that the first event will take place are represented by the symbol \(p_{1}\). In other words, the probability that an event will take place may be computed given these conditions.

Since we know the probability of the ith event occurring is \(p_{i}\) and we have witnessed \(N\) events, we can use the method of moments to calculate its probability as

$$P = \mathop \sum \limits_{{j = \frac{N + 1}{2}}}^{N} C_{N}^{j} p^{j} \mathop \prod \limits_{i = 1}^{j} p_{i}^{j} \left( {1 - p} \right)^{{\left( {N - j} \right)}}$$

The probability of occurrence of any event is to be related to the chance of a single occurrence. This graphic clearly demonstrates that when \(p_{i}\) is less than half, the outcome improves as the probability of intrusion occurrence is low and vice versa when \(p_{i}\) is more than half. Later in this paper we describe the proposed hybrid ELM algorithm as the core of our IDS and how we use the probabilistic approach in MNAN to make decisions.

3.3 Differential self-adaptation-based optimisation

In the DE method, \(N\) is the number of nodes, \(F\) is the scaling factor, and \(c\) is the crossover rate. As we know the number of nodes in ad hoc network is case specific and it is not fixed, therefore we need an adaptive algorithm so that the performance at various evolutionary stages can have a large impact on \(F\) and \(c\). Brest et al. [34] introduced a parameter adaption approach to choose the scaling factor and crossover rate that outperforms the standard DE algorithm. There are three primary components of differential self-adaptation strategy (DSAS) which are number of nodes in network, crossover rate, and scaling factor [35].

For the ad hoc network optimisation technique it is necessary to implement the fitness function in order to quantify the performance of the network in terms of metrics like as throughput, latency, and dependability. The fitness function is a placeholder for these metrics. Another one of the parameters that has to be adjusted is the step size. The following optimisation steps are taken into account.

  1. 1.

    Minimise \(f\left( {x_{i} } \right)\), where \(x_{i}\) is a goal matrix of input nodes of the ELM network.

  2. 2.

    As part of the DSAS procedure, the present nodes in the network are used in order to produce vector \(y_{{{\text{adap}}}} = x_{1} + f\left( {x_{2} - x_{3} } \right)\) where all nodes are mutually exclusive and \(x_{1} \ne x_{2} \ne x_{3} \ne i\).

  3. 3.

    The crossover rate is employed to create ad hoc nodes \({\text{adhoc}}_{i}\) between \(x_{i}\) and \(y_{{{\text{adap}}}}\) after any intrusion has taken place.

  4. 4.

    The ad hoc vector is represented as

    $${\text{adhoc}}_{i} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {y_{{{\text{adap}}}} , } & {{\text{if}} \left( {{\text{rndreal}}(0,1 < c\; {\text{or}}\; i - {\text{rand}}_{j} } \right)} \\ {x_{i} ,} & {\text{ otherwise}} \\ \end{array} } \right\}$$
  5. 5.

    Consider a random real number \({\text{rndreal}} \left( {0, 1} \right)\) in the range \(\left[ {0, 1} \right]\) depending on the value of a random integer \({\text{rand}}_{j}\) that falls between the ranges \(\left[ {1,{\text{N}}} \right]\). This random real number will be in the range \(\left[ {0,1} \right]\). The selection operation is used to decide, on the basis of a one-to-one selection, whether of the trial node or the target node will survive until the next packet transmission. This determination is made by comparing the trial node to the target node such that

    $$x_{i} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {y_{{{\text{adap}}}} ,} & { {\text{if}}\left( {f\left( {y_{{{\text{adap}}}} } \right) = f\left( {x_{i} } \right)} \right) } \\ {x_{i} , } & {{\text{otherwise}}} \\ \end{array} } \right.$$
  6. 6.

    The objective function, \(f\left( {x_{i} } \right)\), after optimisation is shown below. Throughout the course of packet transmission, \(f\left( . \right)\) and \(c_{i}\) are fine-tuned to optimise DE performance for each node.

    $$f\left( {x_{i,G + 1} } \right) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {F(x_{L} + {\text{rand}}_{1} .f\left( {{\text{adhoc}}_{i} } \right),} & {\;{\text{if}}({\text{rand}}_{2} < \tau_{1} )} \\ {f\left( {{\text{adhoc}}_{i,G} } \right),{ }} & {{\text{otherwise}}} \\ \end{array} } \right\}$$
    $$c_{i,G + 1} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\text{rand}}_{3} ,} & { {\text{if }}({\text{rand}}_{4} < \tau_{2} } \\ {c_{i,G} , } & {{\text{otherwise}}} \\ \end{array} } \right\}$$

    where \(f\left( {x_{i,G + 1} } \right)\) and \(c_{i,G + 1}\) are the function of optimized input node matrix and ad hoc node generation \(\left( {G + 1} \right)\) and crossover rate for individual node \(i\) in generation of ad hoc node \(G\) + 1, respectively; \({\text{rand}}_{j} = 1,2,3\;{\text{and}}\;4\) are random node numbers. The regulation of the formation of ad hoc nodes and the crossover rate of nodes is accomplished by setting \(\tau_{1}\) and \(\tau_{2}\) equal to \(0.1\) in Eqs. (6a and 6b), respectively.

3.4 The proposed hybrid extreme learning model

The results acquired from the proposed Hybrid Extreme Learning Model (HELM) are adjusted by modifying the weights of the input variables and the hidden biases in order to attain more precision in IDS detection. This is done in order to meet the goal of increased accuracy in IDS detection. In terms of generalisation performance, the HELM method, also known as the hybrid extreme learning machine (ELM), is superior than the ELM approach [3]. The self-adaptive differential evolution method, the multi-node probabilistic approach, and the extreme learning machine are integrated with the extreme learning machine in the recommended methodology. This is done in order to create the network output weights. Because of this, it is possible to optimise the network input weights as well as the hidden node biases.

In the proposed HELM intrusion detection the information that is gathered may include user activity, network traffic, and system logs. Data collected from network traffic may be analysed to spot unusual patterns in that traffic, such as an increase in the number of packets coming from a certain source or heading to a specific location. The activity logs of a system may be examined in order to discover unusual occurrences, such as a rapid rise in the number of unsuccessful attempts to log in. Data on user activity may be analysed to discover unusual patterns of user behaviour, such as an abrupt rise in the amount of items that are being downloaded.

The characteristics that are extracted from the data may be utilised to portray the data in a manner that is more readily understood by the intrusion detection system. The ports that are being utilised by the source IP address and the destination IP address sort data packets that are being transmitted and extract information from network traffic data. The event type, the source and destination hosts, the time and date of the occurrence, and any other relevant information may be retrieved from the system logs. The user's name, the names of the files that are being accessed, as well as the time and date of the access might be among the aspects that are derived from the data on the user's activity.

Once the model has been trained on the retrieved characteristics, it can be used to categorise the data as either normal or abnormal. This is done by comparing the trained model to the new data. When an anomaly is found by the model, it may be utilised to identify whether or not an intrusion has taken place based on the presence or absence of the anomaly.

To optimise the weights and biases of a neural network, a metaheuristic technique known as the self-adaptive differential evolution method is used. It is a stochastic algorithm, which implies that it does not use a route that is deterministically guaranteed to lead to the desired result. Instead, it takes a haphazard approach to searching the space, experimenting with several permutations of weights and biases until it discovers a solution that satisfies the requirements specified. The multi-node probabilistic approach is used to the process of deriving the output weights of a neural network. Therefore, first, the network is segmented into various nodes, and then, a probabilistic method is used to the task of assigning weights to the connections between the nodes.

3.4.1 Generation of the ad hoc nodes

The proposed HELM assumes the presence of \(L\) hidden nodes and an activation function \(G_{i}\), applied to a given nodes in network. Generation of the ad hoc nodes is set up as follows:

Step 1 Generation of ad hoc node vector

The adaptive vector \({\text{adapt}}_{i}\) includes all of the network's hidden nodes which are assigned as ad hoc node vector

$${\text{adhoc}}_{i} = \left[ {x_{{i,k,G}}^{T} , \ldots ,x_{{L,k,G}}^{T} ,\;{{y_{{{\text{adap}}}}}_{{1,k,G}}^{T}} , \ldots ,{{y_{{{\text{adap}}}}}_{{L,k,G}}^{T}} } \right]$$

Step 2 RMSE and output weight calculations

With the help of the following equations, we will be able to calculate the RMSE with regard to each ad hoc vector as well as the output node matrix of the ELM network.

$$\beta_{k,G} = Y_{{{\text{adap}}_{k,G} }} {\text{.adhoc}}_{i}$$
$${\text{RMSE}}_{k,G} = \sqrt {\frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{N} \left\| {\mathop \sum \nolimits_{j = 1}^{L} \beta_{j,G} \left( {{\text{adhoc}}_{i,k,G} ,y_{{{\text{adap}}_{j} ,k,G}} ,x_{i} } \right) - \tau_{1} } \right\|}}{m \times N}}$$

Then, RMSE value shows the modest positive tolerance rate. The ad hoc node vector with the lowest RMSE in the first generation of ELM is recorded as 1 and the one with the lowest RMSE is recorded as 0. All ad hoc vectors \({\text{adhoc}}_{i,k,G}\) produced at the \(G\) generation of ELM. The norm of the output weight is utilised as an extra criteria for the trial vector selection since it was shown in [36] that neural networks often display superior generalisation performance with smaller weights. As a result of this observation, the norm of the output weight is employed. The ad hoc node creation, crossover, and node selection processes will continue until either the goal has been accomplished or the maximum number of learning cycles has been achieved.

3.5 Proposed HELM intrusion detection system

The following are the stages of our proposed HELM intrusion detection procedure. To serve as a standard of evaluation, we further use an ELM technique [3] for data classification. First, the raw TCP/IP dump data are processed using a data processing script to make it more accessible to computers. In the second step, "training", both proposed HELM and ELM are subjected to both "normal" data and "attacks". In the case of binary classification, the basic characteristics correspond to the two classes of "normal" and "attack", whereas in the event of multi-class classification, the features class correspond to "normal" and "various types of attack". The model is trained in a big programme that can run tests as soon as the training is finished. The following steps are followed:

  1. 1.

    Consider \(N\) random nodes, \(L\) hidden nodes and \(G_{i}\) activation function.

  2. 2.

    The individual parameter vectors for each node are initialised, with each vector containing all of the network's hidden node parameters. The three operations, i.e. ad hoc node generation, crossover, and selection of node, are carried out to produce the new node vector. The process is iterated until the stop condition is satisfied.

  3. 3.

    Construct an ideal forecasting model with the highest testing accuracy by varying the type of \(G_{i}\) and increasing the number of hidden nodes \(L\) progressively from one.

  4. 4.

    Determine the output weights \(\beta\), \(y_{{{\text{adap}}}}\) and \(T\).

  5. 5.

    We employ proposed HELM and ELM to make predictions about the data points in the testing nodes dataset and compare their accuracy.

4 Results and discussion

The UNSW-NB15 data collection [37, 38] is used for the study of IDS. We use some criteria for assessing the efficacy of our approach. We use the detection accuracy and the detection time as our criteria to streamline the assessment process.

We conducted the experiments using the ELM technique [3], the proposed method before optimisation, and the proposed method after optimisation in order to assess the impact that factor had on the performance of the model. The number of nodes that were contained inside the concealed layer was altered during each trial. Both the output weights of the network and the parameters of its hidden nodes were optimised with the aid of a self-adaptive differential evolution approach. The output weights of the network were calculated with the assistance of an extreme learning machine. It is quite evident that the technique that was presented has the potential to achieve a better degree of precision.

Tables 1 and 2 indicate the training and testing durations for datasets of the same size that were performed using ELM, the suggested method before optimisation, and the proposed technique after optimisation, respectively. Additionally, Table 1 shows the proposed approach before optimisation, and Table 2 shows the proposed technique after optimisation. When there is a greater amount of data being investigated, the training and testing periods for the recommended methodologies take a much longer amount of time. The ELM methodology advances at a glacial pace if there are a bigger number of observations included into the analysis. In the end, the amount of time necessary for training and testing with the offered methodologies, before they are optimised, takes longer than the time needed by ELM. During the course of our research, we construct a brand-new sub-data set by selecting instances at random from the master training data set. This allows us to better evaluate the results of our study. Figure 2 presents a comparison of the amount of time required to detect an intrusion and the level of accuracy achieved by the proposed method (both before and after optimisation). Figure 3 is a comparison chart that shows how the ELM approach compares to the proposed methodology in terms of the number of ad hoc nodes and the accuracy of the proposed technique (both before and after optimisation).

Table 1 Training time comparison
Table 2 Testing time comparison
Fig. 2
figure 2

Time of intrusion detection and accuracy comparison for proposed method (before optimisation and after optimisation)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Number of ad hoc nodes and accuracy comparison for proposed method (before optimisation and after optimisation) and ELM method

According to the findings, the strategy that was proposed works better than ELM did when it came to speed. The approach that was presented has the possibility of leading to better precision. When it comes to categorising network data for the purpose of intrusion detection, the findings of this comparison reveal that the strategy that was presented has a higher degree of scalability in comparison with the ELM method.

Before making a decision between ELM, the proposed approach before optimisation, and the proposed method after optimisation, the process of developing an intrusion detection system requires a comprehensive examination of the kind of intrusion that is most likely to occur. This is done before choosing between ELM, the proposed methodology before optimisation, and the proposed method after optimisation. Before deciding between ELM, the suggested technique before optimisation, and the proposed method after optimisation, this consideration has to take place. The fundamental ELM technique requires a much less amount of time to learn as compared to other methods' needed training periods. Techniques like as the user-to-root attack, on the other hand, may not create as many connections when an intrusion is found since they rely on the victim's weaknesses in order to get root access. On the other hand, if the attack is successful, the attacker could be able to get root access with each connection. Therefore, the precision of the detection is more important than its speed in this specific setting and scenario. The strategy that was proposed would be the most efficient one that is now available for spotting attacks of this kind.

The root mean square error (RMSE) is a useful metric for determining how accurate an optimisation technique is when applied to ad hoc nodes. When the RMSE is smaller, it means that the optimisation method has discovered a solution that is more optimal. Another important measure to consider is the difference in the number of ad hoc nodes that were formed before and after optimisation. If there is a greater number of ad hoc nodes in a network, it suggests that the network is more resilient and is able to manage a greater volume of traffic. A smaller RMSE suggests that the optimisation process has located a more optimal solution. A more resilient network that is able to accommodate more traffic and has a higher number of ad hoc nodes is indicated by that network. Therefore, it is possible to quantify the efficacy of the optimisation technique and the resilience of the network by combining the root mean squared error (RMSE) with the number of ad hoc nodes.

In addition, using the IoT network as a starting point, we evaluated the performance in terms of the ad hoc nodes that were established and calculated the RMSE with the methodology that was proposed. A comparison of the RMSE to the ad hoc nodes that were produced using the recommended technique before the optimisation was carried out is shown in Fig. 4. Figure 5 presents a comparison of the RMSE and ad hoc nodes that were constructed (after optimisation) using the approach that was provided.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Comparison of RMSE versus Ad hoc nodes generated (before optimisation) using proposed method

Fig. 5
figure 5

Comparison of RMSE versus Ad hoc nodes generated (after optimisation) using proposed method

5 Conclusion

The subject of intrusion detection is one that is experiencing tremendous growth now as a result of the rising number of individuals who use the internet on a daily basis and the expansion of network-based services. Because of its capacity to automatically identify intrusions by users who are not permitted to access the current computer system, an intrusion detection system, commonly known as IDS which has emerged as an important component and strategy for the security of computer networks. One of the first stages that are advised by this research is the utilisation of given computational approaches in intelligent IoT intrusion detection systems. The ELM method makes use of a technique that generates random results in order to pick the input parameters. The method-based intrusion detection system that has been shown here would become trained by making use of data that has been acquired while being monitored by a gateway. One of our objectives for the foreseeable future is to evaluate the training speed and detection accuracy of different techniques by incorporating them into a smart gateway and augmenting the model with a multi-layer-based intrusion detection system.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Change history



Multi-node Ad Hoc network


Hybrid extreme learning model


Differential self-adaptation strategy


Particle swarm optimisation


Support vector machine


Network security laboratory-knowledge discovery in databases


Self-organising map


Back propagation


Convolutional neural networks


Intrusion detection system


Differential evolutionary-extreme learning machines


Knowledge discovery


Industrial control systems


  1. K. Ilgun, R.A. Kemmerer, P.A. Porras, State transition analysis: a rule-based intrusion detection approach. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(3), 181–199 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. S.T. Ikram, A.K. Cherukuri, Improving accuracy of intrusion detection model using PCA and optimized SVM CIT. J. Comput. Inf. Technol. 24(2), 133–148 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. J. Anderson, Computer security threat monitoring and surveillance (1980),

  4. G.B. Huang, Q.Y. Zhu, C.K. Siew. Extreme learning machine: a new learning scheme of feedforward neural networks, in Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN2004), vol. 2. pp. 985–990

  5. G.B. Huang, Q.Y. Zhu, C.K. Siew, Extreme learning machine: theory and applications. Neurocomputing 70(1–3), 489–501 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. S. Espana-Boquera, F. Zamora-Martínez, M.J. Castro-Bleda, et al. Efficient BP algorithms for general feedforward neural networks, in International Work-Conference on the Interplay Between Natural and Artificial Computation (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007), pp. 327–336

  7. G. Thatte, U. Mitra, J. Heidemann, Parametric methods for anomaly detection in aggregate traffic. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 19(2), 512–525 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. M. Qin and K. Hwang. Frequent episode rules for internet anomaly detection, in Proceedings of the Network Computing and Applications, Third IEEE International Symposium. (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, 2004), pp. 161–168

  9. X. He, C. Papadopoulos, J. Heidemann, U. Mitra, U. Riaz, Remote detection of bottleneck links using spectral and statistical methods. Comput. Netw. 53, 279–298 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. W.W. Streilein, R.K. Cunningham, and S.E. Webster. Improved detection of low-profile probe and denial-of-service attacks, in Proceedings of the 2001 Workshop on Statistical and Machine Learning Techniques in Computer Intrusion Detection, (2001)

  11. C. Cortes, V. Vapnik, Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 273–297 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. G.-B. Huang, D.H. Wang, Y. Lan, Extreme learning machines: a survey. Int. J. Mach. Lean. Cyber. 2(2), 107–122 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11(4), 341–359 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. J. Ilonen, J.I. Kamarainen, J. Lampinen, Differential evolution training algorithm for feedforward neural networks. Neural Process Lett 17, 93–105 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. B. Subudhi, D. Jena, Differential evolution and levenberg marquardt trained neural network scheme for nonlinear system identification. Neural Process Lett 27, 285–296 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Q.-Y. Zhu, A.-K. Qin, P.-N. Suganthan, G.-B. Huang, Evolutionary extreme learning machine. Pattern Recog 38(10), 1759–1763 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. S. Mukkamala, A. Sung, Detecting denial of service attacks using support vector machines, in Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, (2003)

  18. M. Luo, L. Wang, H. Zhang, J. Chen, A research on intrusion detection based on unsupervised clustering and support vector machine, in Information and Communications Security, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. ed. by S. Qing, D. Gollmann, J. Zhou (Springer, Heidelberg, 2003), pp.325–336

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Kim, J. Park, Network-based intrusion detection with support vector machines, in Information Networking, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. ed. by H.-K. Kahng (Springer, Heidelberg, 2003), pp.747–756

    Google Scholar 

  20. H. Javitz, A. Valdes. The SRI IDES statistical anomaly detector, in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security & Privacy, (1991)

  21. G. Nadiammai, M. Hemalatha, Effective approach toward intrusion detection system using data mining techniques. Egypt. Inf. J. 15(1), 37–50 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Powers, J. He, A hybrid artificial immune system and self organising map for network intrusion detection. Inf. Sci. 178(15), 3024–3042 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. T. Vuong, G. Loukas, D. Gan, A. Bezemskij, Decision treebased detection of denial of service and command injection attacks on robotic vehicles, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics & Security, (2016)

  24. L. Hui, X. Guan, X. Zan, H. Zhao, Network Intrusion detection based on support vector machine, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Management & Service Science, (2009)

  25. C. Cheng, W. Tay, G. Huang, Extreme learning machines for intrusion detection, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, (2012)

  26. A. Zewairi, S. Almajali, A. Awajan, Experimental evaluation of a multi-layer feed-forward artificial neural network classifier for network intrusion detection system, in Proceedings of the International Conference on New Trends in Computing Sciences, (2018), pp 167–172

  27. V. Vapink, The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, (NewYork, 1995)

  28. W. Shang, S. Zhang, M. Wan, P. Zeng, Modbus/TCP communication anomaly detection algorithm based on PSO-SVM. Acta Electron. Sin. 490–491(11), 1745–1753 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. Wu, Z. Chen, W. Li, A novel intrusion detection model for a massive network using convolutional neural networks. IEEE Access 6, 50850–50859 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. M. Ramadas, S. Ostermann, B. Tjaden, Detecting anomalous network traffic with self-organizing maps, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (2003), pp. 36–54

  31. J. Fossaceca, T. Mazzuchi, S. Sarkani, MARK-ELM: application of a novel multiple kernel learning framework for improving the robustness of network intrusion detection. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(8), 4062–4080 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Y. Yu, S. Kang, H. Qiu, A new network intrusion detection algorithm: DA-ROS-ELM, in IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, (2018)

  33. S. Huang, W. Chen, J. Li, Network intrusion detection based on extreme learning machine and principal component analysis, J. Jilin Univ. (2017)

  34. R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolution-a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Global Optim. 11, 341–359 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. J. Brest, S. Greiner et al., Selfadapting control parameters in differential evolution: a comprehensive study on numerical benchmark problems. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 10, 646–657 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. G.-B. Huang, L. Chen, C.K. Siew, Universal approximation using incremental constructive feedforward networks with random hidden nodes. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 17(4), 879–892 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. N. Moustafa, J. Slay, The evaluation of network anomaly detection systems: statistical analysis of the UNSW-NB15 data set and the comparison with the KDD99 data set. Inf. Syst. Secur. 25(1–3), 18–31 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  38. N. Moustafa, J. Slay, UNSW-NB15: a comprehensive data set for network intrusion detection systems (UNSW-NB15 network data set), in Proceedings of the Military Communications & Information Systems Conference, (2015)

Download references


No funding received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



BL contributed to this manuscript in full.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bijian Liu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares that there is nothing to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article has been retracted. Please see the retraction notice for more detail:

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, B. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Hybrid extreme learning machine-based approach for IDS in smart Ad Hoc networks. J Wireless Com Network 2023, 84 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: