Table 7 The performance benchmarks of various threat detection methods
From: A survey of methods supporting cyber situational awareness in the context of smart cities
References | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F-Measure | TP | FP | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oza et al. [76] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
He et al. [77] | 93.73–98.51 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Azmoodeh et al. [78] | 99.68 | 98.59 | 98.37 | 0.98 | – | – | Tenfold |
Dovom et al. [79] | 96.4 | 94.33 | 89.71 | 0.89 | – | – | MCC |
Kumar et al. [80] | 94.44 | 92 | 1 | 0.96 | – | – | Hold-out |
Meidan et al. [81] | – | – | – | – | 100 | 0.7 | Hold-out |
R et al. [82] | 99 | 85 | 99 | 92 | Â | Â | Hold-out |
Raza et al. [83] | 80–100 | - | 100 | - |  |  | - |
Shreenivas et al. [84] | 90–100 | – | – | – |  |  | - |
Li et al. [85] | 94.8 | 93 | 63.64 | 0.75 | Â | Â | Hold-out |
Azmoodeh et al. [86] | 94.27 | 89.19 | 95.65 | 0.92 | Â | Â | Leave-one-out |
Baracaldo et al. [87] | Up to 90 | – | – | – |  |  | Hold-out |
Laishram and Phoha [88] | Up to 99 | – | – | – |  |  | Tenfold |