Table 14 Comparison analysis of CIC-IDS2017 dataset
SI. No. | Authors | Data balancing | Dimension reduction | Algorithm | Selected feature | Accuracy(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | [30] | – | IGR+CR +ReF | PART | – | 99.95 (Binary) |
2 | Our Proposal | RO | SFE-PCA | ET | 10 | 99.95 (Binary) |
3 | [34] | – | t-SNE | RF | – | 99.78 |
4 | [53] | – | NTLBO | LR | 22 | 97.00 |
5 | [35] | – | EDFS | DT | – | 98.80 |
6 | [36] | – | IG+Ranking +Grouping | RF | 22 | 99.86 |
7 | [36] | – | IG+Ranking +Grouping | J48 | 52 | 99.87 |
8 | [42] | – | – | DNN+ACO | – | 98.25 |
9 | [22] | SGM | – | CNN | – | 99.85 |
10 | Our Proposal | RO | SFE-PCA | DT | 10 | 99.99 |
11 | Our Proposal | RO | SFE-PCA | RF | 10 | 99.99 |
12 | Our Proposal | RO | SFE-PCA | ET | 10 | 99.99 |