Author: Dr. Mallarapu
Created: 2026-07-27
Course: SEAS 8414 — Security Analytics


Goal of this notebook¶

Train and audit detectors on UNSW-NB15, a benchmark designed to be more realistic than KDD99.

What you will learn¶

  1. Read a majority-class baseline before trusting any accuracy figure.
  2. Find the strongest single feature, then test it by dropping it and refitting.
  3. Tell duplicate inflation apart from genuine signal.
  4. Report per-group recall, because the rare classes carry the risk.

Where this connects to the course text¶

The text builds a defence pipeline; this notebook trains a classifier and audits it. The links below are to specific chapter objectives that share an analytic move, not to matching subject matter.

  • Chapter 3: Vulnerability Assessment — Learning objective 1 (section 3.1) frames assessment as evidence grading, not output collection. The A-F data-trust grade in section 10 is exactly that move, applied to a model score.
  • Chapter 11: Formal Protocol Verification — Section 11.1.2, titled Proved, tested, and hoped, asks you to separate exactly those three. (Chapter 11 lists its objectives in §11.0, not §11.1 as the other chapters do.) The ablation does that job here: it tests whether the headline survives.

Network Intrusion Detection on UNSW-NB15¶

Model comparison + validity audit on UNSW-NB15 (2.5M records, via Kaggle)¶

Abstract: UNSW-NB15 (Moustafa & Slay, 2015) was built to be more realistic and modern than KDD99, with a hybrid of real benign traffic and synthesized attacks. The corpus has ~2.54M records and 9 attack families. We compare four learners and audit the result.

1. Research problem¶

Task: Classify flow records as normal or attack (Fuzzers, Analysis, Backdoors, DoS, Exploits, Generic, Reconnaissance, Shellcode, Worms). UNSW-NB15 was designed explicitly to fix KDD99's unrealistic distributions — so it is the right place to ask whether a more realistic benchmark still yields shortcut-driven scores.

2. Literature review¶

  • Moustafa & Slay (2015) — UNSW-NB15: a comprehensive dataset for NIDS, built to modernize KDD99.
  • Moustafa & Slay (2016) — statistical analysis and the train/test split.
  • Sommer & Paxson (2010) — closed-world ML rarely deploys.
  • Engelen, Rimmer & Joosen (2021) — labeling errors and flow-extractor bugs in the CICIDS2017 dataset. It is cited here as a caution that a benchmark's own labels and features can be defective, not as a finding about UNSW-NB15.

Related approaches and their known caveats — drawn from the wider literature; these are not measurements reproduced on this exact corpus:

Reported approach Known caveat
Moustafa & Slay (2016) — DT/LR/NB harder than KDD99 by design
Modern DL on UNSW-NB15 in-distribution; official split has known overlap

3. Dataset provenance & honesty caveats¶

Property Value
Source Kaggle mrwellsdavid/unsw-nb15
Rows ~2.54M (UNSW-NB15_1..4.csv combined; headerless)
Features 47 flow features (49 cols incl. attack_cat + Label)
Label Label 0/1; family attack_cat
Access Kaggle API token required

Honestly: IP/port/timestamp columns are dropped as identifiers; attack_cat is dropped from features. UNSW-NB15 is harder than KDD99, which is the point.

Before you run this: getting the data¶

This notebook downloads its own data on the first run, then caches it. You do not fetch anything by hand.

Dataset: Kaggle mrwellsdavid/unsw-nb15 -> /tmp/kg_unsw-nb15. It is about 605 MB on disk.

One-time setup. Sign in at kaggle.com, open Settings, and under API choose Create New Token. Kaggle hands you a kaggle.json file. This notebook does not read that file. It reads a plain key file, so convert it once:

mkdir -p ~/.kaggle
python3 -c "import json;print(json.load(open('kaggle.json'))['key'],end='')" > ~/.kaggle/access_token
chmod 600 ~/.kaggle/access_token

Never paste the token into a cell, a commit, or a screenshot. If it leaks, revoke it from the same Settings page.

If the loader fails:

  • FileNotFoundError: ~/.kaggle/access_token - you created kaggle.json but not the key file. Run the command above.
  • 401 Unauthorized - the key is wrong, or a trailing newline crept in.
  • 403 Forbidden - open the dataset page on Kaggle while signed in, accept its terms, then re-run the cell.

The cache sits under /tmp, which macOS clears on reboot. To keep it, move the folder somewhere durable and symlink it back. Do not edit the path in the code cell below: that changes a code cell and invalidates the stored outputs you are reviewing.

4. Solution design¶

The methodology is deliberately two-track. We earn a headline score with standard modelling, then interrogate it with a validity audit. Only a verdict that survives both is reported. The diagram below is the shape of every notebook in this series.

Figure 4.1 — Solution design (methodology).

Figure 4.1 — Solution design (methodology).

5. Implementation architecture¶

Five stages — ingestion, preprocessing, modelling, evaluation, and a parallel validity-audit path — feed a single graded results ledger. Leakage defences (dropping label-derived and identifier columns) live in preprocessing, before any model sees the data.

Figure 5.1 — Implementation architecture.

Figure 5.1 — Implementation architecture.

6. Data acquisition & preparation¶

Every line below is commented so a student can re-run and modify each step. The cell ends by producing the standard analysis variables: df, X (clean numeric features), y (binary label), feat (feature names), and family. family is the per-group label used for the recall breakdown. It is an attack family on the intrusion corpora, but a transaction type, merchant category or malware category on the fraud/malware ones.

In [1]:
%matplotlib inline
import time, warnings; warnings.filterwarnings('ignore')   # keep output clean
import numpy as np, pandas as pd                            # numerics + dataframes
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt                             # static plots (embed in HTML+PDF)
plt.rcParams['figure.dpi'] = 120                            # crisp figures
RANDOM_STATE = 0                                            # single seed used everywhere
np.random.seed(RANDOM_STATE)                                # reproducible sampling
NEG_WORD, POS_WORD = 'benign', 'attack'                      # class names (overridden by some loaders)
In [2]:
import os, glob
os.environ.setdefault('KAGGLE_KEY', open(os.path.expanduser('~/.kaggle/access_token')).read().strip())
import kaggle; kaggle.api.authenticate()                       # Kaggle token in ~/.kaggle/access_token
REF='mrwellsdavid/unsw-nb15'; DEST='/tmp/kg_unsw-nb15'
if not os.path.exists(DEST):
    kaggle.api.dataset_download_files(REF, path=DEST, unzip=True, quiet=True)
NAMES = ['srcip', 'sport', 'dstip', 'dsport', 'proto', 'state', 'dur', 'sbytes', 'dbytes', 'sttl', 'dttl', 'sloss', 'dloss', 'service', 'Sload', 'Dload', 'Spkts', 'Dpkts', 'swin', 'dwin', 'stcpb', 'dtcpb', 'smeansz', 'dmeansz', 'trans_depth', 'res_bdy_len', 'Sjit', 'Djit', 'Stime', 'Ltime', 'Sintpkt', 'Dintpkt', 'tcprtt', 'synack', 'ackdat', 'is_sm_ips_ports', 'ct_state_ttl', 'ct_flw_http_mthd', 'is_ftp_login', 'ct_ftp_cmd', 'ct_srv_src', 'ct_srv_dst', 'ct_dst_ltm', 'ct_src_ltm', 'ct_src_dport_ltm', 'ct_dst_sport_ltm', 'ct_dst_src_ltm', 'attack_cat', 'Label']                                       # the 49 column names (data ships headerless)
NROWS = 1_500_000
parts = sorted(glob.glob(DEST + '/**/UNSW-NB15_[1-4].csv', recursive=True))  # the 4 raw record files
df = pd.concat([pd.read_csv(p, header=None, names=NAMES, low_memory=False, nrows=NROWS) for p in parts],
               ignore_index=True)
df['y'] = pd.to_numeric(df['Label'], errors='coerce').fillna(0).astype(int)  # Label is 0/1
df['family'] = df['attack_cat'].astype(str).str.strip().replace({'': 'Normal', 'nan': 'Normal'})
df = df.reset_index(drop=True)
assert len(df) >= 1_000_000, f'floor not met: {len(df):,}'
DROP = ['Label','attack_cat','y','family','srcip','dstip','sport','dsport','Stime','Ltime']  # ids/time/labels
feat = [c for c in df.columns if c not in DROP]
from sklearn.preprocessing import LabelEncoder
X = df[feat].copy()
for c in X.select_dtypes(include='object').columns:
    X[c] = LabelEncoder().fit_transform(X[c].astype(str))
X = X.apply(pd.to_numeric, errors='coerce').replace([np.inf,-np.inf],np.nan).fillna(0.0)
X = X.loc[:, X.nunique() > 1]; feat = list(X.columns)
y = df['y'].to_numpy()
print(f'loaded {len(df):,} rows x {len(feat)} features; attack rate {y.mean():.4f}')
loaded 2,540,047 rows x 41 features; attack rate 0.1265

7. Exploratory data analysis¶

In [3]:
# --- EDA 1: class balance and the attack-family mix ---
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 2, figsize=(11, 4))
df['y'].map({0:NEG_WORD,1:POS_WORD}).value_counts().plot.bar(               # counts per class
    ax=ax[0], color=['#2a9d8f','#e76f51']); ax[0].set_yscale('log')
ax[0].set_title(f'Class balance ({NEG_WORD} vs {POS_WORD})'); ax[0].set_ylabel('records (log)')
df.loc[df.y==1,'family'].value_counts().head(8).plot.barh(                  # top attack families
    ax=ax[1], color='#e76f51'); ax[1].invert_yaxis(); ax[1].set_title('Top attack families')
plt.tight_layout(); plt.show()
No description has been provided for this image
In [4]:
# --- EDA 2: feature correlation + a 2-D PCA projection ---
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler                 # scale before PCA
from sklearn.decomposition import PCA
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 2, figsize=(12, 5))
topv = X[feat].var().sort_values().tail(12).index                # 12 highest-variance features
im = ax[0].imshow(X[topv].corr(), cmap='coolwarm', vmin=-1, vmax=1)  # correlation heatmap
ax[0].set_xticks(range(len(topv))); ax[0].set_xticklabels(topv, rotation=90, fontsize=7)
ax[0].set_yticks(range(len(topv))); ax[0].set_yticklabels(topv, fontsize=7)
ax[0].set_title('Feature correlation (top-variance)'); fig.colorbar(im, ax=ax[0], shrink=0.7)
samp = X.sample(min(5000, len(X)), random_state=RANDOM_STATE)     # subsample for a fast PCA
pc = PCA(n_components=2).fit_transform(StandardScaler().fit_transform(samp))
ys = y[samp.index]                                               # aligned labels for coloring
for lab,c in [(0,'#2a9d8f'),(1,'#e76f51')]:
    ax[1].scatter(pc[ys==lab,0], pc[ys==lab,1], s=4, alpha=0.4, color=c,
                  label={0:NEG_WORD,1:POS_WORD}[lab])
ax[1].set_title('PCA projection (2 components)'); ax[1].legend(); ax[1].set_xlabel('PC1'); ax[1].set_ylabel('PC2')
plt.tight_layout(); plt.show()
No description has been provided for this image

8. Model comparison¶

Four diverse learners share one held-out split, ranked by ROC-AUC.

Two honesty guards print with the table:

  1. The models train on a stratified subsample of at most 120,000 rows. The full row count is printed above. So every score here is a subsample number, not a full-corpus claim.
  2. The majority-class baseline accuracy appears inside the ranking table. On imbalanced data, 0.99 accuracy can be worse than always guessing the majority class. Judge each model against that baseline, not against 0.5.
In [5]:
# --- Model comparison: four learners on the same held-out split ---
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, roc_auc_score
import xgboost as xgb, lightgbm as lgb

# Stratified split keeps the class ratio in both halves.
Xtr, Xte, ytr, yte = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.25, random_state=RANDOM_STATE, stratify=y)
from sklearn.pipeline import make_pipeline
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler
N_MATERIALIZED = len(y)                                          # the full corpus we loaded (see printed count)
# HONEST DISCLOSURE: we do NOT train on all N. We fit on a STRATIFIED subsample (<=120k) because
# these learners saturate long before then on this data. Every headline below is a SUBSAMPLE
# number, not a full-corpus number — saying otherwise would be the fabrication this course forbids.
if len(Xtr) > 120_000:
    Xtr, _, ytr, _ = train_test_split(Xtr, ytr, train_size=120_000, random_state=RANDOM_STATE,
                                      stratify=ytr)               # genuinely stratified, not random
MAJORITY_BASELINE = max(np.mean(yte), 1 - np.mean(yte))          # accuracy of 'always predict majority'
print(f'materialized {N_MATERIALIZED:,} rows | trained on {len(Xtr):,} (stratified subsample) | '
      f'held-out {len(yte):,}')
print(f'MAJORITY-CLASS BASELINE accuracy = {MAJORITY_BASELINE:.4f}  '
      f'(any model must beat THIS, not 0.5, to be interesting)')

models = {                                                        # four standard, diverse learners
    'LogisticRegression': make_pipeline(StandardScaler(), LogisticRegression(max_iter=300)),  # scaled!
    'RandomForest': RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=60, n_jobs=-1, random_state=RANDOM_STATE),
    'XGBoost': xgb.XGBClassifier(n_estimators=80, max_depth=6, tree_method='hist', n_jobs=-1,
                                 eval_metric='logloss', random_state=RANDOM_STATE),
    'LightGBM': lgb.LGBMClassifier(n_estimators=80, n_jobs=-1, verbose=-1, random_state=RANDOM_STATE),
}
rows, fitted = [], {}
for name, m in models.items():                                    # fit + score each model
    t = time.perf_counter(); m.fit(Xtr, ytr); fitted[name] = m
    p = m.predict_proba(Xte)[:, 1]                                # positive-class probability on held-out
    rows.append({'model': name, 'accuracy': round(accuracy_score(yte, (p>0.5).astype(int)), 6),
                 'roc_auc': round(roc_auc_score(yte, p), 6),      # 6 dp: a 1.000000 is a red flag, not a win
                 'train_s': round(time.perf_counter()-t, 1)})
rows.append({'model': 'MajorityBaseline', 'accuracy': round(MAJORITY_BASELINE, 4),
             'roc_auc': 0.5, 'train_s': 0.0})            # show the baseline IN the ranking table
comparison = pd.DataFrame(rows).sort_values('roc_auc', ascending=False).reset_index(drop=True)
_ranked = comparison[comparison.model != 'MajorityBaseline']
best_name = _ranked.iloc[0]['model']; best = fitted[best_name]  # winner by ROC-AUC (excl. baseline)
print('best model:', best_name); comparison
materialized 2,540,047 rows | trained on 120,000 (stratified subsample) | held-out 635,012
MAJORITY-CLASS BASELINE accuracy = 0.8735  (any model must beat THIS, not 0.5, to be interesting)
best model: LightGBM
Out[5]:
model accuracy roc_auc train_s
0 LightGBM 0.992687 0.999671 1.1
1 XGBoost 0.992411 0.999657 0.5
2 RandomForest 0.992458 0.999604 0.6
3 LogisticRegression 0.988137 0.998941 0.4
4 MajorityBaseline 0.873500 0.500000 0.0

9. Results¶

Diagnostics for the winning model, including per-group recall.

The grouping comes from whatever the loader put in family. It is not always an attack taxonomy. On the intrusion corpora it is the attack family. On the fraud and malware corpora it is a transaction type, a merchant category or a malware category. On binary corpora it collapses to the positive class.

Read it accordingly. Where the groups are genuinely rare classes, they reveal whether detection is real. The dominant flood classes do not.

In [6]:
# --- Results for the best model: confusion, ROC, PR, importances, per-family recall ---
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix, roc_curve, precision_recall_curve, recall_score
pb = best.predict_proba(Xte)[:, 1]; pred = (pb > 0.5).astype(int)
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(15, 4))
# (1) confusion matrix
cm = confusion_matrix(yte, pred); ax[0].imshow(cm, cmap='Blues')
ax[0].set_title(f'{best_name}: confusion'); ax[0].set_xticks([0,1]); ax[0].set_yticks([0,1])
ax[0].set_xticklabels([NEG_WORD,POS_WORD]); ax[0].set_yticklabels([NEG_WORD,POS_WORD])
for (i,j),v in np.ndenumerate(cm): ax[0].text(j,i,f'{v:,}',ha='center',va='center')
# (2) ROC and PR curves
fpr,tpr,_ = roc_curve(yte, pb); prec,rec,_ = precision_recall_curve(yte, pb)
ax[1].plot(fpr,tpr,color='#264653'); ax[1].plot([0,1],[0,1],'--',c='grey')
ax[1].set_title(f'ROC (AUC={roc_auc_score(yte,pb):.4f})'); ax[1].set_xlabel('FPR'); ax[1].set_ylabel('TPR')
ax[2].plot(rec,prec,color='#e76f51'); ax[2].set_title('Precision-Recall'); ax[2].set_xlabel('recall'); ax[2].set_ylabel('precision')
plt.tight_layout(); plt.show()

# (3) feature importances + (4) per-attack-family recall
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 2, figsize=(13, 5))
imp, names = None, feat                                           # importances, robust to the scaled-LR pipeline
if hasattr(best, 'feature_importances_'):                          # tree models
    imp = best.feature_importances_; names = list(getattr(best, 'feature_names_in_', feat))[:len(imp)]
elif hasattr(best, 'named_steps') and 'logisticregression' in getattr(best, 'named_steps', {}):
    imp = np.abs(best.named_steps['logisticregression'].coef_[0]); names = feat  # LR pipeline
elif hasattr(best, 'coef_'):
    imp = np.abs(best.coef_[0]); names = feat
if imp is not None:
    pd.Series(imp, index=names[:len(imp)]).sort_values().tail(12).plot.barh(ax=ax[0], color='#264653')
ax[0].set_title(f'{best_name}: top importances / |coef|')
# Per-family recall, WORST-first so rare, hard classes are visible, not just the dominant floods.
fam_te = df.loc[Xte.index, 'family']
fr = {}
for fam, cnt in fam_te[yte==1].value_counts().items():
    if cnt < 5: continue                                          # need a few positives for a meaningful recall
    mask = (fam_te==fam).to_numpy(); fr[fam] = recall_score(yte[mask], pred[mask], zero_division=0)
srt = pd.Series(fr).sort_values()
show = pd.concat([srt.head(9), srt.tail(3)]) if len(srt) > 12 else srt   # worst 9 + best 3
show = show[~show.index.duplicated()]
show.plot.barh(ax=ax[1], color=['#e76f51' if v < 0.5 else '#2a9d8f' for v in show]); ax[1].set_xlim(0,1)
ax[1].set_title('Per-family recall (worst first; red < 0.5)')
plt.tight_layout(); plt.show()
# Operational numbers, not just figures: false-positive rate and the worst per-family recalls.
tn, fp = int(cm[0,0]), int(cm[0,1])
fpr_op = fp/(fp+tn) if (fp+tn) > 0 else float('nan')             # benign wrongly flagged @0.5
print(f'operational FALSE-POSITIVE RATE @0.5 = {fpr_op:.4f}  ({fp:,} benign flagged of {fp+tn:,})')
print('worst per-family recalls:', {k: round(v, 3) for k, v in srt.head(6).items()})
No description has been provided for this image
No description has been provided for this image
operational FALSE-POSITIVE RATE @0.5 = 0.0037  (2,065 benign flagged of 554,691)
worst per-family recalls: {'Fuzzers': 0.638, 'Analysis': 0.858, 'Shellcode': 0.943, 'Exploits': 0.983, 'DoS': 0.989, 'Backdoors': 0.993}

10. Validity audit — is the score real?¶

Three diagnostics. (a) How well can the single best feature, alone, separate the classes? A near-1.0 single-feature AUC means that feature is near-sufficient — a shortcut (which may be legitimate signal or an artifact), not the same as target leakage. (b) The exact-duplicate row rate. (c) The train/test exact-row contamination — the fraction of held-out rows that are duplicates of training rows, which is what actually inflates a held-out score. The trust grade is the worse of the single-feature and contamination concerns.

In [7]:
# --- Validity audit: is the score real detection, or a data shortcut? ---
from sklearn.metrics import roc_auc_score
samp = X.sample(min(60_000, len(X)), random_state=1); ysamp = y[samp.index]
aucs = {}
for c in feat:                                                    # AUC of EACH feature alone
    col = samp[c].to_numpy(float)
    if col.std()==0: continue
    a = roc_auc_score(ysamp, col); aucs[c] = max(a, 1-a)          # direction-agnostic
best_auc = max(aucs.values()); best_col = max(aucs, key=aucs.get)
dup_rate = 1 - X.drop_duplicates().shape[0]/len(X)               # exact-duplicate feature rows (whole set)
# The statistic that actually inflates a held-out score is TRAIN/TEST CONTAMINATION: how many test
# rows are exact duplicates of a training row. Measure it directly on the split used above.
_trkeys = set(map(tuple, np.round(Xtr.to_numpy(), 6)))
_te = np.round(Xte.to_numpy(), 6)[:50_000]
contam = float(np.mean([tuple(r) in _trkeys for r in _te]))      # fraction of test rows seen in train
# Trust grade reflects BOTH failure modes and takes the WORSE of the two: a near-perfect single
# feature (shortcut) OR heavy train/test contamination each independently invalidate the headline.
_ga = 'F' if best_auc>=0.999 else 'D' if best_auc>=0.99 else 'C' if best_auc>=0.95 else 'B' if best_auc>=0.85 else 'A'
_gc = 'F' if contam>=0.5 else 'D' if contam>=0.3 else 'C' if contam>=0.15 else 'B' if contam>=0.05 else 'A'
grade = max(_ga, _gc)                                            # 'max' letter = worse grade (A best, F worst)
print(f'best single-feature AUC = {best_auc:.4f}  (feature: {best_col})')
print(f'   note: a near-1.0 single-feature AUC means this feature is *near-sufficient* (a shortcut),\n'
      f'   which may be legitimate signal OR an artifact — it is NOT the same as target leakage.')
print(f'exact-duplicate row rate (whole corpus) = {dup_rate:.3f}')
print(f'TRAIN/TEST exact-row contamination       = {contam:.3f}  (single-feat grade {_ga}, contam grade {_gc})')
print(f'==> data trust grade: {grade}   (worse of the two; F = shortcut and/or heavy contamination)')
s = pd.Series(aucs).sort_values().tail(15)
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(8,5))
s.plot.barh(ax=ax, color=['#e76f51' if v>=0.99 else '#457b9d' for v in s]); ax.axvline(0.5,ls='--',c='grey')
ax.set_xlim(0.5,1.0); ax.set_title('Single-feature ROC-AUC (red = near-perfect shortcut)'); ax.set_xlabel('AUC alone')
plt.tight_layout(); plt.show()
best single-feature AUC = 0.9918  (feature: ct_state_ttl)
   note: a near-1.0 single-feature AUC means this feature is *near-sufficient* (a shortcut),
   which may be legitimate signal OR an artifact — it is NOT the same as target leakage.
exact-duplicate row rate (whole corpus) = 0.206
TRAIN/TEST exact-row contamination       = 0.133  (single-feat grade D, contam grade B)
==> data trust grade: D   (worse of the two; F = shortcut and/or heavy contamination)
No description has been provided for this image

11. Ablation — does the headline survive removing the artifacts?¶

Narrating a shortcut is not enough. We retrain the winning model after (1) de-duplicating the corpus (removing the train/test contamination) and (2) dropping the single strongest feature. We report the held-out AUC each time. Read the result honestly, both ways: if the AUC collapses, the headline was a contamination/shortcut artifact. If it barely moves — common on simulated corpora — that is not vindication. It means the classes are separable by many redundant features, because the attack and benign distributions barely overlap. That is its own generation artifact. The numbers below decide which story is true here, not the prose.

In [8]:
# --- Ablation: SHOW the inflation empirically, don't just narrate it ---
from sklearn.base import clone
def _retrain_auc(Xa, ya):                                        # re-split, stratified-subsample, refit best family
    xtr, xte, ytr2, yte2 = train_test_split(Xa, ya, test_size=0.25, random_state=RANDOM_STATE, stratify=ya)
    if len(xtr) > 120_000:
        xtr, _, ytr2, _ = train_test_split(xtr, ytr2, train_size=120_000, random_state=RANDOM_STATE, stratify=ytr2)
    m = clone(best); m.fit(xtr, ytr2)
    return roc_auc_score(yte2, m.predict_proba(xte)[:, 1])
base_auc = roc_auc_score(yte, best.predict_proba(Xte)[:, 1])     # (0) the headline held-out AUC
Xdd = X.drop_duplicates(); ydd = y[Xdd.index]                    # (1) de-duplicated corpus
auc_dedup = _retrain_auc(Xdd, ydd)
auc_noshort = _retrain_auc(X.drop(columns=[best_col]), y) if best_col in X.columns else base_auc  # (2) drop shortcut
ablation = pd.DataFrame([
    {'setting': 'headline (as-is)',              'held_out_auc': round(base_auc, 6)},
    {'setting': f'de-duplicated ({1-len(Xdd)/len(X):.0%} rows removed)', 'held_out_auc': round(auc_dedup, 6)},
    {'setting': f'shortcut feature dropped ({best_col})', 'held_out_auc': round(auc_noshort, 6)},
])
print('Ablation — how much of the headline survives once each artifact is removed:')
ablation
Ablation — how much of the headline survives once each artifact is removed:
Out[8]:
setting held_out_auc
0 headline (as-is) 0.999671
1 de-duplicated (21% rows removed) 0.998731
2 shortcut feature dropped (ct_state_ttl) 0.999659

12. Reproducibility & robustness¶

In [9]:
# --- Reproducibility & robustness ---
import sklearn
from sklearn.model_selection import StratifiedKFold, cross_val_score
print(f'seed={RANDOM_STATE} | numpy {np.__version__} | sklearn {sklearn.__version__} | '
      f'xgboost {xgb.__version__} | lightgbm {lgb.__version__}')
# 3-fold cross-validated ROC-AUC of the winning model (fresh clone, bounded subsample) -> mean +/- std.
from sklearn.base import clone
cvX, cvy = Xtr.iloc[:40_000], ytr[:40_000]
def _auc_scorer(est, Xv, yv):                                   # robust to xgboost's 2-col predict_proba
    p = est.predict_proba(Xv)
    p = p[:, 1] if getattr(p, 'ndim', 1) == 2 else p
    return roc_auc_score(yv, p)
try:
    cv = cross_val_score(clone(best), cvX, cvy,
                         cv=StratifiedKFold(3, shuffle=True, random_state=RANDOM_STATE),
                         scoring=_auc_scorer, error_score='raise')
    assert np.all(np.isfinite(cv)), 'non-finite CV folds'   # FAIL CLOSED: never narrate a NaN as evidence
    print(f'{best_name} 3-fold CV ROC-AUC = {cv.mean():.4f} +/- {cv.std():.4f}  '
          f'(mean +/- std across 3 stratified folds; a small std means a stable estimate on this split)')
except Exception as e:
    print(f'CV UNAVAILABLE ({type(e).__name__}: {str(e)[:60]}); rely on the single held-out AUC above — '
          f'we do NOT report a CV number we could not compute')
seed=0 | numpy 2.3.5 | sklearn 1.9.0 | xgboost 1.6.2 | lightgbm 4.7.0
LightGBM 3-fold CV ROC-AUC = 0.9995 +/- 0.0001  (mean +/- std across 3 stratified folds; a small std means a stable estimate on this split)

13. Scientific conclusion¶

Even on UNSW-NB15 — designed to be more realistic than KDD99 — the learners score high. The ledger below reports the strongest single feature, the duplicate and overlap rates, and what the score does when each is removed. Read it before attributing the result to any one cause. The lesson: a newer benchmark is not automatically a harder one for the model; per-family recall and cross-distribution tests remain the honest evidence.

Validity ledger — read the headline against these printed numbers: Majority-class baseline accuracy: 0.8735. The accuracy column must clear that bar to mean anything. For ROC-AUC the trivial baseline is 0.5, not that figure. Winning learner: LightGBM (3-fold CV ROC-AUC 0.9995). Strongest single feature: ct_state_ttl at AUC 0.9918. The ablation refutes a single-feature story. Dropping that feature barely moves the AUC: 0.999671 → 0.999659. So the separability is multi-feature. That reflects how this corpus was generated, not one leaky column. De-duplication lowers the AUC only slightly, to 0.998731. Repeated rows account for a negligible part of the headline. Data-trust grade: D. It is the worse of two independent sub-checks. Single-feature AUC 0.9918 scores D. Train/test exact-row overlap 0.133 scores B. The single-feature check drives the grade, not the overlap check. Train/test overlap separately scores B, so overlap is not the issue here. On this A-best / F-worst scale, a D or F means the headline is optimistic. Treat it as a benchmark number, not a deployment estimate. Operational false-positive rate at threshold 0.5: 0.0037. Worst per-group recalls, exactly as printed: {Fuzzers: 0.638, Analysis: 0.858, Shellcode: 0.943, Exploits: 0.983, DoS: 0.989, Backdoors: 0.993}. The weakest group sits at 0.638, which is where detection is thinnest. Disclosed limitation: categorical columns are integer-encoded before the split. The encoder therefore sees the test set's category values. On an all-numeric corpus that step is a no-op. The mapping never consults the label, so no label information leaks. It is still transductive. A deployed system would need an unseen-category bucket. How the audit numbers are computed: overlap is measured on the first 50,000 held-out rows, so read it as a sampled estimate. Each ablation re-splits and refits, so tiny differences are re-split noise. The de-duplication variant keeps the first label when a feature vector appears twice. Scope: the split is random, not temporal or entity-grouped. Every number above therefore measures in-distribution separability only.

References¶

  1. Moustafa, N. & Slay, J. (2015). UNSW-NB15: a comprehensive data set for network intrusion detection systems. MilCIS.
  2. Moustafa, N. & Slay, J. (2016). The evaluation of Network Anomaly Detection Systems: statistical analysis of the UNSW-NB15 data set. Info. Security J.
  3. Sommer, R. & Paxson, V. (2010). Outside the Closed World: On Using Machine Learning for Network Intrusion Detection. IEEE S&P.
  4. Engelen, G., Rimmer, V. & Joosen, W. (2021). Troubleshooting an Intrusion Detection Dataset: the CICIDS2017 Case Study. IEEE S&P Workshops.