aiqbench analysis
This research exposes a critical vulnerability in compressed IoT intrusion detectors where uniform layer-wise pruning causes the input layer to "starve," leading to catastrophic model collapse and severe misclassification of attack types. The study demonstrates that protecting specific input weights or recomputing normalization statistics offers low-overhead fixes, restoring detection accuracy without requiring extensive retraining. For practitioners deploying lightweight AI security models, this highlights the necessity of evaluating per-class performance rather than relying solely on aggregate accuracy metrics when applying compression techniques.
Input-Layer Starvation: Why Per-Layer Pruning Breaks IoT Intrusion Detectors
arXiv:2609.30729v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Intrusion detectors for small Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices are usually compressed by pruning and judged by overall accuracy. We show that this hides a severe class-level failure, find its cause, and give low-overhead prevention and repair. On CICIoT2023, a two-layer convolutional detector pruned with uniform layer-wise magnitude pruning at 80% sparsity loses 16 points of accuracy but half of its macro-F1, the mean per-class F1 (0.542 to 0.271 over five independently trained models); 17 of 34 classes are materially damaged. Remaining weight count does not explain it: a perceptron and a transformer pruned to the same or fewer weights lose at most 0.096. The first layer does. It has 192 weights; uniform pruning leaves 38, 46% of its 64 filters lose every input weight, and fine-tuning under that starvation leaves the running means of the first normalisation layer displaced by up to 0.8 standard deviations in a few surviving channels, on which the deployed model collapses. Protecting those 192 weights, or pruning globally at the same sparsity, prevents the collapse (loss 0.013); recomputing the normalisation statistics on unlabelled training data, with no weight changed, repairs it (loss 0.039) and returns the false-alert rate to 33% (dense 29%). Damage shows a strong increasing dose-response in first-layer sparsity, starving a perceptron's input layer reproduces the collapse, and the pattern holds on TON_IoT. The failure is misattribution and false alerts, not silent evasion: on validation-selected blind spots, uniformly pruned detectors misattribute 72% of the traffic, against 50% with the first layer protected and 47% for the dense model.
Abstract:Intrusion detectors for small Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices are usually compressed by pruning and judged by overall accuracy. We show that this hides a severe class-level failure, find its cause, and give low-overhead prevention and repair. On CICIoT2023, a two-layer convolutional detector pruned with uniform layer-wise magnitude pruning at 80% sparsity loses 16 points of accuracy but half of its macro-F1, the mean per-class F1 (0.542 to 0.271 over five independently trained models); 17 of 34 classes are materially damaged. Remaining weight count does not explain it: a perceptron and a transformer pruned to the same or fewer weights lose at most 0.096. The first layer does. It has 192 weights; uniform pruning leaves 38, 46% of its 64 filters lose every input weight, and fine-tuning under that starvation leaves the running means of the first normalisation layer displaced by up to 0.8 standard deviations in a few surviving channels, on which the deployed model collapses. Protecting those 192 weights, or pruning globally at the same sparsity, prevents the collapse (loss 0.013); recomputing the normalisation statistics on unlabelled training data, with no weight changed, repairs it (loss 0.039) and returns the false-alert rate to 33% (dense 29%). Damage shows a strong increasing dose-response in first-layer sparsity, starving a perceptron's input layer reproduces the collapse, and the pattern holds on TON_IoT. The failure is misattribution and false alerts, not silent evasion: on validation-selected blind spots, uniformly pruned detectors misattribute 72% of the traffic, against 50% with the first layer protected and 47% for the dense model.
38 pages including a 15-page supplement; 12 main tables, 4 figures. Code and results: this https URL
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.30729 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2609.30729v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.30729 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 369 words
Related coverage
Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
Presentation: From S3 to GPU in One Copy: Rethinking Data Loading for ML Training
InfoQ · Sep 4, 2026
[AINews] Reflection Beam - 501B-A23B American Open Model
Latent Space · Oct 6, 2026
Hiding in Plain Floats: Steganographic Carriers for Indirect Prompt and Content Injection
arXiv · Jun 9, 2026