Table 1 Summary of recent deep learning-based IDS techniques in WSNs (2022–2025).
Ref. | Technique used | Key findings | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
Deep Neural Networks (DNN) | Achieved 96.23% accuracy using DNNs on WSN-specific datasets. | High computational cost; limited suitability for real-time systems. | |
Deep Learning-based IDS | Demonstrated improved detection performance over classic models. | Risk of overfitting and large data dependency. | |
Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) | Surveyed DRL-based methods for IoT and WSN intrusion detection. | High implementation complexity; poor scalability in constrained devices. | |
Online Ensemble Learning | Achieved 97.2% detection accuracy under dynamic traffic. | May underperform under concept drift. | |
LSTM Autoencoder | Outperformed classical ML models on UNSW-NB15 and BoT-IoT datasets. | High resource demand limits use in edge WSNs. | |
CNN + GANomaly + K-means | Hybrid model boosted detection performance. | Complex architecture; longer training duration. | |
Federated Self-supervised Learning | Privacy-preserving IDS with distributed training. | Increased communication cost and device coordination. | |
ML-based Survey | Comprehensive taxonomy of IDS models for WSNs. | Lacks implementation details and validation. | |
Transformer + CNN + VAE-LSTM | Achieved 99.83% accuracy on Kitsune dataset. | Computationally intensive and power-hungry. | |
Anomaly Detection Survey | Reviewed anomaly detection techniques for IoT/WSNs. | Broad coverage; limited WSN-specific analysis. |