CoLIME with 2D Copulas for Reliable Local Explanations on Imbalanced Network Data
Source abstract
Abstract
Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) is a widely used technique for interpreting individual predictions of complex “black-box” models by fitting a simple surrogate model to synthetic perturbations of the input. However, its standard perturbation strategy of sampling features independently from a Gaussian distribution often generates unrealistic samples and neglects inter-feature dependencies. This can lead to low local fidelity (poor approximation of the model’s behavior) and unstable explanations across different runs. This paper presents CoLIME, which is a copula-based perturbation generation framework for LIME, designed to capture the underlying data distribution and inter-feature dependencies more accurately. The framework employs bivariate (2D) copula models to jointly sample correlated features while fitting suitable marginal distributions for individual features. Furthermore, perturbation localization strategies were implemented, restricting perturbations to a defined local radius and maintaining specific property values to ensure that the synthesized samples remain representative of the actual local environment. The proposed approach was evaluated on a network intrusion detection dataset, comparing the fidelity and stability of LIME under Gaussian versus copula-based perturbations, using Ridge regression as the surrogate explainer. Empirically, for the most dependent feature pairs, CoLIME increases mean surrogate fidelity by 21.84–50.31% on the merged CIC-IDS2017/2018 dataset and by 29.28–60.24% on the UNSW-NB15 dataset. Stability is similarly improved, with mean Jaccard similarity gains of 3.78–5.45% and 1.95–2.12%, respectively. These improvements demonstrate that dependency-preserving perturbations provide a significantly more reliable foundation for explaining complex network intrusion detection models.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Advanced Graph Neural Networks · Network Security and Intrusion Detection
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Applied Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology, 51368 Kaunas, Lithuania
Department of Mathematical Modeling, Kaunas University of Technology, 51368 Kaunas, Lithuania
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. Krzhizhanovskaya, V.V., Závodszky, G., Lees, M.H., Dongarra, J.J., Sloot, P.M.A., Brissos, S., and Teixeira, J. (2020, January 3–5). On the Impact of Network Data Balancing in Cybersecurity Applications. Proceedings of the Computational Science—ICCS 2020, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.10.1007/978-3-030-50423-6 ↗
2. Nebaba, A.N., Savvas, I.K., Butakova, M.A., Chernov, A.V., and Shevchuk, P.S. (2022). Improving Multiclass Classification of Cybersecurity Breaches in Railway Infrastructure Using Imbalanced Learning, Association for Computing Machinery.
3. Bacevicius, M., and Paulauskaite-Taraseviciene, A. (2023). Machine Learning Algorithms for Raw and Unbalanced Intrusion Detection Data in a Multi-Class Classification Problem. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13127328 ↗
4. Network intrusion detection using feature fusion with deep learning10.1186/s40537-023-00834-0 ↗
5. Detecting Unbalanced Network Traffic Intrusions With Deep Learning10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3405187 ↗
6. Learning From Few Cyber-Attacks: Addressing the Class Imbalance Problem in Machine Learning-Based Intrusion Detection in Software-Defined Networking10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3341755 ↗
7. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016). “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. arXiv.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
8. A comprehensive study on fidelity metrics for XAI10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103900 ↗
9. GLIME: General, Stable and Local LIME Explanation
10. Guidotti, R., Schmid, U., and Longo, L. (2025, January 9–11). Which LIME Should I Trust? Concepts, Challenges, and Solutions. Proceedings of the Explainable Artificial Intelligence, Istanbul, Turkey.
11. Zhou, Z., Hooker, G., and Wang, F. (2021, January 14–18). S-LIME: Stabilized-LIME for Model Explanation. Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event.10.1145/3447548.3467274 ↗
12. A Novel Metric for Evaluating the Stability of XAI Explanations10.25046/aj090113 ↗
13. Saarela, M., and Geogieva, L. (2022). Robustness, Stability, and Fidelity of Explanations for a Deep Skin Cancer Classification Model. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12199545 ↗
14. Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity (CIC), University of New Brunswick (2025, November 09). Datasets-Research. Available online: https://www.unb.ca/cic/datasets/index.html.
15. Tan, Z., Tian, Y., and Li, J. (2023). GLIME: General, Stable and Local LIME Explanation. arXiv.
16. Deterministic Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations for stable explainability10.3390/make3030027 ↗
17. Copula-based synthetic data augmentation for machine-learning emulators10.5194/gmd-14-5205-2021 ↗
18. Haugh, M. (2016). An Introduction to Copulas. IEOR E4602: Quantitative Risk Management, Columbia University. Lecture Notes.
19. Dependence properties of bivariate copula families10.1515/demo-2024-0002 ↗
20. Shankaranarayana, S.M., and Runje, D. (2019). ALIME: Autoencoder Based Approach for Local Interpretability. arXiv.10.1007/978-3-030-33607-3_49 ↗
21. US-LIME: Increasing fidelity in LIME using uncertainty sampling on tabular data10.1016/j.neucom.2024.127969 ↗
22. Improving local fidelity and interpretability of LIME by replacing only the sampling process with CVAE10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3553505 ↗
23. Sharafaldin, I., Habibi Lashkari, A., and Ghorbani, A.A. (2018, January 22–24). Toward generating a new intrusion detection dataset and intrusion traffic characterization. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy, Funchal, Spain.10.5220/0006639801080116 ↗
24. Mohammadian, H., Habibi Lashkari, A., and Ghorbani, A.A. (2024, January 28–30). Poisoning and Evasion: Deep Learning-Based NIDS under Adversarial Attacks. Proceedings of the 2024 21st Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), Sydney, Australia.10.1109/PST62714.2024.10788064 ↗
25. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
26. Classification and regression by randomForest
27. Chen, C., Liaw, A., and Breiman, L. (2004). Using Random Forest to Learn Imbalanced Data, University of California.
28. Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.01.011 ↗
29. A parallel random forest algorithm for big data in a spark cloud computing environment10.1109/TPDS.2016.2603511 ↗
30. Exploring Key XGBoost Hyperparameters: A Study on Optimal Search Spaces and Practical Recommendations for Regression and Classification
31. Imani, M., Beikmohammadi, A., and Arabnia, H.R. (2025). Comprehensive analysis of random forest and XGBoost performance with SMOTE, ADASYN, and GNUS under varying imbalance levels. Technologies, 13.10.20944/preprints202501.2274.v1 ↗
32. Kapoor, S., and Perrone, V. (2021). A simple and fast baseline for tuning large XGBoost models. arXiv.
33. A review of ensemble learning and data augmentation models for class imbalanced problems: Combination, implementation and evaluation10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122778 ↗
34. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization
35. Pair-copula constructions of multiple dependence10.1016/j.insmatheco.2007.02.001 ↗
36. Probability Density Decomposition for Conditionally Dependent Random Variables Modeled by Vines10.1023/A:1016725902970 ↗
37. Vines-A new graphical model for dependent random variables10.1214/aos/1031689016 ↗
38. Kurowicka, D., and Cooke, R.M. (2005). Distribution-Free Continuous Bayesian Belief Nets. Modern Statistical and Mathematical Methods in Reliability, World Scientific.10.1142/9789812703378_0022 ↗