Journals / Journal of AI / 2026 / Issue: 10

An Explainable Machine Learning Framework for Cybersecurity in Smart Agriculture: Intrusion Detection, XAI, and a Conceptual Generative AI Communication Layer

Shanzhen Gao(Virginia State University)0000-0002-3856-2530
Weizheng Gao(Elizabeth City State University)0009-0003-5078-6283
Ephrem Eyob(Virginia State University)0000-0003-3590-0028
Ju Hyeong Jin(Virginia State University)0000-0002-6653-7383
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-22
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study contributes a transparent and reproducible benchmark framework that can support future domain-specific validation in smart agriculture cybersecurity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Smart agriculture increasingly depends on Internet of Things (IoT) devices, networked sensors, cloud platforms, and data-driven decision systems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The empirical evaluation focuses on the detection and explainability components of the framework, using a consolidated NSL-KDD dataset created by merging CSV-formatted versions corresponding to KDDTrain+.TXT and KDDTest+.TXT and then applying a stratified 80/20 train-test split.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study contributes a transparent and reproducible benchmark framework that can support future domain-specific validation in smart agriculture cybersecurity.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Smart agriculture · Agriculture 4.0 · cybersecurity

Abstract

Smart agriculture increasingly depends on Internet of Things (IoT) devices, networked sensors, cloud platforms, and data-driven decision systems. These technologies improve agricultural productivity and monitoring, but they also expand the attack surface of farm cyber-physical systems. This study proposes a benchmark-based explainable machine learning framework for intrusion detection in smart agriculture. The empirical evaluation focuses on the detection and explainability components of the framework, using a consolidated NSL-KDD dataset created by merging CSV-formatted versions corresponding to KDDTrain+.TXT and KDDTest+.TXT and then applying a stratified 80/20 train-test split. After binary target construction, the dataset contains 77,053 normal records and 71,463 attack records. Random Forest and XGBoost models were trained and evaluated for binary intrusion detection. Random Forest achieved an accuracy of 0.9958 and an AUC of 0.9998, while XGBoost achieved an accuracy of 0.9959 and an AUC of 0.9999 under the custom experimental design. SHAP and LIME were used to interpret global feature contributions and local prediction behavior. The strongest signals included traffic-volume variables, service indicators, login-related variables, and host-based traffic statistics. These high values are interpreted cautiously because the study uses a merged and resampled benchmark setting rather than canonical NSL-KDD validation or real agricultural IoT traffic. The generative AI communication component is framed as a future user-centered extension rather than an empirically evaluated contribution. The study contributes a transparent and reproducible benchmark framework that can support future domain-specific validation in smart agriculture cybersecurity.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gao, S., Gao, W., Eyob, E., Jin, J. H. (2026). An Explainable Machine Learning Framework for Cybersecurity in Smart Agriculture: Intrusion Detection, XAI, and a Conceptual Generative AI Communication Layer. Journal of AI, Issue: 10. https://ajindex.com/articles/1636307

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Aldhyani, T. H. H., & Alkahtani, H. (2023). Cyber security for detecting distributed denial of service attacks in Agriculture 4.0: Deep learning model. Mathematics, 11(1), Article 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11010233
  2. Barredo Arrieta, A., Diaz-Rodriguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges. Information Fusion, 58, 82-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
  3. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
  4. Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 785-794). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785
  5. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (n.d.-a). Food and agriculture sector. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved April 1, 2026, from https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/food-and-agriculture-sector
  6. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (n.d.-b). Food and agriculture cybersecurity checklist and resources. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved April 1, 2026, from https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/food-and-agriculture-cybersecurity-checklist-and-resources
  7. Demestichas, K., Peppes, N., Alexakis, T., & Adamopoulou, E. (2020). Survey on security threats in agricultural IoT and smart farming. Sensors, 20(22), Article 6458. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20226458
  8. Dhanabal, L., & Shantharajah, S. P. (2015). A study on NSL-KDD dataset for intrusion detection system based on classification algorithms. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 4(6), 446-452.
  9. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., et al. (2023). 'So what if ChatGPT wrote it?' Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges, and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  10. Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010
  11. Ferrag, M. A., Maglaras, L., Moschoyiannis, S., & Janicke, H. (2020). Deep learning for cyber security intrusion detection: Approaches, datasets, and comparative study. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 50, Article 102419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2019.102419
  12. Ferrag, M. A., Shu, L., Friha, O., & Yang, X. (2022). Cyber security intrusion detection for Agriculture 4.0: Machine learning-based solutions, datasets, and future directions. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 9(3), 407-436. https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2021.1004344
  13. Gao, S., Gao, W., Malomo, O., Allagan, J. D., Eyob, E., Challa, C., & Su, J. (2024). Exploring the interplay between AI and human logic in mathematical problem-solving. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 12(1), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.36965/OJAKM.2024.12(1)73-93
  14. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.
  15. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
  16. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
  17. KDD Cup 1999 Task Description. (n.d.). KDD Cup 1999: Computer network intrusion detection. SIGKDD. https://kdd.org/kdd-cup/view/kdd-cup-1999/Tasks
  18. Kethineni, K., & Pradeepini, G. (2024). Intrusion detection in internet of things-based smart farming using hybrid deep learning framework. Cluster Computing, 27, 1719-1732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-023-04052-4
  19. Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90-91, Article 100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315
  20. Liakos, K. G., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S., & Bochtis, D. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18(8), Article 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082674
  21. Low, C. H. (n.d.-a). KDDTrain+.csv [Data file]. GitHub. https://github.com/Jehuty4949/NSL_KDD/blob/master/KDDTrain%2B.csv
  22. Low, C. H. (n.d.-b). KDDTest+.csv [Data file]. GitHub. https://github.com/Jehuty4949/NSL_KDD/blob/master/KDDTest%2B.csv
  23. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In I. Guyon et al. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 30). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.07874
  24. Malomo, O. O., Gao, S., Adekoya, A. A., Donald, A. M., Andrews Jr., T., Allagan, J. D., Gao, W., Su, J., & Eyob, E. (2025). Toward human-centric cybersecurity: Case study insights and the HuCRAF model. International Journal of Cybersecurity and Risk Assessment, 1(1), 1-61. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCRA.389592
  25. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1
  26. OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774
  27. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
  28. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). 'Why should I trust you?' Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 1135-1144). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778
  29. Sommer, R., & Paxson, V. (2010). Outside the closed world: On using machine learning for network intrusion detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 305-316). https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2010.25
  30. Tavallaee, M., Bagheri, E., Lu, W., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2009). A detailed analysis of the KDD CUP 99 data set. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications (pp. 1-6). https://doi.org/10.1109/CISDA.2009.5356528
  31. University of New Brunswick. (n.d.). ISCX NSL-KDD dataset. Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity. https://www.unb.ca/cic/datasets/nsl.html
  32. Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., & Bogaardt, M. J. (2017). Big data in smart farming: A review. Agricultural Systems, 153, 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023