## 4 Evaluation
### Discussion  
Section 4.4 presents a performance evaluation of our approach. We designed two different experiments to evaluate our approach. The first experiment was designed to evaluate detecting mutants of existing attacks (subclasses of attacks). This was designed to addresses situations where attackers introduce some variations of a known existing attack to evade detection. We hypothesized that finding good representations using existing known similar attacks will enable the model to detect a novel mutant of that attack by using a few examples since attack mutants share similar attributes. Thus, our feature extractor would be able to discover the manifold of a broader class of such attacks.  
Figures 1-3 in Section 4.4 present the results of our experiment, which prove our hypothesis. As we were able to detect several mutants with an excellent detection rate using only a few shot examples. We achieved up to 99.9% DR on the Neptune  
The more powerful the representations, the smaller the number of training samples required. This concludes that our feature extractor model is able to discover the manifold of optimal representations, which causes the DR to slightly depends on the number of examples.  
We also compared our approach with the baseline models, which comprised the DL model and the classical ML, as shown in Figures 4-6. The baseline models were trained on the full dataset.  
As can be observed from the results, our approach performed competitively with the baseline models. On all the datasets, our model was on par with, or slightly worse than, the baseline models, despite being trained on few-shot examples.  
The second experiment was designed to discover whether it was possible to learn representations that would be useful in detecting any class of attack, when re-trained with few-shot examples of that attack. The results of the experiment are presented in Figures 6 and 7. Our model performed reasonably well in detecting certain classes of attacks. For instance, our model achieved detection rates of 90% and 89% for DoS classes in both the NSL-KDD and CIC-IDS2017 datasets. This shows that our feature extractor still learns some useful representations to detect these classes of attacks. However, it performs poorly in detecting other classes, such as R2L and U2R, from NSL-KDD (Figure 7), where the detection rate was 66% and 0.0%, respectively. Similarly, it failed to achieve good detection rates for both FTP-Patator and SSH-Patator attack classes for the CIC-IDS2017 dataset (Figure 8), scoring 34.8% and 47.6%, respectively. Therefore, as expected, there was a drop in overall performance for our model compared to the results of experiment 1. This was due to the fact that our feature extractor tries to discover a singular representation for identification, based on the different classes of attacks observed in the meta-training stage. However, it is difficult to discover such representations due to the diverse nature of the attacks in the meta-training set. Since attacks differ in purpose and implementation, for instance, the DoS attack class tries to shut down traffic flow to and from a target system, a U2R attack tries to gain access to the system or network, an R2L attack tries to gain access to the remote machine, while attacks such as probe try to get information from a network, we assumed that these attack types are too diverse to allow our feature extractor to learn singular representations for identification that can enable excellent detection when trained with a few examples.