A Three-Axis Stress Test of LLM vs Classical ML for Network Intrusion Detection under Distribution Shift and Adversarial Evasion
Large language models are increasingly benchmarked against classical machine learning for network intrusion detection (NIDS), almost always using same-dataset evaluation, and that protocol turns out to be incomplete. Evaluating XGBoost and RoBERTa-LoRA on two independently collected NetFlow v2 networks across three axes (same-dataset performance, cross-dataset transfer, and adversarial evasion) reveals no universal winner. The two models are statistically tied same-dataset. XGBoost wins decisively under cross-dataset distribution shift, by 15 points of F1 and 25 points of balanced accuracy; on the target network RoBERTa-LoRA's false positive rate reaches 0.78, leaving it barely above chance despite a superficially moderate F1. RoBERTa-LoRA wins decisively under adversarial evasion, by roughly 17 points of F1 at a representative mid-range perturbation strength, while both models hold false positive rates below 0.01 throughout. The model an evaluator would recommend therefore depends entirely on which axis is tested, not on same-dataset accuracy alone. A staged feature-leakage ablation improves cross-dataset transfer non-monotonically, indicating the leakage signal is distributed across the feature representation rather than confined to a few columns, and cross-dataset transfer between our two networks is strongly directional. These results argue for evaluating NIDS models along multiple independent robustness axes, and with more than one metric per axis.