Learning on Class Imbalanced Data to Classify Peer-to-Peer Applications in IP Traffic using Resampling Techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many applications, one class of data is presented by a large number of examples while the other only by a few. For instance, in our previous works on identification of peer-to-peer (P2P) Internet traffics, we observed that only about 30% of examples can be labeled as ldquoP2Prdquo using a port-based heuristic rule, and even fewer examples can be labeled in the future as more and more P2P applications use dynamic ports. In this paper, the effect of three resampling techniques on balancing the class distribution in training C4.5 and neural networks for identifying P2P traffic is studied. The experimental data were captured at our campus gateway. Nine datasets with different percentages of ldquoP2Prdquo examples and six datasets of different sizes with an actual percentage of about 30% of ldquoP2Prdquo examples are used in the experiments. The results show that resampling techniques are effective and stable, and random over-sampling is a quite good choice for P2P traffic identification considering a combination of the classification performance and time complexity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it