Learning on Class Imbalanced Data to Classify Peer-to-Peer Applications in IP Traffic using Resampling Techniques
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".