MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121973001 · doi:10.1145/1162678.1162679

Traffic classification using clustering algorithms

2006· article· en· W2121973001 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDBSCANCluster analysisData miningTraffic classificationPayload (computing)AlgorithmInternet trafficPort (circuit theory)The InternetArtificial intelligenceMachine learningFuzzy clusteringComputer networkCURE data clustering algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classification of network traffic using port-based or payload-based analysis is becoming increasingly difficult with many peer-to-peer (P2P) applications using dynamic port numbers, masquerading techniques, and encryption to avoid detection. An alternative approach is to classify traffic by exploiting the distinctive characteristics of applications when they communicate on a network. We pursue this latter approach and demonstrate how cluster analysis can be used to effectively identify groups of traffic that are similar using only transport layer statistics. Our work considers two unsupervised clustering algorithms, namely K-Means and DBSCAN, that have previously not been used for network traffic classification. We evaluate these two algorithms and compare them to the previously used AutoClass algorithm, using empirical Internet traces. The experimental results show that both K-Means and DBSCAN work very well and much more quickly then AutoClass. Our results indicate that although DBSCAN has lower accuracy compared to K-Means and AutoClass, DBSCAN produces better clusters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it