A Comparative Analysis of Semi-Supervised Learning in Detecting Burst Header Packet Flooding Attack in Optical Burst Switching Network
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
This paper presents a comparative analysis of four semi-supervised machine learning (SSML) algorithms for detecting malicious nodes in an optical burst switching (OBS) network. The SSML approaches include a modified version of K-means clustering, a Gaussian mixture model (GMM), a classical self-training (ST) model, and a modified version of self-training (MST) model. All the four approaches work in semi-supervised fashion, while the MST uses an ensemble of classifiers for the final decision making. SSML approaches are particularly useful when a limited number of labeled data is available for training and validation of the classification model. Manual labeling of a large dataset is complex and time consuming. It is even worse for the OBS network data. SSML can be used to leverage the unlabeled data for making a better prediction than using a smaller set of labelled data. We evaluated the performance of four SSML approaches for two (Behaving, Not-behaving), three (Behaving, Not-behaving, and Potentially Not-behaving), and four (No-Block, Block, NB- wait and NB-No-Block) class classifications using precision, recall, and F1 score. In case of the two-class classification, the K-means and GMM-based approaches performed better than the others. In case of the three-class classification, the K-means and the classical ST approaches performed better than the others. In case of the four-class classification, the MST showed the best performance. Finally, the SSML approaches were compared with two supervised learning (SL) based approaches. The comparison results showed that the SSML based approaches outperform when a smaller sized labeled data is available to train the classification models.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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