Learning Failure-Inducing Models for Testing Software-Defined Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software-defined networks (SDN) enable flexible and effective communication systems that are managed by centralized software controllers. However, such a controller can undermine the underlying communication network of an SDN-based system and thus must be carefully tested. When an SDN-based system fails, in order to address such a failure, engineers need to precisely understand the conditions under which it occurs. In this article, we introduce a machine learning-guided fuzzing method, named FuzzSDN, aiming at both (1) generating effective test data leading to failures in SDN-based systems and (2) learning accurate failure-inducing models that characterize conditions under which such system fails. To our knowledge, no existing work simultaneously addresses these two objectives for SDNs. We evaluate FuzzSDN by applying it to systems controlled by two open-source SDN controllers. Furthermore, we compare FuzzSDN with two state-of-the-art methods for fuzzing SDNs and two baselines for learning failure-inducing models. Our results show that (1) compared to the state-of-the-art methods, FuzzSDN generates at least 12 times more failures, within the same time budget, with a controller that is fairly robust to fuzzing and (2) our failure-inducing models have, on average, a precision of 98% and a recall of 86%, significantly outperforming the baselines.
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".