MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403721651 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3486180

File Fragment Type Classification Using Light-Weight Convolutional Neural Networks

2024· article· en· W4403721651 on OpenAlexaff
Muhamad Felemban, Mustafa Ghaleb, Kunwar Muhammed Saaim, Saleh M. Al‐Saleh, Ahmad Almulhem

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkFragment (logic)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In digital forensics, file carving is used to extract files without relying on the underlying file system metadata. This process can be challenging if the file is fragmented. Therefore, it is important first to identify the type of file fragment. There exist several techniques to identify the type of file fragments without relying on metadata, for example, using headers and footers to identify the fragment type. Recently, convolutional neural network (CNN) models have been used to build classification models to achieve this task. Existing models for file fragment type classification often require significant computational resources due to their large number of parameters, leading to slower inference times and higher memory consumption. To address these challenges, we propose light-weight file fragment type classification models based on separable CNNs that maintain comparable accuracy while reducing computational demands. Our proposed light-weight file fragment type classification model leverages depthwise separable convolutions to improve the efficiency of feature extraction while reducing computational overhead. This approach leads to improved classification performance by focusing on the most relevant features within file fragments, achieving comparable accuracy to state-of-the-art models with significantly fewer parameters. The evaluation results demonstrate the model’s effectiveness, with a 79% accuracy on the FFT-75 dataset using nearly 100K parameters and 164M FLOPs —representing a 4x reduction in model size and a 6x improvement in speed over the best-performing existing classifier. Our results demonstrate that these light-weight models are effective for real-time digital forensic applications where computational efficiency is critical.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicDigital and Cyber ForensicsFrench-language works237,207