MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412567135 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3591381

Segmented Learning for Metaverse Network Traffic Classification

2025· article· en· W4412567135 on OpenAlexafffund
Yoga Suhas Kuruba Manjunath, Lian Zhao, Xiao–Ping Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel two-staged segmented learning framework to enhance network traffic classification (NTC) for 5G and beyond (B5G)-driven enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) applications, including Metaverse traffic. The first stage improves classification speed and accuracy for eMBB traffic, and the second stage extends its capability to classify the more complex and dynamic Metaverse network traffic. We introduce Essential Vector Representation (EVR) and Frame Vector Representation (FVR) feature engineering methods. These methods reduce inference time and preserve privacy by leveraging application-level features such as transmission time, packet length, direction, and inter-arrival time. The outputs from EVR and FVR are classified using our Augmentation, Aggregation, and Retention-Online Training (A2R-OT) algorithm, which enhances adaptive online learning, improving accuracy and efficiency. Additionally, we construct a comprehensive real-world Metaverse network traffic dataset to address the lack of publicly available Metaverse traffic data. To our knowledge, this is the first framework to integrate eMBB and Metaverse traffic classification. Our approach achieves a 6% improvement over state-of-the-art solutions, advancing network traffic management (NTM) for B5G networks.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207