MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991454038

Graph Neural Network for Early DDoS Detection: Evaluating the Impact of Progressive Node Reduction in Flow Graphs

2025· article· en· W6991454038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Rock Art Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenial-of-service attackFlow networkNetwork packetGraphDynamic network analysisFlooding (psychology)Network monitoringApplication layer DDoS attack
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks represent a significant threat to network intrusion, often overwhelming systems by flooding them with traffic. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have grown as powerful tools in detecting cyberattacks due to their ability to effectively model and analyze network traffic as graphs. This thesis explores how progressively reducing the number of nodes in flow graphs influences the detection capabilities of a GNN in identifying DDoS attacks. The CICIDS2017 dataset provided by the Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity, widely utilized in cybersecurity research, was employed for experiments. Due to limitations in the dataset’s aggregated format, packet flows between IP addresses were artificially simulated. Endpoint graphs were constructed by sequentially reducing nodes to represent earlier stages of network interactions, simulating scenarios where only partial traffic flows are observable. A Graph Isomorphism Network (GIN) was chosen for its known effectiveness in capturing complex graph structures. Experimental results revealed that the accuracy of the GNN decreased progressively from 93.50\% (full graph) down to 80.27\% when only 10\% of the nodes were retained. This finding highlights a significant relationship between graph completeness and detection accuracy, demonstrating that GNNs become progressively less effective when provided with fewer nodes from the early stages of network communication. Furthermore, the study identifies a limitation related to the structural simplicity among generated graphs, suggesting that increased variation and complexity could lead to higher accuracy.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.339 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)Same topicArchaeology and Rock Art StudiesFrench-language works237,207