analiza aiqbench
This study exposes a critical flaw in encrypted traffic classification benchmarks, revealing that standard evaluation protocols artificially inflate accuracy by up to 43% due to data leakage between train and test sets. The authors demonstrate that performance is highly sensitive to the specific axis used to split packet captures, with server-disjoint splitting causing significant degradation compared to other methods. By introducing simple identifier-based diagnostics, the paper provides a necessary framework for validating future models on realistic, non-leaked datasets.
The Split Protocol Decides the Result: Re-Evaluating Encrypted Traffic Classification
arXiv:2611.06290v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Encrypted traffic classifiers are routinely reported at 95-99% accuracy. We show that on one of two public corpora, the same model and code score macro-F1 0.992 under the evaluation protocol standard in the literature and 0.567 under a protocol that keeps flows from one packet capture on one side of the split. Nothing changes but the partition (gap 0.426 over eight seeds, p = 0.008 after Holm-Bonferroni correction). The inflation is not a property of random splitting as such. On a month of backbone QUIC traffic, we evaluate five split protocols at eight seeds each: random, temporal and client-disjoint splitting are statistically indistinguishable from session-disjoint, while server-disjoint splitting costs 0.192 macro-F1 (d = 17.0, p = 0.008). Which axis matters depends on how the corpus was collected, in a way invisible from its label space. We give a diagnostic that identifies the right axis before any model is trained: single-identifier probes. A decision tree on the capture identifier alone reaches 0.983 under a random split and exactly 0.000 under session-disjoint splitting. Under this evaluation, a metric-trained flow embedding leads four deep baselines but does not beat gradient-boosted trees on twenty packet sizes. Five of our own pre-registered architectural claims fail: distance-based rejection of unknown applications beats softmax thresholding, but ablating every metric objective makes rejection better, because class separation correlates at r = -0.88 with rejection quality. Few-shot enrollment is flat within a corpus but, across corpora, five labelled flows per class recover 91% of the deficit left by failed zero-shot transfer. All splits, results, code and negative findings are released.
Abstract:Encrypted traffic classifiers are routinely reported at 95-99% accuracy. We show that on one of two public corpora, the same model and code score macro-F1 0.992 under the evaluation protocol standard in the literature and 0.567 under a protocol that keeps flows from one packet capture on one side of the split. Nothing changes but the partition (gap 0.426 over eight seeds, p = 0.008 after Holm-Bonferroni correction). The inflation is not a property of random splitting as such. On a month of backbone QUIC traffic, we evaluate five split protocols at eight seeds each: random, temporal and client-disjoint splitting are statistically indistinguishable from session-disjoint, while server-disjoint splitting costs 0.192 macro-F1 (d = 17.0, p = 0.008). Which axis matters depends on how the corpus was collected, in a way invisible from its label space. We give a diagnostic that identifies the right axis before any model is trained: single-identifier probes. A decision tree on the capture identifier alone reaches 0.983 under a random split and exactly 0.000 under session-disjoint splitting. Under this evaluation, a metric-trained flow embedding leads four deep baselines but does not beat gradient-boosted trees on twenty packet sizes. Five of our own pre-registered architectural claims fail: distance-based rejection of unknown applications beats softmax thresholding, but ablating every metric objective makes rejection better, because class separation correlates at r = -0.88 with rejection quality. Few-shot enrollment is flat within a corpus but, across corpora, five labelled flows per class recover 91% of the deficit left by failed zero-shot transfer. All splits, results, code and negative findings are released.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2611.06290 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2611.06290v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.06290 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 358 cuvinte