LiteNet: Lightweight network traffic classification using explainable artificial intelligence and model compression


Abstract

Background. Network Traffic Classification (NTC) is a critical process in network management as it increases visibility to provide enhanced security, optimised resource allocation, and quality of service. However, the escalating volume of network traffic and real-time applications in modern networking is straining traditional processing on high-performance servers. To meet modern requirements for low latency and bandwidth efficiency, network management is increasingly moving computation closer to sources that generate the data, a paradigm referred to as edge computing. This shift relies on resource-constrained devices such as routers, switches, and embedded systems. To address these constraints, researchers proposed lightweight NTC models designed to operate effectively in such environments. However, while these methods offer greater efficiency, they often compromise performance, making the models less effective in practice. Furthermore, despite being lightweight, the throughput of current NTC models remains insufficient to keep up with the high bandwidth demands of modern networks, which continues to limit their practical deployment.

Methods. Therefore, this paper proposes LiteNet, a lightweight model for real-time NTC in a resource-constrained environment to address the disparity between model complexity and edge device limitations. LiteNet adapts the InceptionV1 module that integrates four dedicated parallel branches. Additionally, we integrate DeepSHAP, an Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) technique, to enhance explainability and reduce input features. Furthermore, we leverage model compression techniques, including semi-structured pruning and quantisation, to form a sparse LiteNet architecture that enables lightweight design and real-time classification.

Results. LiteNet demonstrated F1-scores exceeding 99% across two datasets, ISCXVPN2016 and MalayaNetwork_GT, while having 40% fewer parameters compared to the baseline method. Benchmarking results demonstrated that LiteNet outperformed the state-of-the-art method in terms of performance and efficiency, delivering up to 238% higher throughput and lower resource utilisation on an NVIDIA Jetson Nano. These outcomes demonstrate LiteNet’s strong balance between performance and efficiency, establishing it as a viable lightweight solution for NTC in resource-constrained settings.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].