The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
HUMAN - Hierarchical Clustering for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection & Interpretation
Abstract
The automatic detection and interpretation of network traffic anomalies through machine learning is a well-known problem, for which no general solution is available. Both supervised and unsupervised (i.e., anomaly detection) approaches require prior knowledge on the monitoring data, either in terms of normal operation profiles or on the specific anomalies to detect. As a consequence, both approaches have clear limitations when it comes to detecting, and in particular interpreting, previously unseen events. We present HUMAN, a general hierarchical-clustering-based approach for unsupervised network traffic analysis, which can both detect and interpret anomalous behaviors in a completely black-box manner, without relying on ground-truth on the system under analysis. HUMAN can detect and interpret complex patterns in the analyzed data, using a structural approach which exploits hierarchical cluster relationships and correlation among features. We describe the building blocks of HUMAN and explain its functioning in detail, using as case study the detection and interpretation of performance issues in major cloud platforms, through the unsupervised analysis of distributed active cloud latency measurements. The HUMAN approach can be applied to the unsupervised analysis of any kind of nested or hierarchically structured multi-dimensional data, showing the potential of hierarchical clustering for general unsupervised data analytics.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The method in [148] provides visual explanations.
“Provides visual explanations”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [148]
Citations
Cites
A Comparative Evaluation of Unsupervised Anomaly Detection Algorithms for Multivariate Data
Goldstein, M., & Uchida, S. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152173 · Cited by 1,032
Fontugne, R., Borgnat, P., Abry, P., & Fukuda, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the 6th International COnference · doi:10.1145/1921168.1921179 · Cited by 295
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- 10.1007/s40595-016-0086-9 · DOI
- 10.1145/3359992.3366639 · DOI
- 10.1145/3068335 · DOI
- 10.1145/304182.304187 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-37456-2_14 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICDM.2001.989517 · DOI
- halkidi, 2015, Method-independent indices for cluster validation and estimating the number of clusters, Handbook of Cluster Analysis, 616
- 10.1137/1.9781611973440.96 · DOI
- vazquez, 2019, Absolute Cluster Validity, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
- 0, Monitis
- 0, L7-filter
- 10.1016/j.future.2013.02.011 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.comnet.2013.04.001 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00607-014-0398-5 · DOI
- palumbo, 2019, Characterizing Cloud-to-User Latency as Perceived by AWS and Azure'Users Spread over the Globe, IEEE GLOBECOM
- 10.1145/1541880.1541882 · DOI · Paper page
- ahmed, 2016, A survey of network anomaly detection techniques, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 60, 19, 10.1016/j.jnca.2015.11.016 · DOI
- 10.1109/CNMT.2009.5374676 · DOI
- 10.1109/SURV.2008.080406 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3098593.3098594 · DOI
- 10.1007/s40745-015-0040-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 0, Nagios
- 10.1109/TETC.2014.2330519 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13174-018-0087-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 0, CACTI
- ester, 1996, A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise, KDD, 96, 226
- 0, Zabbix
- 0, Amazon CloudWatch
- 0, ThousandEyes
- 10.1109/CloudNet.2018.8549558 · DOI
- 0, Azure Monitor
- 10.1109/CloudNet.2013.6710568 · DOI
- 0, Fpc Flexible Procedures for Clustering
- 10.1109/CloudNet.2017.8071525 · DOI
- pedregosa, 2011, Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825
- 10.1016/j.comnet.2016.06.011 · DOI
- 10.1109/WiMOB.2017.8115784 · DOI
- 0, CLAudit Planetary-scale cloud latency auditing
- 10.23919/CNSM.2017.8255998 · DOI
- bellman, 2015, Adaptive Control Processes A Guided Tour, 2045
- 10.1109/TNSM.2016.2627340 · DOI
- 10.1109/IWCMC.2014.6906328 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.comcom.2012.01.016 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1009745219419 · DOI
- 10.1007/3-540-28349-8_2 · DOI
- 10.21105/joss.00205 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection
Li, Z., Zhu, Y., & Van Leeuwen, M. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3609333 · Cited by 139
“[147] present HUMAN, a hierarchical clustering based method.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Mulinka, P., Casas, P., Fukuda, K., & Kencl, L.
- Affiliations
- Czech Technical University in Prague (CZ)
- AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH (AT)
- National Institute of Informatics (JP)
- Venue
- 2020 11th International Conference on Network of the Future (NoF)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-10-12
- Pages
- 132-140
- OpenAlex
- W3098856714
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Conference on the Network of the Future (NOF) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (18H03237)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
- Keywords
- unsupervised anomaly detection, hierarchical clustering, network traffic analysis, anomaly interpretation, black-box analysis, feature correlation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review