| Literature DB >> 35408288 |
Chengsheng Pan1, Yuyue Wang1, Huaifeng Shi1,2, Jianfeng Shi1,3, Ren Cai1.
Abstract
Network traffic prediction is an important tool for the management and control of IoT, and timely and accurate traffic prediction models play a crucial role in improving the IoT service quality. The degree of burstiness in intelligent network traffic is high, which creates problems for prediction. To address the problem faced by traditional statistical models, which cannot effectively extract traffic features when dealing with inadequate sample data, in addition to the poor interpretability of deep models, this paper proposes a prediction model (fusion prior knowledge network) that incorporates prior knowledge into the neural network training process. The model takes the self-similarity of network traffic as a priori knowledge, incorporates it into the gating mechanism of the long short-term memory neural network, and combines a one-dimensional convolutional neural network with an attention mechanism to extract the temporal features of the traffic sequence. The experiments show that the model can better recover the characteristics of the original data. Compared with the traditional prediction model, the proposed model can better describe the trend of network traffic. In addition, the model produces an interpretable prediction result with an absolute correction factor of 76.4%, which is at least 10% better than the traditional statistical model.Entities:
Keywords: Hurst exponent; a priori knowledge; intelligent networks; network traffic prediction; self-similarity
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408288 PMCID: PMC9003571 DOI: 10.3390/s22072674
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Self-similarity of network traffic.
Figure 2Network traffic prediction framework incorporating prior knowledge (FPK-Net).
Figure 3Schematic diagram of one-dimensional convolution.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of the LSTM structure after fusing prior knowledge.
Figure 5Flow diagram for BPS perspective in Agurim.
Figure 6Model structure parameter configuration.
Performance comparison of different methods on the dataset.
| Models | MAE | MSE | RMSE |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.447 | 0.341 | 0.584 | 0.604 |
|
| 0.615 | 0.573 | 0.757 | 0.509 |
|
| 0.391 | 0.339 | 0.583 | 0.677 |
|
| 0.420 | 0.297 | 0.545 | 0.745 |
|
| 0.387 | 0.286 | 0.535 | 0.750 |
|
| 0.412 | 0.319 | 0.565 | 0.711 |
|
| 0.369 | 0.259 | 0.509 | 0.769 |
Figure 7Comparison of prediction results and true values: (a) Prediction results of traditional prediction methods vs. true values; (b) Prediction results of deep learning models vs. true values.
Figure 8Performance comparison using different values for the sliding window. (a) Performance () comparison using different values for the sliding window. (b) Performance (RMSE) comparison using different values for the sliding window. (c) Performance (MAE) comparison using different values for the sliding window. (d) Performance (MSE) comparison using different values for the sliding window.
FPK-Net model prediction measures under different sliding window lengths.
| Step | MAE | MSE | RMSE |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.390 | 0.284 | 0.533 | 0.753 |
|
| 0.388 | 0.282 | 0.531 | 0.758 |
|
| 0.384 | 0.275 | 0.525 | 0.763 |
|
| 0.382 | 0.274 | 0.524 | 0.765 |
|
| 0.382 | 0.274 | 0.524 | 0.765 |
|
| 0.372 | 0.269 | 0.519 | 0.768 |
|
| 0.369 | 0.259 | 0.509 | 0.769 |
|
| 0.373 | 0.261 | 0.510 | 0.764 |
Figure 9Schematic diagram of interpretability analysis.