abstract: Social networks have been widely studied over the last century from multiple disciplines to understand societal issues such as inequality in employment rates, managerial performance, and epidemic spread. Today, these and many more issues can be studied at global scale thanks to the digital footprints that we generate when browsing the Web or using social media platforms. Unfortunately, scientists often struggle to access to such data primarily because it is proprietary, and even when it is shared with privacy guarantees, such data is either no representative or too big. In this tutorial, we will discuss recent advances and future directions in *network modeling*. In particular, we focus on how to exploit synthetic networks to study real-world problems such as data privacy, spreading dynamics, algorithmic bias, and ranking inequalities. We start by reviewing different types of generative models for social networks including node-attributed and scale-free networks. Then, we showcase how to perform a network selection analysis to characterize the mechanisms of edge formation of any given real-world network.
author: Lisette Espin-Noboa; Tiago Peixoto; Fariba Karimi
title: Social network modeling and applications, a tutorial

# Target Audience

This tutorial is targeted to researchers who want to learn more about (i) random network generator models, (ii) deployment of synthetic networks with and without attributes and specific edge formation mechanisms, (iii) model selection given an empirical network, and (iv) how to exploit synthetic networks for sharing data with privacy guarantees, and to understand real-world issues including spreading dynamics, algorithmic bias, and ranking inequalities. Participants must have a basic knowledge of coding, preferable in Python.

# Tutors

*Lisette Espin-Noboa*[^1] is a PostDoc at Central European University (CEU) and at the Complexity Science Hub Vienna (CSH). Her research interests lie at the intersection between computational social science, network science, and AI for social good. She is particularly focused on understanding how edges form in social networks , and how these mechanisms of edge formation may affect machine learning algorithms , and human behavior.

*Tiago Peixoto*[^2] is an Associate Professor in the Department of Network and Data Science at the Central European University (CEU). His research focuses on the development of methods to extract scientific understanding from network data, as well as the mathematical modeling of network behavior and evolution. He is particularly interested in problems of network inference, where meaningful structural and functional patterns are missing or cannot be obtained by direct inspection or low-order statistics, and require instead more sophisticated approaches based on large-scale generative models and efficient algorithms derived from them . Many of the methods developed in his work are made available as part of the `graph-tool` library , which is extensively documented.

*Fariba Karimi*[^3] is an Assistant Professor at the Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien) and a group leader at the the Complexity Science Hub Vienna (CSH). Her research mainly focuses on computational and network approaches to address societal challenges such as gender disparities in collaboration and citation networks , visibility of minorities in social and technical systems , algorithmic biases , and sampling hard-to-reach groups . Her research also touches upon the emergence of culture in Wikipedia , spreading of information and norms , and perception biases  by using mathematical models, digital traces and online experiments.

# Topic and relevance

In this tutorial, we aim to cover two paradigms related to social network modeling and some applications.

1.  From social theories to models (120')

    1.  Social theories of edge formation

    2.  Network properties and srtucture

    3.  Network models

2.  From data to models (120')

    1.  Model fitting / inference

    2.  Model selection

    3.  Disentangling homophily and triadic closure

3.  Applications (70')

    1.  Biases in node sampling

    2.  Inequalities in node ranking

4.  Challenges and open questions (20')

## Social theories of edge formation

Understanding how networks form is a key interest for "The Web Conference" community. For example, social scientists are frequently interested in studying relations between entities within social networks, e.g., how social friendship ties form between actors and explain them based on attributes such as a person's gender, race, political affiliation or age in the network . Similarly, the complex networks community suggests a set of generative network models aiming at explaining the formation of edges focusing on the two core principles of *popularity* and *similarity* . Thus, a series of approaches to study edge formation have emerged including statistical tools and model-based approaches specifically established in the physics and complex networks communities. Other disciplines such as the computer sciences, and political sciences use these tools to understand how co-authorship networks or online communities  form or evolve.

In terms of similarity, many social networks demonstrate a property known as homophily, which is the tendency of individuals to associate with others who are similar to them, e.g., with respect to gender or ethnicity . Alternatively, individuals may also prefer to close triangles by connecting to people whom they already share a friend with  which in turn can explain the emergence of communities , high connectivity , and induced homophily . Furthermore, the class balance or distribution of individual attributes over the network is often uneven, with coexisting groups of different sizes, e.g., one ethnic group may dominate the other in size. Popularity, on the other hand, often refers to how well connected a node is in the network which in turn creates an advantage over poorly connected nodes. This is also known as the rich-get-richer or Matthew effect when new nodes attach preferentially to other nodes that are already well connected . Many networks, including the World Wide Web, reflect such property by means of scale-free power-law degree distributions.

Here we will focus on the main mechanisms of edge formation namely homophily, triadic closure, node activity, and preferential attachment. Moreover, we will pay special attention to certain structural properties of networks such as class (im)balance, directed edges, and edge density.

## Network models

In this section, we will review a set of well known network generator models. We will cover attributed graphs where nodes possess metadata information such as class membership, and edges are influenced by such information. The implementation of these models can be found in the `netin` python package.

1.  Attributed undirected graphs

    1.  Preferential attachment (PA)

    2.  Preferential attachment with homophily (PAH)

    3.  Preferential attachment with homophily and triadic closure (PATCH)

2.  Attributed directed graphs

    1.  Preferential attachment (DPA)

    2.  Homophily (DH)

    3.  Preferential attachment with homophily (DPAH)

## Model selection and validation

Identifying the model that best explains a given network remains an open challenge. First, we will show how to infer the hyper-parameters of each network model (e.g., homophily and triadic closure ) given a real-world network. Then, we will learn how to use and interpret different approaches including AIC , BIC , MDL , Bayes factors , and likelihood ratios , and highlight their strengths and limitations under specific tasks.

## Applications

Here, we will demonstrate how to exploit network models to generate a wide range of synthetic networks to understand how certain algorithms are influenced by network structure and edge formation. The idea is to evaluate the outcomes of the following algorithms and see how they change while also changing the input network.

### Biases in node sampling.

A range of network properties such as degree and betweenness centrality have been found to be sensitive to the choice of sampling methods . These efforts have shown that network estimates become more inaccurate with lower sample coverage, but there is a wide variability of these effects across different measures, network structures and sampling errors. In terms of benchmarking network sampling strategies, shows that it is not enough to ask which method returns the most accurate sample (in terms of statistical properties); one also needs to consider API constraints and sampling budgets .

### Inequalities in node rankings.

Previous studies have shown that homophily and group-size affect the visibility of minorities in centrality rankings . In particular, such structural rankings may reduce, replicate and amplify the visibility of minorities in top ranks when majorities are homophilic, neutral and heterophilic, respectively. In other words, minorities are not always under-represented, they are just not well connected, and this can be shown by systematically varying the structure of synthetic networks . Here, we will also touch upon interventions on how to improve the visibility of minorities in degree rankings .

### Biases in network inference.

In recent years, there has been an increase of research focusing on mitigating bias and guaranteeing individual and group fairness while preserving accuracy in classification algorithms . While all this body of research focuses on fairness influenced by the attributes of the individuals, recent research proposes a new notion of fairness that is able to capture the relational structure of individuals . An important aspect of *explaining discrimination* via network structure is that we gain a better understanding of the direction of bias (i.e., why and when inference discriminates against certain groups of people) .

### Inequalities in spreading dynamics

Spreading processes may include simple and complex contagion mechanisms, different transmission rates within and across groups, and different seeding conditions. Here, we will study information access equality to demonstrate to what extent network structure influences a spreading process which in turn may affect the equality and efficiency of information access .

## Challenges and open questions

We will conclude by summarizing what we have learned, and by brainstorming future directions of what is still missing for producing realistic networks via synthetic data.

# Style, Duration, and Material

This will be a 6-hour hybrid hands-on tutorial. We will provide ready to use jupyter notebooks with all necessary code, libraries, and settings. We will be using `python=3.9` and libraries such as:

1.  `networkx=2.8.8`

2.  `netin=1.0.7`

3.  `graph-tool=2.45`

4.  `matplotlib=3.6.0`

5.  `numpy=1.23.4`

6.  `pandas=1.5.1`

7.  `jupyterlab=3.6`

We will provide the slides of the tutorial beforehand, as well as code in the form of python scripts and notebooks. We will also use publicly available real-world networks . **All materials can be found here,**[^4] **and a video teaser of this tutorial here.**[^5]

# Previous editions

This is the first time the organizers together have conceptualized and planned this tutorial. However, it will not be the first time they organize and teach network science to a broad audience. *Tiago Peixoto* has an extensive record in organizing workshops[^6], and teaching at seminars and international schools on topics about data science, network science, and probabilistic and statistical methods for networks[^7]. *Fariba Karimi* has given lectures and seminars on network science, theory, and dynamics to a broad audience including computer scientists and social scientists at the University of Koblenz-Landau and GESIS — The Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. *Lisette Espin-Noboa* co-organized and co-lectured in 2020 a 4-day virtual hands-on seminar for social scientists on how to do network analysis in Python . Additionally, Karimi and Espin-Noboa, co-organized a virtual satellite event at Networks 2021 where they invited a diverse group of researchers to talk about their research on network structure and social phenomena[^8].

# Equipment

We will require connection to the internet, a projector, and host permissions in Zoom for screen sharing, breakout rooms assignment, and remote access if necessary. Attendees may join the session online or in person using their own computers.

# Organization details

In case of unexpected events (e.g., restricted mobility, sickness, or bad internet connection) we will provide pre-recorded lectures of the entire tutorial. Moreover, all exercises will be given in advance as `python` scripts and Jupyter notebooks.

[^1]: <https://www.lisetteespin.info>

[^2]: <https://skewed.de>

[^3]: <https://networkinequality.com/people/fariba-karimi>

[^4]: <https://bit.ly/snma2023>

[^5]: <https://bit.ly/TutorialWWWTeaserENPK2023>

[^6]: <https://sinm.network/>

[^7]: <https://bayesforshs.sciencesconf.org/>

[^8]: <https://bit.ly/NetStructure>


abstract: We demonstrate a novel optical trapping scheme for ultracold atoms. Using a combination of evanescent wave, standing wave, and magnetic potentials we create a deeply 2D Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) at a few microns from a glass surface. Using techniques such as broadband "white" light to create evanescent and standing waves, we realize a smooth potential with a trap frequency aspect ratio of 300:1:1 and long lifetimes. This makes the setup suitable for many-body quantum simulations and applications such as high precision measurements close to surfaces.
author: J.I. Gillen, W. S. Bakr, A. Peng, P. Unterwaditzer, S. Fölling, M. Greiner
date: 2024-09-30
title: Hybrid 2D surface trap for quantum simulation

Ultracold quantum gases are increasingly used to experimentally realize and quantitatively study fundamental models of condensed matter physics . Two dimensional (2D) quantum gases are systems uniquely suited for carrying out "quantum simulations" of condensed matter phenomena, such as the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition recently observed in ultracold atoms . These systems are characterized by a strong confinement in one direction that sets an energy scale much larger than that given by either the temperature or interparticle interactions. 2D systems can be brought into the strongly correlated regime, for example by adding lattice potentials in the plane. Simulations in this regime would enable studying a variety of quantum phases including 2D antiferromagnets and d-wave superfluid states .

The centerpiece of an experimental system for 2D quantum simulation is an atom trap that fulfills a number of criteria. The axial confinement of the trap must be very strong to be deep in the 2D regime even for large atom numbers, while the weak lateral confinement should be free of disorder. Additionally, it is desirable to have a trap configuration that enables the reliable preparation of a single plane of atoms to avoid averaging effects during quantum state readout, as well as dual planes for heterodyne phase measurements. Finally, high resolution optical access to the quantum gas would be useful for probing and manipulation at small length scales.

Different approaches for reaching the 2D regime have been experimentally realized . Repulsive evanescent wave (EW) potentials were originally introduced to reflect atoms from surfaces . They were combined with gravity to form a gravito-optical surface trap in which a 2D BEC was observed . However, such traps have been limited by potential corrugations which led to variations of trap characteristics across the surface as well as inhibited expansion of the BEC . The strongest axial confinement in 2D systems has been achieved in optical dipole standing wave (SW) traps where a stack of 2D planes is populated by a BEC . It is possible to empty all but a few planes by a radio-frequency "knife" , but precisely controlling the population remains a challenge, in particular for traps with strong confinement and small periodicity.

Here we demonstrate a novel trapping scheme that overcomes limitations of current methods and achieves all the requirements stated above. Our hybrid trapping potential is based on a dielectric surface used to combine an evanescent wave, nodal planes of reflected light and a magnetic confinement (Fig. 1). A surface trap approach provides us with several important advantages. Using a high quality dielectric surface as our reference, we are able to precisely and reproducibly overlap optical potentials. In contrast to free-space lattices the surface approach allows us to directly load all atoms into one or two planes. The proximity of these planes to the surface facilitates imaging them with high resolution due to a solid immersion effect. This effect allows us to achieve a very high numerical aperture NA=0.8, which should allow for an imaging resolution of $\approx 0.5$ micron. The vicinity of the gas to the surface also opens the door to precision studies of surface physics. By using new techniques such as "white" light broadband dipole potentials we are able to avoid potential corrugations. Long-lived BECs deep in the 2D regime are obtained and we are able to achieve low temperatures by evaporative cooling in the 2D trap. We observe long wavelength phase fluctuations, and at higher temperatures, vortices, characteristic of BKT physics.

The evanescent wave potential is created using blue detuned light that is totally internally reflected at the interface of a dielectric medium and a vacuum . The EW that appears on the vacuum side creates an exponentially decaying potential $V_{EW}(z) =
V_0 \exp(-2z/\Lambda)$, where $z$ is the distance to the surface, $\Lambda$ the decay length of the EW and $V_0$ the potential height at the surface given by the total incoming intensity.

Evanescent wave traps are particularly susceptible to disorder in the lateral potential. One very significant source of disorder is stray light that interferes with the trap light. This can cause sizable potential modulations at high spatial frequencies even for weak stray light intensities. We address this effect in multiple ways. First, we disable the interference between the trap light and most of the stray light from reflections, dust and surface imperfections by using "white" light with a very short coherence length. It is created by a tapered amplifier system seeded with light from a fiber coupled amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) source. Interference filters are used to control the bandwidth of the white light source as well as to suppress resonant ASE components. The resulting spectrum is centered around a wavelength of $\lambda_{trap}=765$ nm, with an incident power of 200 mW. The spectral width of 3 nm corresponds to a coherence length of about 100 $\mu$m, which is short enough to suppress the interference effects of stray light from multiple reflections and other parts within the setup.

A second measure is the minimization of scatter at the trapping surface itself by using a superpolished and very clean surface with an RMS surface roughness below 1 Å. This reduces corrugations due to scatter from locations within the range of the coherence length. We measured the residual scattered fraction at the glass vacuum interface to be less than 1 ppm.

Neutral atoms in close vicinity to surfaces can also be affected by static electric potentials. Adsorbed metal atoms on the surface form small electric dipoles. Inhomogeneities of the distribution of these dipoles generate potential gradients which can be stronger than the inherent van der Waals force of the substrate. This process is well understood and the fields generated decay very rapidly away from the surface. By avoiding exposure of the glass to significant amounts of rubidium and choosing a moderate $3\,\mu$m distance from the surface, detrimental effects are avoided even after months of operation.

Our experiments start with a 3D BEC of several $10^5$ $^{87}$Rb atoms. The BEC is created by loading a magneto-optic trap for 8 seconds, resulting in $10^9$ atoms at a temperature of 40 $\mu$k after optical molasses cooling. We then transport the atoms into a glass cell with very good vacuum , inside which the substrate is mounted. Here, we perform forced RF evaporation in a tightly confining QUIC trap with frequencies of $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi (17, 100, 100)$ Hz to achieve BEC. Following this, we change to a high offset field configuration with reduced trap frequencies of $2\pi (17, 20, 20)$ Hz. At this stage, the BEC is 0.6 mm below the surface.

The evanescent wave trap configuration is formed by moving the magnetic trap vertically upwards using external magnetic fields. The equilibrium position is moved by $1.6$ mm, well past the fused silica surface. When it passes the surface, the atoms are vertically held in place by the EW, giving rise to a combined opto-magnetic surface trap (Fig. a). The EW beam is an elliptic beam of $250\times180$ $\mu$m$^2$ size incident at an angle $\theta_{EW}$, 12 mrad from the critical angle $\theta_c$ (Figure ). The decay length $\Lambda$ is given by ${\lambda_{trap}}/{2\pi}/{({n^{2}\sin^{2}(\theta_{EW})-1})^{1/2}} \approx800$ nm where $n$ is the index of refraction of fused silica. The EW potential has a maximum at a distance of 200 nm from the surface, below which the attractive van der Waals potential dominates. The short decay length of the EW gives rise to large curvatures that allow tight confinement along the direction of the decay. Trap frequencies of up to $2\pi\times 1$ kHz, measured by parametric excitation, can be reached in this configuration. In this 2D configuration, we observe a $1/e$ atom lifetime of $17\pm 1$ s (Fig. b). To verify the lateral homogeneity of the resulting potential, we dynamically transport the cloud over the diameter of the EW beam (by displacing the magnetic field center up to 250 $\mu$m) without causing significant heating or atom loss due to "holes" in the evanescent wave.

We have implemented two methods to cool the atom cloud via forced evaporation in the surface trap. Moving the atoms against the surface is typically not fully adiabatic and the temperature of the cloud increases. A second evaporation step enables us to regain a high condensate fraction in the surface trap. One available method is lowering the EW power until the thermal atoms can tunnel to the glass surface. This generates a very efficient evaporation effect, but after many repetitions the dipole forces generated by adsorbed Rb atoms affect the barrier height. The diffusion timescale of these adsorbates has been shown in previous experiments to be on the scale of days to weeks and can be strongly decreased by an increase in surface temperature . A second, more stable evaporation technique is to use forced RF evaporation which will be discussed later.

To further increase the vertical confinement and improve the lateral homogeneity, we use an additional standing wave potential. The larger trap frequencies allow us to reach the deep 2D regime for higher atom numbers as well as to achieve stronger interactions in the system. The standing wave potential is generated by reflecting a blue-detuned beam off the glass surface from the vacuum side . Incident at an angle $\theta_{SW}=76^\circ$ from the normal, the trap minima in the resulting potential are planes parallel to the surface with a trap frequency increased by a factor of 5 or more. Contrary to all current standing wave traps, the potential is formed not by coherent light but by light from our 765 nm broadband source to reduce disorder from stray light interference. As the atoms are very close to the reflecting surface, the remaining coherence length of the broadband light is still larger than the interfering distance $2d /\cos\theta_{SW}$.

The SW configuration also reduces further the disorder caused by remaining scattered light interference from those parts of the glass which are closer than the coherence length. As the SW has an intensity minimum at the surface as opposed to the intensity maximum of the EW, scattering from small surface impurities is suppressed.

We reliably load all of the atoms into a single node of the standing wave, as the spread of the wavefunction ($z_{ho}=250$ nm) in the pure EW trap is much smaller than the spacing of the SW planes. The transfer is realized by smoothly transferring power from the EW beam to the standing wave beam over a period of 300 ms. The trap frequency in the $z$ direction, verified by parametric excitation measurements, is increased to $5.9\pm 0.1$ kHz in this trap, taking us deep into the 2D regime with the temperature and chemical potential both much smaller than the vertical trap frequency . We populate the second node of the SW at a distance of $\approx\,3$ $\mu$m from the surface. In this plane, the disorder caused by surface dipoles is already strongly reduced, but the distance from the surface is small enough to exploit the NA enhancement when imaging from the top. The SW trap configuration is smooth enough that the atoms leave it by moving out of the beam within a few 10 ms when switching off the magnetic potential, due to a weak remaining anticonfinement.

The 2D regime manifests itself as a change of the shape of the momentum distribution measured in time of flight along $z$ direction. We obtain a Gaussian momentum profile along the vertical (Fig. a) corresponding to the harmonic confinement of the trap, while the profile along the other direction remains Thomas-Fermi (Fig. b). The 2D system with $\approx2\times10^4$ atoms is below the expected BKT transition temperature of $T_{BKT}\approx40$ nK at which vortices proliferate in the condensate . Below $T_{BKT}$, phase fluctuations in the condensate fraction can be present which are mapped to density fluctuations in time of flight as seen in Fig. c. These fluctuations decrease with the temperature of the condensate during the second evaporation step. Apart from the surface evaporation method discussed earlier, the SW configuration allows us to perform forced RF evaporation inside the 2D trap using a radial magnetic field gradient to evaporate along the outer edge of the trap volume. By stabilizing the bias magnetic field of the QUIC trap to $\sim 3$ ppm, we obtain a stable evaporation process with reproducible atom numbers in the desired range of several $10^4$ atoms.

The $1/e$ lifetime in the SW trap is $7.8\pm0.4$ s, and we have used both the incoherent light and a narrow band 765 nm CW Ti:Sapphire laser for comparison. We find the lifetimes to be the same within the error of the measurements and consistent with loss due to spontaneous emission, indicating that there are no additional loss/heating processes (e.g. photoassociation) associated with using the broadband light source.

We can also intentionally load two planes (here the second and third) of the SW trap by weakening the confinement and choosing a larger separation from the surface in the initial EW configuration. When two planes are loaded, a vertical sinusoidal interference pattern appears after ballistic time of flight (Figure ), which can be used to detect long-range phase fluctuations and vortices in the trap . In order to quantitatively probe the distribution over the trap nodes we employ RF spectroscopy similar to that done in , using a magnetic field gradient of $33.8\pm0.7$ G/cm perpendicular to the surface. The density distribution along the gradient direction is then probed by varying the RF frequency according to a scaling of $2.43\pm0.05$ kHz$/\mu$m. This achieves a spatial resolution better than 1 $\mu$m. The vertical potential periodicity is $1.54\pm0.04$ $\mu$m, determined by diffracting atoms off the SW. The profile is shown in Fig. d using an RF pulse length of 2 s. The two loaded sites can be clearly distinguished. Conversely, when loading a single site, the profiling yields an upper limit for the occupation in the second site of $\approx 5$%, while the (lack of) interference during ballistic expansion limits the fraction of the total coherent population in that site to less than $\approx 10^{-3}$.

In conclusion, we demonstrate a novel scheme of creating a deeply 2D quantum gas close to a glass surface. The trap provides both strong confinement in the vertical direction and smooth potentials in the 2D plane without the necessity to load many planes simultaneously. We avoid interference of scattered light with the trap light by employing light sources which have short coherence lengths. We create 2D BECs and are able to detect properties such as phase fluctuations and thermal excitation of vortices. By making the trapping surface a part of a microscope, we achieve a very high aperture optical access that should enable resolutions of 500 nm (RMS) for imaging, creating optical potentials and manipulating atoms. These capabilities enable a wide range of experiments, including optical lattices that combine single-site resolution and significant tunnel coupling in the ground state and experiments on phase fluctuations and vortices in 2D quantum gases.

*Note:* While completing this manuscript, we learned of work describing another approach of combining magnetic and EW potentials, designed for quantum optics .


abstract: Using Stokes flow between eccentric counter-rotating cylinders as a prototype for bounded nearly parallel lubrication flow, we investigate the effect of a slender recirculation region within the flow field on cross-stream heat or mass transport in the important limit of high Péclet number  where the enhancement over pure conduction heat transfer without recirculation is most pronounced. The steady enhancement is estimated with a matched asymptotic expansion to resolve the diffusive boundary layers at the separatrices which bound the recirculation region. The enhancement over pure conduction is shown to vary as $\epsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}$ at infinite , where $\epsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is the characteristic width of the recirculation region. The enhancement decays from this asymptote as $\mbox{\it Pe}^{-\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}}$.
author: ALANN.OTHER$^1$ [^1],
H.-C.SMITH$^1$`<!-- -->`{=html}; J.Q.PUBLIC$^2$
date: 1 July 1994 and in revised form 30 October 1998
title: An interesting and seminal work on various phenomena in fluid mechanics

# Introduction

The use of integral equations to solve exterior problems in linear acoustics, i.e. to solve the Helmholtz equation $(\nabla^2+k^2)\phi=0$ outside a surface $S$ given that $\phi$ satisfies certain boundary conditions on $S$, is very common. A good description is provided by . Integral equations have also been used to solve the two-dimensional Helmholtz equation that arises in water-wave problems where there is a constant depth variation. The problem of wave oscillations in arbitrarily shaped harbours using such techniques has been examined (see for example Hwang & Tuck 1970; Lee 1971).

In a recent paper have shown how radiation and scattering problems for vertical circular cylinders placed on the centreline of a channel of finite water depth can be solved efficiently using the multipole method devised originally by Ursell (1950). This method was also used by to prove the existence of trapped modes in the vicinity of such a cylinder at a discrete wavenumber $k<\pi/2d$ where $2d$ is the channel width.

Many water-wave/body interaction problems in which the body is a vertical cylinder with constant cross-section can be simplified by factoring out the depth dependence. Thus if the boundary conditions are homogeneous we can write the velocity potential $\phi(x,y,z,t) =
 \hbox{Re}\{\phi(x,y)\cosh k(z+h){\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\omega t}\}$, where the $(x,y)$-plane corresponds to the undisturbed free surface and $z$ is measured vertically upwards with $z=-h$ the bottom of the channel.

Subsequently Callan *et al.* (1991) proved the existence of, and computed the wavenumbers for, the circular cross-section case. It should be noted however that experimental evidence for acoustic resonances in the case of the circular cylinder is given by Bearman & Graham (1980, pp. 231–232).

provided a theory for determining the trapped-mode frequencies for the thin plate, based on a modification of the Wiener–Hopf technique.

The use of channel Green's functions, developed in § , allows the far-field behaviour to be computed in an extremely simple manner, whilst the integral equation constructed in §  enables the trapped modes to be computed in §  and the scattering of an incident plane wave to be solved in § . Appendix  contains comparisons with experiments.

# Green's functions

## Construction of equations

We are concerned with problems for which the solution, $\phi$, is either symmetric or antisymmetric about the centreline of the waveguide, $y=0$. The first step is the construction of a symmetric and an antisymmetric Green's function, $G_s(P,Q)$ and $G_a(P,Q)$. Thus we require $$(\nabla^2_P+k^2)G_s=(\nabla^2_P+k^2)G_a=0
  \label{Helm}$$ in the fluid, where $\boldsymbol{\nabla}_\rho$ is a gradient operator, except when $P\equiv Q$, $$G_{\rm s},G_{\rm a}\sim 1 / (2\pi)\ln r
  \qquad \mbox{as\ } r\equiv|P-Q|\rightarrow 0,
  \label{singular}$$ $$\frac{\partial G_{\rm s}}{\partial y}=\frac{\partial G_{\rm a}}{\partial y}=0
  \qquad \mbox{on\ } y=d,
  \label{wallbc}$$ $$\frac{\partial G_{\rm s}}{\partial y}=0
  \qquad \mbox{on\ } y=0,
  \label{symbc}$$ $$G_{\rm a}=0
  \qquad \mbox{on\ } y=0,
  \label{asymbc}$$ and we require $G_s$ and $G_a$ to behave like outgoing waves as $|x|\rightarrow\infty$.

One way of constructing $G_s$ or $G_a$ is to replace () and () by $$(\nabla^2_P+k^2)G_{\rm s}=(\nabla^2_P+k^2)G_{\rm a}
  = -\delta(x-\xi)\delta(y-\eta)$$ and to assume initially that $k$ has a positive imaginary part.

## Further developments

Using results from we see that this has the integral representation $$-\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{\infty} \gamma^{-1}[{\rm e}^{-k\gamma|y-\eta|}
   + {\rm e}^{-k\gamma(2d-y-\eta)}] \cos k(x-\xi)t\:{\rm d}t,
   \qquad 0<y,\quad \eta<d,$$ where $$\gamma(t) = \left\{
    \begin{array}{ll}
      -{\rm i}(1-t^2)^{\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}}, & t\le 1 \\[2pt]
      (t^2-1)^{\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}},         & t>1.
    \end{array} \right.$$ In order to satisfy () we add to this the function $$-\frac{1}{2\pi}
   \int_0^{\infty}\mskip -33mu -\quad B(t)\frac{\cosh k\gamma(d-y)}{\gamma\sinh k\gamma d}
   \cos k(x-\xi)t\:{\rm d}t$$ which satisfies (), () and obtain $$B(t) = 2{\rm e}^{-k\gamma d}\cosh k\gamma(d-\eta).$$ Thus the function $$G = -\ensuremath{{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}}{\rm i}(H_0(kr)+H_0(kr_1))
    - \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^{\infty}\mskip -33mu -\quad\frac{{\rm e}^{-k\gamma d}}%
    {\gamma\sinh k\gamma d} \cosh k\gamma(d-y) \cosh k\gamma(d-\eta)$$ satisfies ()–(). By writing this function as a single integral which is even in $\gamma$, it follows that $G$ is real.

# The trapped-mode problem

The unit normal from $D$ to $\partial D$ is $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{n}}_q=(-y^{\prime}(\theta),
x^{\prime}(\theta))/w(\theta)$. Now $G_a=\ensuremath{{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}}Y_0(kr)+\widetilde{G_a}$ where $r=\{[x(\theta)-x(\psi)]^2 + [y(\theta)-y(\psi)]^2\}^{\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}}$ and $\widetilde{G_a}$ is regular as $kr\rightarrow 0$. In order to evaluate $\partial G_a(\theta,\theta)/\partial n_q$ we note that $$\frac{\partial}{\partial n_q}\left(\ensuremath{{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}}Y_0(kr)\right)\sim\frac{\partial}{\partial n_q}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}
  \ln r\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi r^2 w(\theta)}[x^{\prime}(\theta)
  (y(\theta)-y(\psi))-y^{\prime}(\theta)(x(\theta)-x(\psi))]$$ as $kr\rightarrow 0$. Expanding $x(\psi)$ and $y(\psi)$ about the point $\psi=\theta$ then shows that $$\begin{aligned}
  \frac{\partial}{\partial n_q}\left(\ensuremath{{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}}Y_0(kr)\right) & \sim &
    \frac{1}{4\pi w^3(\theta)}
    [x^{\prime\prime}(\theta)y^{\prime}(\theta)-
    y^{\prime\prime}(\theta)x^{\prime}(\theta)] \nonumber\\
  & = & \frac{1}{4\pi w^3(\theta)}
    [\rho^{\prime}(\theta)\rho^{\prime\prime}(\theta)
    - \rho^2(\theta)-2\rho^{\prime 2}(\theta)]
    \quad \mbox{as\ } kr\rightarrow 0. \label{inteqpt}
\end{aligned}$$

## Computation

For computational purposes we discretize () by dividing the interval ($0,\pi$) into $M$ segments. Thus we write $$\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\phi(\psi) = \frac{\pi}{M} \sum_{j=1}^{M}\phi(\theta_j)\frac{\partial}{\partial n_q}
  G_a(\psi,\theta_j)\,w(\theta_j),
  \qquad 0<\psi<\pi,
  \label{phipsi}$$ where $\theta_j=(j-\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}})\pi/M$. Collocating at $\psi=\theta_i$ and writing $\phi_i=\phi(\theta_i)$ etc. gives $$\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\phi_i = \frac{\pi}{M} \sum_{j=1}^{M}\phi_j K_{ij}^a w_j,
  \qquad i=1,\,\ldots,\,M,$$ where $$K_{ij}^a = \left\{
    \begin{array}{ll}
      \partial G_a(\theta_i,\theta_j)/\partial n_q, & i\neq j \\[2pt]
      \partial\widetilde{G_a}(\theta_i,\theta_i)/\partial n_q
      + [\rho_i^{\prime}\rho_i^{\prime\prime}-\rho_i^2-2\rho_i^{\prime 2}]
      / 4\pi w_i^3, & i=j.
  \end{array} \right.$$ For a trapped mode, therefore, we require the determinant of the $M\times M$ matrix whose elements are $$\delta_{ij}-\frac{2\pi}{M}K_{ij}^a w_j,$$ to be zero.

| $a/d$ |  $M=4$  |  $M=8$  | Callan *et al.* |
|:-----:|:-------:|:-------:|:---------------:|
|  0.1  | 1.56905 | 1.56905 |     1.56904     |
|  0.3  | 1.50484 | 1.50484 |     1.50484     |
|  0.5  | 1.39128 | 1.39131 |     1.39131     |
|  0.7  | 1.32281 | 1.32287 |     1.32288     |
|  0.9  | 1.34479 | 1.35160 |     1.35185     |

Values of $kd$ at which trapped modes occur when $\rho(\theta)=a$

Table  shows a comparison of results obtained from this method using two different truncation parameters with accurate values obtained using the method of Callan *et al.* (1991).

An example of the results that are obtained from our method is given in figure . Figure  (*a*,*b*) shows shaded contour plots of $\phi$ for these modes, normalized so that the maximum value of $\phi$ on the body is 1.

## Basic properties

Let $$\rho_l = \lim_{\zeta \rightarrow Z^-_l(x)} \rho(x,\zeta), \quad
  \rho_{\rm u} = \lim_{\zeta \rightarrow Z^{+}_{\rm u}(x)} \rho(x,\zeta)$$ be the fluid densities immediately below and above the cat's-eyes. Finally let $\rho_0$ and $N_0$ be the constant values of the density and the vorticity inside the cat's-eyes, so that $$(\rho(x,\zeta),\phi_{\zeta\zeta}(x,\zeta))=(\rho_0,N_0)
  \quad \mbox{for\ } Z_l(x) < \zeta < Z_{\rm u}(x).$$

The Reynolds number is defined by $u_\tau H/\nu$ ($\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity), the length given in wall units is denoted by $(\;)_+$, and the Prandtl number is set equal to 0.7. In () and (), $\tau_{ij}$ and $\tau^\theta_j$ are

### Calculation of the terms

The first terms in the right-hand side of (3.5a) and (3.5b) are the Leonard terms explicitly calculated by applying the Gaussian filter in the $x$- and $z$-directions in the Fourier space.

The interface boundary conditions given by () and (), which relate the displacement and stress state of the wall at the mean interface to the disturbance quantities of the flow, can also be reformulated in terms of the transformed quantities. The transformed boundary conditions are summarized below in a matrix form that is convenient for the subsequent development of the theory: $$\setlength{\arraycolsep}{0pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\mathsfbi{Q}_C = \left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
  -\omega^{-2}V'_w  &  -(\alpha^t\omega)^{-1}  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\
  \displaystyle
  \frac{\beta}{\alpha\omega^2}V'_w  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  {\rm i}\omega^{-1} \\
  {\rm i}\omega^{-1}  &  0  &  0  &  0  &  0  \\
  \displaystyle
  {\rm i}R^{-1}_{\delta}(\alpha^t+\omega^{-1}V''_w)  &  0
    & -({\rm i}\alpha^tR_\delta)^{-1}  &  0  &  0  \\
  \displaystyle
  \frac{{\rm i}\beta}{\alpha\omega}R^{-1}_\delta V''_w  &  0  &  0
    &  0  & 0 \\
  ({\rm i}\alpha^t)^{-1}V'_w  &  (3R^{-1}_{\delta}+c^t({\rm i}\alpha^t)^{-1})
    &  0  &  -(\alpha^t)^{-2}R^{-1}_{\delta}  &  0  \\
\end{array}  \right] .
\label{defQc}$$ $\boldsymbol{S}^t$ is termed the displacement-stress vector and $\mathsfbi{Q}_C$ the flow-wall coupling matrix. Subscript $w$ in () denotes evaluation of the terms at the mean interface. It is noted that $V''_w = 0$ for the Blasius mean flow.

### Wave propagation in anisotropic compliant layers

From (), the fundamental wave solutions to () and () for a uniformly thick homogeneous layer in the transformed variables has the form of $$\boldsymbol{\eta}^t = \hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^t \exp [{\rm i}(\alpha^tx^t_1-\omega t)],$$ where $\hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^t=\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}\exp ({\rm i}\gamma x^t_3)$. For a non-trivial wave, the substitution of (1.7) into (1.3) and (1.4) yields the following determinantal equation: $$\mbox{Det}[\rho\omega^2\delta_{ps}-C^t_{pqrs}k^t_qk^t_r]=0,$$ where the wavenumbers $\langle k^t_1,k^t_2,k^t_3\rangle = \langle
\alpha^t,0,\gamma\rangle$ and $\delta_{ps}$ is the Kronecker delta.

# Torus translating along an axis of symmetry

Consider a torus with axes $a,b$ (see figure ), moving along the $z$-axis. Symmetry considerations imply the following form for the stress function, given in body coordinates: $$\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}(\theta,\psi) = (g(\psi) \cos \theta,g(\psi) \sin \theta,f(\psi)).
\label{eq41}$$

Because of symmetry, one can integrate analytically in the $\theta$-direction obtaining a pair of equations for the coefficients $f$, $g$ in (4.1), $$\begin{aligned}
f(\psi_1) = \frac{3b}{\pi(2(a+b \cos \psi_1))^{\frac{3}{2}}}
  \int^{2\pi}_0 \frac{(\sin \psi_1 - \sin \psi)(a+b \cos \psi)^{\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}}}%
  {(1 - \cos (\psi_1 - \psi))(2+\alpha)^{\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}}},
\label{eq42}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
g(\psi_1) & = & \frac{3}{\pi(2(a+b \cos \psi_1))^{\frac{3}{2}}}
  \int^{2\pi}_0 \left(\frac{a+b \cos \psi}{2+\alpha}\right)^{\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}}
  \left\{ \usebox{\astrutbox}f(\psi)[(\cos \psi_1 - \cos \psi - b \beta_1)S + \beta_1P]
  \right. \nonumber\\
&& \mbox{}\times \frac{\sin \psi_1 - \sin \psi}{1-\cos(\psi_1 - \psi)}
  + g(\psi) \left[\left(2+\alpha - \frac{(\sin \psi_1 - \sin \psi)^2}
  {1- \cos (\psi - \psi_1)} - b^2 \gamma \right) S \right.\nonumber\\
&& \left.\left.\mbox{} + \left( b^2 \cos \psi_1\gamma -
  \frac{a}{b}\alpha \right) F(\ensuremath{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\pi, \delta) - (2+\alpha)
  \cos\psi_1 E(\ensuremath{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\pi, \delta)\right] \usebox{\astrutbox}\right\} {\rm d}\psi,
\label{eq43}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\alpha = \alpha(\psi,\psi_1) = \frac{b^2(1-\cos(\psi-\psi_1))}%
  {(a+b\cos\psi) (a+b\cos\psi_1)};
  \quad
  \beta - \beta(\psi,\psi_1) = \frac{1-\cos(\psi-\psi_1)}{a+b\cos\psi}.$$

# Conclusions

We have shown how integral equations can be used to solve a particular class of problems concerning obstacles in waveguides, namely the Neumann problem for bodies symmetric about the centreline of a channel, and two such problems were considered in detail.

# Boundary conditions

It is convenient for numerical purposes to change the independent variable in () to $z=y/ \tilde{v}^{\frac{1}{2}}_T$ and to introduce the dependent variable $H(z) = (f- \tilde{y})/ \tilde{v}^{\frac{1}{2}}_T$. Equation () then becomes $$(1 - \beta)(H+z)H'' - (2+ H') H' = H'''.$$

Boundary conditions to () follow from () and the definition of *H*: $$\left. \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
H(0) = \frac{\epsilon \overline{C}_v}{\tilde{v}^{\frac{1}{2}}_{\rm T}
(1- \beta)};\quad H'(0) = -1+\epsilon^{\frac{2}{3}} \overline{C}_u
+ \epsilon \hat{C}_u'; \\[16pt]
\displaystyle
H''(0) = \frac{\epsilon u^2_{\ast}}{\tilde{v}^{\frac{1}{2}}
_T u^2_P};\quad H' (\infty) = 0.
\end{array} \right\}$$

#

A simple sufficient condition for the method of separation of variables to hold for the convection problem is derived. This criterion is then shown to be satisfied for the ansatz described by (3.27), thus justifying the approach used in § . The basic ingredient of our argument is contained in the following estimate for a Rayleigh Ritz ratio:

**Lemma 1**. *Let $f(z)$ be a trial function defined on $[0,1]$. Let $\varLambda_1$ denote the ground-state eigenvalue for $-{\rm d}^2g/{\rm d}z^2=\varLambda g$, where $g$ must satisfy $\pm{\rm d}g/{\rm d}z+\alpha g=0$ at $z=0,1$ for some non-negative constant $\alpha$. Then for any $f$ that is not identically zero we have $$\frac{\displaystyle
  \alpha(f^2(0)+f^2(1)) + \int_0^1 \left(
  \frac{{\rm d}f}{{\rm d}z} \right)^2 {\rm d}z}%
  {\displaystyle \int_0^1 f^2{\rm d}z}
\ge \varLambda_1 \ge
\left( \frac{-\alpha+(\alpha^2+8\pi^2\alpha)^{\ensuremath{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}}}{4\pi} \right)^2.$$*

Before proving it, we note that the first inequality is the standard variational characterization for the eigenvalue $\varLambda_1$.

**Corollary 1**. *Any non-zero trial function $f$ which satisfies the boundary condition $f(0)=f(1)=0$ always satisfies $$\int_0^1 \left( \frac{{\rm d}f}{{\rm d}z} \right)^2 {\rm d}z.$$*

[^1]: Present address: Plasma Physics Inc., 24 The Street, Lagos, Nigeria


abstract: We argue that the evaluation of censorship evasion tools should depend upon economic models of censorship. We illustrate our position with a simple model of the costs of censorship. We show how this model makes suggestions for how to evade censorship. In particular, from it, we develop evaluation criteria. We examine how our criteria compare to the traditional methods of evaluation employed in prior works.
author: Michael Carl Tschantz
UC Berkeley; Sadia Afroz
UC Berkeley; Vern Paxson
International Computer Science Institute
and UC Berkeley; J. D. Tygar
UC Berkeley
bibliography: censor.bib
title: On Modeling the Costs of Censorship[^1]

# Introduction

**Motivation.**

In response to government censorship of the Internet, activists and researchers have deployed numerous censorship evasion tools . Censors, in turn, have developed approaches to counter these evasion tools by, for example, blocking all Internet traffic produced from a given tool . Researchers have responded by proposing numerous improvements intended to neutralize such blocking (e.g., ). Due to limited resources, the developers of evasion tools cannot implement and deploy all of these; they need criteria for selecting the most promising.

While the evaluation sections of research papers provide some insight into the promise of each proposal, each paper employs its own evaluation methodology, typically selected with the capabilities of the tool in mind, making cross-tool comparisons difficult. Furthermore, determining how well the evaluation predicts real-world performance often poses difficulties. Prototyped tools meeting evaluation criteria are sometimes easily broken using methods unconsidered by the evaluation .

In this paper, we provide a preliminary examination of a different framework for evaluation with hopes of generating interest in evaluation issues. We propose augmenting prior tool-specific methods of evaluation with a new methodology for creating evaluation criteria and interpreting results. We start from the premise that censors and evaders engage in an ongoing arms race whose ebb and flow is largely determined by economic concerns. Thus, we argue we should evaluate tools on their promise to drive up the costs of the censor while remaining inexpensive to implement.

From this prospective, tool-specific evaluations become important evidence that a tool could drive up a censor's costs. Our perspective addresses the abovementioned shortcoming of prior evaluations in two ways. First, by examining total cost, we remind the evaluator that every aspect of the traffic produced by the evasion tool matters, not simply those considered by its designer. We hope this universal view will encourage designers to widen their focus and catch the often simple attacks that foiled past approaches.

Second, by potentially providing a numerical score, cost can reflect a more quantitative measure than seeing whether a tool can be broken by any means, a standard more appropriate when a clear winner is possible (e.g., cryptographic protocols) than an arms race.

**Overview.**

After motivating our arms-race view of censorship and the need for considering costs, we turn our attention to illustrating the use of our methodology. Our illustration is preliminary and focuses on only one side of the equation, the costs to the censor, leaving the evader's costs to future work.

Our illustration starts with a simple model of the censor's costs. The model emphasizes the ability of the censor to employ any feature of network traffic, not just those on which the tool is evaluated. Given the paucity of information regarding the budgets of real censors, our model must leave the actual costs as unknown parameters. Thus, we cannot use our model to predict actual costs. Despite this limitation, we use it to reason about whether a particular design choice increases costs (by some undetermined amount).

We find that these qualitative results suggest economically motivated evaluation criteria for evasion tools. Informally, we judge a tool by the number of *inexpensive* features it obfuscates. We estimate the expense of a feature using surrogates for the actual costs faced by the censor.

We examine three prior approaches under these criteria and find that each is narrowly focused. We also use our model to explain the effectiveness of *active manipulation*, attacks during which the censor interacts with an evasion tool, rather than just passively watching its traffic. We conclude that, in the case of a blacklisting censor, *looking different from known disallowed traffic is a better choice than mimicking allowed protocols.* We end with a discussion of open questions.

# Prior Work

Some previous research considered cost of a censor as a result of different circumvention methods. Houmansadr et al. determined that evading decoy routing would increase a censor's cost in terms of network latency and path length . Elahi et al. proposed the CORDON taxonomy that divides different censorship evasion strategies into six types according to their effects on a censor . We model costs of the censor for detecting traffic obfuscation tools.

Roberts et al. evaluated tools by testing whether they work in various countries . Callanan et al. used a combination of in-laboratory tests and user surveys to determine the usability, performance, and security characteristics of a variety of tools . By using common methods on tools in their environment, these researchers were able to compare the current success of deployed tools. However, researchers and developers need criteria applicable to undeployed tools. They must carefully select which proposals to develop and deploy due the costs associated with such efforts. Also, criteria based on surveys include factors other than the technical merits of an approach. For example, a tool may have high adoption due to having first-mover advantage or popular proponents. Alternatively, a tool might be unblocked despite being easily blocked since the tool is too unpopular to warrant the censor's attention. We desire evaluation criteria that rate tools upon their technical merits.

Others have explored absolute characterizations of success. For example, Pfitzmann and Hansen use *undetectability*, or *unobservability*, to mean that the censor should not be able to determine which Internet users are using the evasion tool and use *unblockability* to mean that the censor should not be able to block the tool's traffic without also blocking a great deal of unrelated traffic . However, perfectly achieving these goals typically leads to unacceptably high performance degradation. Thus, undetectability and unblockability are only approximated by tools attempting to increase the censor's numbers of false negatives and false positives, respectively.

Dingledine enumerates general properties that make for a good evasion tool . We focus on lower-level criteria specific to a tool not being blocked and on the justification of the criteria in terms of an economic model.

None the particular evaluations used by various tool developers were designed to be applicable to multiple tools. We discuss them in Section , where we compare their evaluations to our own criteria.

Houmansadr et al. empirically come to a similar conclusion as we do: tools mimicking allowed protocols are ill-advised . They support their position by showing that censors can easily identify such mimicking tools. We explore the issue using a formal model.

# The Arms Race

When an evader deploys a sufficiently successful evasion tool, an effected censor typically improves its system to catch use of the tool. Thus, the two sides are engaged in an arms race. With this in mind, evasion tools should be designed to slow the censor down and to cost it resources.

To illustrate this arms race and motivate the consideration of costs, we consider the two most popular approaches that evaders take, polymorphism and steganography, and the possible responses of the censors. Before doing so, we provide background on the censor and evader. We focus on Tor-based evasion tools  and presume familiarity with Tor's use as such.

**Censors and Evaders.**

A censor disallows some subset of messages. It employs a classifier that examines network traffic and attempts to identify those packets facilitating a disallowed message. The classifier typically uses hand-crafted signatures that characterize disallowed traffic (a blacklist) or allowed traffic (a whitelist). We focus on blacklisting censors as they are more common . We consider the classifier missing a disallowed message to be a false negative and accidentally blocking an allowed message to be a false positive.

The signatures in the blacklist refer to the value of various *features* of the traffic. These features can depend upon a single packet, such as IP address or the destination's domain name; upon distributions over more than one packet, such as the distribution of interpacket arrival times and packet lengths within a packet flow; or upon the sequence of packets within a flow, requiring the keeping of state. Distributional and stateful features tend to be more costly since they require more storage and computation .

A censor can identify disallowed traffic either by passive monitoring or by active manipulation. Whereas monitoring simply watches traffic, active manipulation involves the censor sending traffic to a suspected evader. For example, the evader can send manipulated requests to the evader to study its reaction. Active attacks can allow the censor to drive the evader toward more recognizable traffic, which we discuss more in Section .

We view an evasion tool as a transformation on the network traffic that the censor attempts to classify. Since censors typically consider any traffic employing an evasion tool as disallowed, we only consider transformations that alter only disallowed traffic. (Transformations on allowed traffic could be possible with help from, for example, ISPs, but we leave such considerations to future work.) Thus, the tool can transform the features examined by the censor in a manner that drives up false negatives, but not false positives.

If an evader drives up the number of false negatives unacceptably high, the censor will respond with a new classifier. The classifier could be altered to recognize the new values produced by disallowed messages under the old features or to employ new features that remain unobfuscated by the evader. The classifier may introduce false positives by attempting to block the tool too aggressively. Thus, tools can indirectly cause false positives.

Let us consider two examples of such transformations with the first motivated by polymorphism and the second by steganography. We also consider the censor's possible responses to the transformations and how they affect the expenses of the censor. For simplicity, we presume the censor's blacklist starts with a single signature, which is a threshold on the value that a single feature takes on.

**Polymorphism.**

Polymorphism is a way of spreading out behavior. To be polymorphic in a feature means that the feature takes on multiple values among different instances, such as messages. Spreading out the values of a feature used in a blacklist's signature can result in the signature no longer identifying disallowed traffic, increasing false negatives (Figure ).

In response, the censor can either come up with a new decision boundary using the old feature or employ a new feature. A new boundary is likely to be more complex than the old one, making it more difficult to implement and less likely to generalize to new traffic (e.g., ). Thus, it will typically be less accurate, increasing the costs of the censor. Using a new feature may require additional measurements driving up the operating costs of the censor. Either way, the censor must spend on the development effort. For example, many censors (Iran, China, and Syria) were blocking SSL and, thus, Tor as it also uses SSL. To circumvent this, Obfsproxy (obfs2) was implemented that added an extra layer of encryption on top of Tor with no recognizable byte patterns. To identify Tor with Obfsproxy the censor either has to employ a new complex classifier or a new feature. The new feature could be a passive feature like packet arrival time or an active feature like the reaction to active manipulation .

Note that the role of polymorphism in our description differs from that of Tor's pluggable transports. The pluggable transports framework allows creating different protocols to transform the Tor traffic flow into different formats with the goal of replacing a blocked protocol quickly. Here, we are envisioning a single protocol that automatically uses many polymorphic variants simultaneously.

**Steganography.**

Steganography is a way of looking like allowed communications. To be steganographic in a feature means having values that are very close to the allowed communications. Since steganography transforms a feature, as with polymorphism, it can result in unrecognizable disallowed traffic and more false negatives (Figure ).

In the case of perfect steganography on the feature, responding by selecting a more complex decision boundary will not help since the traffic is no longer separable by the altered feature. If the censor keeps relying upon the altered feature, it has to choose between raising false negatives or positives.

Alternatively, the censor can add a new feature on which allowed and disallowed traffic continue to differ, incurring the cost of implementing and tracking the new feature. Furthermore, adding such a new feature would require learning about how the disallowed and allowed messages differ, which could involve detailed knowledge of the protocol used by the allowed messages and approximated by disallowed traffic (the *cover protocol*). For example, SkypeMorph transforms Tor traffic to look similar to Skype traffic by changing the packet length distribution of Tor traffic. To distinguish real Skype and mimicked Skype traffic, the censor can check their error behaviors using knowledge of the Skype protocol .

# The Costs of Censorship

Motivated by the above examples, we believe that censorship and censorship evasion has been and will continue to be an arms race where censors will track an increasing number of features and evaders will transform an increasing number of them. Since the pace of this race is set largely by the budgets of each opponent, technologies that increase the costs of the censor while not increasing the costs of the evaders should be welcomed by the evaders. For this reason, we present a simple cost model of the censor.

First, we consider the costs that the censor incurs as a consequence of allowing or disallowing various packets. Let $c(t,a)$ be the cost to the censor when taking the action $a$ on a packet of type $t$ where for simplicity the actions are $a_{\mathsf{a}}$ for allow and $a_{\mathsf{d}}$ for disallow and the types are $t_{\mathsf{a}}$ for allowed or $t_{\mathsf{d}}$ for disallowed. (Refinements are possible.) The censor will pick the action that minimizes its expected cost given the information it has on the packet $i$. That is, it selects $$\begin{aligned}
d(i \mathop{{|}}F) &= \mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{a} \sum_{t \in T} P(\mathsf{type}(i){=}t \mathop{{|}}F(i)) * c(t, a) \label{eqn:d}
\end{aligned}$$ where $F(i)$ is the result of computing the features in the set $F$ on $i$, $T$ is the set of types, and $\mathsf{type}(i)$ is the type of $i$. The cost that the censor will incur for $i$ is $$\begin{aligned}
C(i \mathop{{|}}F) &= c(\mathsf{type}(i), d(i \mathop{{|}}F)) \label{eqn:C}
\end{aligned}$$

When $d(i \mathop{{|}}F)$ is $a_{\mathsf{a}}$ but $\mathsf{type}(i)$ is $t_{\mathsf{d}}$, the censor has a false negative. We assume that the cost $c(t_{\mathsf{d}}, a_{\mathsf{a}})$ is positive since the censor is attempting to block such messages. When $d(i \mathop{{|}}F)$ is $a_{\mathsf{d}}$ but $\mathsf{type}(i)$ is $t_{\mathsf{a}}$, the censor has a false positive. We assume that $c(t_{\mathsf{a}}, a_{\mathsf{d}})$ is positive since blocking allowed traffic can disrupt the economy of the censoring country . The others costs could be zero or even negative, indicating a reward.

Second, we consider the costs of operating the censorship system. To compute the features in the set $F$, the system makes measurements of traffic, such as recording the packet arrival times or lengths. We model operating each measurement $m$ as incurring a cost $\mathsf{op}(m)$.

We also allow the censorship system to be stateful. For example, state allows us to model the feature of flow entropy, which requires making measurements of each packet in a flow and storing distributional information for each flow. The operating expenses of a feature due to storage can depend upon the accuracy to which it is computed. For example, entropy-based approaches become more accurate as the number of samples increases. However, sampling, in this case, means waiting for more packets, which means more storage costs. (Also, if such packets are sent to their destinations before a decision is reached, this can lead to those packets being false negatives, also increasing cost.) With these considerations in mind, we conclude that typically, flow-level features computed over a distribution of packet-level features are typically more costly than packet-level features. We model each feature $f$ as incurring a cost $\mathsf{store}(f)$ that depends upon the amount of memory it requires.

Lastly, we consider development costs. Each new feature $f$ must be implemented, incurring a cost of $\mathsf{imp}(f)$.

For simplicity, we assume that the censor's system is updated according to a development cycle of fixed duration. To each cycle, we charge the costs of developing the classifier used during that cycle and for using it during the cycle. The development costs depend upon not just the set $F'$ of features used during the cycle, but also the set $F$ of features used in the past since previously used features need not be reimplemented. We denote the expected total cost as $\mathsf{cost}(F' | F, P)$ where $F'$ are the features used by the classifier during the cycle, $F$ are the features previously used, and $P$ is the traffic distribution. We model the expected total cost as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{cost}(F' | F, P) =
\phantom{+}& \sum_{\vec{i}} P(\vec{i}) * \sum_{i \in \vec{i}} C(i | F')\\
+& \sum_{m \in \mathsf{meas}(F)} \mathsf{op}(m)\\
+& \sum_{f \in F'} \mathsf{store}(f)\\
+& \sum_{f \in F' - F} \mathsf{imp}(f)
%
\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{i}$ ranges over the traffic possible during that cycle and $\mathsf{meas}(F)$ denotes the set of measurements needed to compute the features $F$. The actual cost is computed by fixing $\vec{i}$ to the actual traffic.

We remind the reader that the above model is not designed to produce accurate predictions of the censor's actual costs. Rather, we keep it simple and abstract while treating it as point of departure to discuss how to increase the censor's relative costs in general. Thus, we make no effort to estimate any of the costs to which the model refers. Furthermore, do not claim that our model captures every cost of the censor. With this model in mind, we now turn to the approaches that the evasion tool may use to drive up this cost.

# Evaluation Criteria

Given that we cannot directly measure the costs effecting censors, we search for surrogates that protocol designers can measure and have reason to believe are correlated with these costs. Such surrogates can serve as criteria for selecting which research proposals to deploy. Since we do not empirically demonstrate that these surrogates actually correlate to a censor's costs, they must be considered hypotheses.

For a surrogate of the accuracy of a set of features, the tool evaluator may test a classifier using those features over simulated traffic that includes traffic from the evaluated tool. The number of lines of code needed to implement a feature can act as a surrogate for the its implementation costs. The amount of storage for each feature serves as a surrogate for storage costs. The number of measurements needed for all the features is a surrogate for measurement costs.

Intuitively, the quality of an evasion tool is proportional to the cost of the most inexpensive feature set $F$ that achieves such a level of quality as demanded by the censor. Thus, if the evaluator can find an inexpensive set of features $F_1$ that accurately identifies traffic from a evasion tool $e_1$ but cannot find an equally or less expensive set of features $F_2$ that accurately identifies traffic from a tool $e_2$, then the evaluator should suspect that $e_2$ is a better one than $e_1$. However, the evaluator must keep in mind that these findings are relative to his ability to find and test feature sets $F$ and to the method of estimating the expense of features.

In this way, the creators of tools cannot argue that their tool achieves some level success since some set of features might exist that they failed to consider. However, they can demonstrate the shortcoming of other tools by illustrating feature sets under which other tools perform more poorly than their own.

Tool creators can also demonstrate that certain features, those obfuscated by their tool, are unlikely to be useful in crafting attacks against their own tool. By doing so for inexpensive, well-known features, they can argue that either unusual or expensive features would have to be used for an attack against their system. Thus, a heuristic metric of a tool's prospects for success is the cheapness of the features it obfuscates. For example, a tool that obfuscates a few very inexpensive features should be viewed more favorably than a tool that obfuscates expensive features, even if it obfuscates more of them.

While computing these surrogates may appear daunting, those evaluating evasion tools typically implement and run programs using the features they claim their tool obfuscates. Thus, they may use their own implementations to find values for these surrogates.

# Reevaluation of Existing Tools

In this section, we demonstrate how our evaluation criteria can be used in practice to guide the development process and evaluation of different circumvention tools. To do this we reevaluate some existing tools using our evaluation criteria. We examine only the capabilities of these tools as described in each paper's evaluation; we make no effort to confirm the correctness of these evaluations or to infer additional capabilities of the tools.

ScrambleSuit  obfuscates Tor traffic by not employing a telltale TLS handshake used by plain Tor and by polymorphically randomizing packet lengths and interpacket arrival times to look different from both Tor and its own instances. Presuming that the packet lengths and interpacket arrival times over which it randomizes matches ones seen in allowed traffic, then it obfuscates these features.

SkypeMorph  is a steganography tool to obfuscate Tor traffic as Skype video calls. In addition to hiding the TLS handshake, it changes the Tor packet sizes and interpacket delays to match that of pre-recorded traffic of a Skype video call. Since Skype traffic is common, it obfuscates these two features.

StegoTorus is a polymorphic steganographic tool designed to have a diverse set of steganographic modules allowing the StegoTorus client to use whichever modules the censor has not yet blocked . Currently, there are two proof-of-concept steganography modules, one uses HTTP and another mimics an encrypted peer-to-peer cover protocol, such as Skype. StegoTorus obfuscates the TLS handshake, connection length (seconds), connection payload, and per-packet payloads, which corresponds to two measurements since connection payload and per-packet payload require the same measurement.

While all three obfuscates a small number of inexpensive features, some of their effort to obfuscate distributional features may be misplaced. For example, StegoTorus and SkypeMorph focus on mimicking distribution based features but fail to mimic inexpensive features like error codes, a weakness we discuss next.

# Active Manipulation

To illustrate the censor's ability to focus on inexpensive, simple features, we discuss active manipulation. Active manipulation aims to increase $P(F(i) \mathop{{|}}\mathsf{type}(i){=}t_{\mathsf{d}})$ when $\mathsf{type}(i) = t_{\mathsf{d}}$ by making the instance behave in a manner that is characteristic of disallowed traffic while not degrading any of the other probabilities. To do so, active manipulation engages in behavior characteristic of an evasion tool that is not characteristic of any known allowed protocols.

For example, presuming that all Tor traffic is disallowed, the censor could initiate the Tor protocol handshake and observe whether the client producing the instance responds in the manner of Tor. Such manipulations work well since allowed traffic is unlikely to just so happen to exhibit Tor's complex behavior meaning that active manipulation introduces few false positives. Thus, atypical, complex behaviors are dangerous for evasion tools as it provides a telltale sign of its use. Systems like ScrambleSuit that reduces the complexity of the handshake for those without a password represent progress .

In Houmansadr et al. , they consider a form of active manipulation for defeating steganographic systems. It operates in two steps. First, it establishes that the protocol is very similar to some whitelisted protocol in a manner similar to the initiation attack discussed above. Second, it proves that protocol is not really that whitelisted protocol by exercising some atypical behavior of the whilelisted protocol.

Using some additional reasoning and replacing "whitelisted traffic" with "allowed traffic", the above manipulation approach may also be used by a blacklisting censor. Intuitively, the above two steps together show that the protocol is masquerading as another, which is suspicious enough to warrant blocking since it is unlikely that allowed traffic would do so. However, in this case, the evader may respond as in the above attacks by decreasing its complexity to pass as a simple, unknown protocol, which in this case would mean no longer attempting to look like a known protocol. Thus, it appears that *polymorphism is a better choice than steganography in the blacklisting case.*

# Discussion and Future Work

The simple cost model presented in this preliminary proposal has already provided some insights into tool evaluation. We have provided a proof of concept that evaluations can be more universally applied and more closely tied to economics than in the past.

These advantages come with difficulties making our evaluations more complex than tool-specific ones with a narrow focus. Furthermore, this preliminary work leaves some questions open. We consider some below.

\(1\) Can our cost model be validated? We developed our cost model primarily through intuition. Ideally, we would have empirical results showing its accuracy. Future work can look at the costs of actual censors in democratic countries with published budgets to gain insights into their costs. We can also compare our model to the costs of those engaged in similar arms races, such as spam detection or network intrusion detection.

\(2\) How should we select features to examine? The evaluator might overlook relatively cheap features while examining ones that the censor never intended to use. In essence, the evaluations of StegoTorus and SkypeMorph, by not considering the features considered by Houmansadr et al. , suffered from this trap, which our methodology highlights but does not prevent. Future work can examine past data to estimate the relative cost of different features by seeing how long it takes for a censor to adapt to manipulations of them . However, the open-ended nature of the measurements and features possible makes it difficult to ever conclude that an evaluation examined every cheap feature. We expect dealing with features elicited by manipulation, such as those used Houmansadr et al. to distinguish StegoTorus from its cover protocols , will be particularly difficult to characterize.

\(3\) Do our surrogates reflect the censor's actual costs? Answering this question depends upon the answers to the previous two: our surrogates must be developed from an accurate cost model and should focus on the features mostly used by the censor. As a stopgap, our evaluation heuristic is computed using the features manipulated by the evasion tool rather than those used by the censor. Future work can instead subject evasion tools to a battery of tests based on inexpensive features.

\(4\) Are all costs equally important for any censorship regime? Different kind of costs might dominate in different censorship regimes. For example, China seems to increase censorship during and before specific events like the anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests, which suggests that the relative costs of false positives and negatives varies with the conditions. Other countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Qatar) use computationally-costly DPI methods rather than using simpler but customized methods like DNS redirection, as China does . These countries can easily buy off-the-shelf DPI tools but lack the skills to build customized tools, which implies that implementation costs might vary by country.

\(5\) What should we add to our model? Our current model only considers features of packets. Thus, we cannot fully evaluate tools like Flash Proxy  as it focuses on lowering the cost of creating new proxies rather than on obfuscating features of traffic. We also assume that packets do not interact with each other, which limits our ability to explain attacks leveraging such interactions. For example, Geddes et al.  show that randomly dropping $5\%$ of the traffic would render disallowed traffic using Skype as a cover protocol (e.g., FreeWave  and SkypeMorph ) useless without affecting legitimate Skype. This is caused by a channel mismatch between the cover protocol and the disallowed protocol: the cover protocols are loss tolerant peer-to-peer systems whereas the disallowed protocol (Tor) is a loss intolerant client-proxy system. We cannot model loss tolerance since we consider each packet in isolation.

\(6\) What are the trade-offs between the censor's and evaders' costs? Evaluations of evasion tools must also consider the costs of the evaders. Since evaders separate out into tool developers and tool users, we may require two additional cost models. With these models in hand, we may examine the trade-off between increasing the censor's costs and keeping the evaders' costs acceptable. Unfortunately, fully understanding these trade-offs may require models that produce quantitative predictions of costs allowing us to compare each party's cost on a common scale.

In particular, by focusing on the censor's costs, we presuppose that the evaders are better off whenever the censor is worse off. However, this is not always the case. For example, an evasion technique that increases the censor's false positives but does not result in more disallowed traffic flowing makes the censor worse off without helping the evader. Alternatively, the censor changing its opinion on the dangers of disallowed traffic may result in it blocking less disallowed traffic but without its costs increasing. Thus, we would like a better understanding of when increasing a censor's costs corresponds to an improvement for the evader.

While this proposal does not answer these questions, our overall methodology allows us to systematically consider them. It makes plain that prior evaluations and our own criteria found in Section  must be treated as heuristics and encourages the evaluator to consider how they may deviate from the actual quantity of interest, costs. We provide a rigorous methodology in which to discuss the trade-offs among evasion tools and their evaluations.

# Acknowledgments

We thank David Fifield for many helpful conversations on this topic.

[^1]: We gratefully acknowledge funding support from the Freedom 2 Connect Foundation, Intel, the National Science Foundation (grants 1237265 and 1223717), the Open Technology Fund, the TRUST Science and Technology Center (NSF grant 0424422), the US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The opinions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any funding sponsor or the United States Government.