Foundation models succeed when they learn in the native structure of a modality, whether morphology-respecting tokens in language or pixels in vision. Wireless packet traces deserve the same treatment: meaning emerges from layered headers, typed fields, timing gaps, and cross-packet state machines, not flat strings. We present Plume (Protocol Language Understanding Model for Exchanges), a compact 140M-parameter foundation model for 802.11 traces that learns from structured PDML dissections. A protocol-aware tokenizer splits along the dissector field tree, emits gap tokens for timing, and normalizes identifiers, yielding 6.2x shorter sequences than BPE with higher per token information density. Trained on a curated corpus, Plume achieves 74-97% next-packet token accuracy across five real-world failure categories and AUROC >= 0.99 for zero-shot anomaly detection. On the same prediction task, frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4) score comparably despite receiving identical protocol context, yet Plume does so with > 600x fewer parameters, fitting on a single GPU at effectively zero marginal cost vs. cloud API pricing, enabling on-prem, privacy-preserving root cause analysis.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. HDBSCAN-based curation. (a) Long-tail cluster sizes; beacon-dominated clusters contain thousands of near-identical frames. (b) Frames group by protocol function, validating clustering-based deduplication.
netFound ( Guthula et al., 2023 )
Lens ( Li et al., 2024 )
NetGPT ( Meng et al., 2023 )
LLMcap ( Tulczyjew et al., 2024 )
Plume
Architecture
Enc.
Enc-Dec
Dec.
Enc.
Dec.
Parameters
640M
–
–
∼ 66M
140M
Objective
MLM
Span
CLM
MLM
CLM
Tokenization
Field
BPE
BPE
WordPiece
Field
Layer hierarchy
Partial
✗
✗
✗
✓
802.11 mgmt/ctrl
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
Table 1. Design-space comparison of foundation models trained on networking data. MLM = Masked Language Modeling, CLM = Causal Language Modeling, Span = masked span prediction. ✓ = supported, ✗ = not supported, – = not reported.
Model
Token Acc.
Gen?
Anomaly?
Classify?
Plume (GPT)
0.831
✓
✓
✓
3-gram
0.257
✓
–
–
Most-Frequent
0.226
–
–
–
Random
0.000
✓
–
–
BERT (encoder)
–
–
–
✓
Table 2. Architecture and baseline comparison.
Tokenizer
Vocab
Avg Tok/Pkt
Entropy
Ratio
Plume (field-value)
69,842
326.8
7.61
16.2 ×
BPE on PDML
100,277
2,014.0
6.70
2.6 ×
Byte-level
256
5,294.7
4.75
1.0 ×
Flat (no layers)
1,959
332.9
7.55
15.9 ×
NetGPT-style
100,277
2,013.0
6.70
2.6 ×
Table 3. Tokenization ablation: Plume ’s protocol-aware tokenizer vs. alternatives. Compression ratio is relative to byte-level (higher is better).
Figure 2. Average tokens per packet. Plume ’s protocol-aware tokenizer yields 6.2× shorter sequences than BPE and 16.2× shorter than byte-level.
Metric
Train
Val
Files
7,890
2,023
Packets
149,238
38,669
Total tokens
48.9M
12.7M
Unique tokens
58,214
22,198
Avg packet length (tokens)
326.8
326.8
Token entropy (bits)
7.601
7.610
Table 4. Dataset statistics after HDBSCAN+MMR curation. Beacon fraction drops from > 50% in raw captures to 4.7%, while token entropy remains high (7.6 bits).
Category
Files
Packets
Avg Len
Entropy
Bad Password
9,960
116,469
421.8
7.52
EAPOL Timeout
9,992
257,057
318.9
7.37
Invalid PMKID
2,252
43,224
387.5
7.67
Unable Handle STA
9,997
143,746
377.8
7.53
Rejected Temp.
9,987
187,871
358.3
7.58
Table 5. Per-test-category corpus statistics showing the diversity of the evaluation data.
Model
Params
Width
Token Acc.
Field Acc.
Small (12H/768D)
140M
768
0.903
0.884
Medium (16H/1024D)
225M
1024
0.927
0.922
Large (24H/1536D)
450M
1536
0.801
0.780
Table 6. Multi-model scaling: same 69K vocabulary and 12-layer depth; differences reflect model width.
Figure 3. Token accuracy by category for Small (140M), Medium (225M), and Large (450M). Same vocabulary and depth; differences reflect model width.
Small
Medium
Large
GPT-5.2
Parameters
140M
225M
450M
N/A
Size (FP16)
280 MB
449 MB
901 MB
N/A
Peak VRAM
594 MB
937 MB
1,865 MB
N/A
Latency (mean)
280 ms
384 ms
666 ms
∼ 2 s
Throughput
200.2 pkt/s
150.6 pkt/s
82.7 pkt/s
N/A
Cost/1K pkt
∼ $0
∼ $0
∼ $0
$4.92
Table 7. Efficiency (single A10G, 24 GB) vs. GPT-5.2 API ($4.92/1K pkt at published pricing ( OpenAI, 2025a ) ). Peak VRAM includes PyTorch ( Paszke et al., 2019 ) overhead.
Figure 4. Per-field accuracy by category (left) and 10 best/worst fields (right). Addresses and frame control are near-perfect; timing and rare fields are hardest.
Figure 5. Prediction accuracy vs. context length. Accuracy saturates by 2–3 packets, matching typical 802.11 exchange length.
Figure 6. Cross-category generalization. (a) Per-layer accuracy: WLAN > 97.5% across all categories. (b) Cosine similarity of accuracy profiles: categories with shared protocol flows cluster together.
Failure Category
Plume
Claude 4.6
GPT-5.4
Bad Password
0.960
0.854
0.790
EAPOL Timeout
0.915
0.904
0.863
Invalid PMKID
0.753
0.865
0.852
Unable to Handle New STA
0.868
0.903
0.862
Rejected Temporarily
0.958
0.938
0.920
Overall mean
0.891
0.893
0.857
Table 8. Next-packet token accuracy: Plume (Small, 140M) vs. frontier LLMs. Total of 682 prediction pairs across five categories. Best per category in bold .
Figure 7. Per-category token accuracy for Plume (Small, 140M) vs. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4. Plume matches or exceeds frontier LLMs on stereotyped protocol flows while using > 600 × fewer parameters.
Wireless foundation models learn reusable representations of radio channels, signals, network traces, and telemetry for transfer across wireless tasks and settings.
What matters more for building foundation models for wireless packet traces: the tokenizer or the architecture or both? To answer this question, we build on PLUME Anonymous [2026], which introduced protocol-aware tokenization for 802.11 traces; we scale model depth and transfer the same tokenizer to a fundamentally different architecture family. A deeper GPT (PLUME-DEEP, 24 layers) reaches 98.2% top-1 accuracy, gaining 32 points over the original 12-layer design, while a Mamba-2 state-space variant (PLUME-MAMBA) achieves 96.1% with 1.7x higher throughput and 2x longer context. The key insight emerges from a controlled 2x2 comparison across tokenizers and architectures: changing the tokenizer swings accuracy by 32 points; changing the architecture moves it by only 2. Protocol-aware tokenization is the primary performance lever, and the backbone becomes a deployment knob trading accuracy for speed.
Diagnosing 802.11 packet captures requires expert protocol knowledge, is slow, inconsistent across engineers, and unscalable. LLM-based approaches sound plausible but fabricate protocol events absent from captures (especially truncated traces), produce uncalibrated confidence scores, and suffer evaluation bias when golden references are co-produced by the model under test. We introduce PROBE (Protocol Reasoning Over evidence-Based Ensembles), a multi-stage pipeline addressing all three failures. It integrates (i) deterministic PCAP-to-text normalization with frame-level verifiability, (ii) multi-run, multi-candidate ensembles with optional cross-model second opinion and progressive obfuscation, (iii) a verdict-aware evidence framework treating absence of failure evidence as contributing evidence, and (iv) a fully deterministic composite reliability score from evidence validity, run-to-run stability, and cross-model agreement without LLM self-assessment. On 87 enterprise Wi-Fi captures (104 capture-reviewer pairs), single-pass LLM analysis raises weighted evidence F1 from 0.871 (expert baseline) to 0.912 but misses critical frames in 35% of cases. Naive ensemble voting drops below baseline (0.842) as majority voting amplifies conservative verdicts: 50% of confirmed failures are misclassified as 'no issue' or 'insufficient evidence.' Adding evidence-grounded reconciliation achieves 0.957 F1, a 96% auto-accept rate, and a worst-case floor above 0.70. LLM self-reported confidence clusters at 0.95 regardless of difficulty (71% report exactly 0.95), confirming it is uninformative. We also introduce a model-agnostic evaluation framework using per-field assertion matching, eliminating circular bias from model-co-produced golden references.
Modern network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) are caught in a structural contradiction: the protocols carrying the highest threat intelligence are precisely those encrypted under TLS 1.3 and QUIC, where payload inspection yields nothing. We ask a simpler question -- what if the attack signature is not in the bytes, but in the rhythm? -- and answer it by treating network flows as a language whose grammar is written entirely in L3/L4 packet metadata: length, inter-arrival time, TTL, TCP flags, and hashed port numbers. We present PLM-NIDS, which proves three claims in sequence. (1) The grammar exists and is learnable: a RWKV-4 state-space model trained on 344,232 unlabelled Monday flows achieves a causal LM validation loss of 0.204, demonstrating that benign traffic has predictable, statistically consistent structure. (2) Attacks violate this grammar: the per-flow perplexity score cleanly separates benign from attack flows with PR-AUC = 0.93 using zero attack labels at training time. (3) This separation is architecturally nontrivial: an LSTM trained on identical token sequences degenerates to a majority-class predictor (ROC-AUC approximately 0.50, F1 = 0.91 by always predicting "attack"), proving that RWKV's causal pre-training provides an inductive bias unavailable to direct classifiers. Supervised fine-tuning further raises PR-AUC to 0.94 and ROC-AUC to 0.75, with a precision of 97.7% at the calibrated operating threshold. The RWKV backbone's O(T) recurrent inference enables per-packet streaming without flow buffering, making PLM-NIDS operationally viable at line rate. Because it reads only IP/TCP/UDP headers, it is inherently encryption-agnostic: TLS 1.3, QUIC, and future encrypted protocols are handled transparently.