MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152966189 · doi:10.1109/fpt.2008.4762368

PERG: A scalable FPGA-based pattern-matching engine with consolidated Bloomier filters

2008· article· en· W2152966189 on OpenAlexafffund
Johnny Tsung Lin Ho, Guy Lemieux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Packet Processing and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsBloom filterComputer scienceBytePattern matchingString searching algorithmFilter (signal processing)False positive paradoxHash functionData miningScalabilityField-programmable gate arrayIntrusion detection systemComputer hardwarePattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmDatabaseArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PERG is an FPGA application that accelerates the process of searching a stream of bytes against a large, fixed database of string patterns. The stream could be network, disk, or file traffic, while the pattern database may represent computer viruses, spam, keyword sequences, or watermarks. A full pattern, or rule, consists of a sequence of one or more segments separated by gaps. Each segment is an exact sequence of bytes, possibly 100s of bytes long. Each gap contains arbitrary bytes, but is a known length. PERG uses a pattern compiler to transform a database of these rules into a hardware implementation. To the authorspsila knowledge, this is the first pattern match engine hardware designed for large virus databases. It is also first among network intrusion detection systems (NIDS), which are similar in nature to PERG, to implement Bloomier filters. Like hash tables, Bloomier filters produce false positives due to aliasing, so all potential matches must be verified by exact matching. However, Bloomier filters are more powerful than their ancestral Bloom filters because they can identify the exact rule of a potential match. This enables two key advantages for PERG. First, it allows PERG to use a checksum to very efficiently reduce false positives. Second, exact matching with PERG filters is much faster than with Bloom filter systems because only one suspect pattern needs to be checked, not all patterns. To reduce memory requirements, PERG packs as many segments as possible into each Bloomier filter by consolidating several different segment lengths into the same filter unit. This is done by dividing each segment into two smaller but overlapping fragments of the same length. Dividing into non-overlapping fragments would create shorter fragments of uneven lengths, leading to higher false positives and differing lengths to consolidate later. Using the ClamAV antivirus database, PERG fits 80,282 patterns containing over 8,224,848 characters into a single modest FPGA chip with a small (4 MB) off-chip memory. It uses just 26 filter units, resulting in roughly 26x improved density (characters per memory bit) compared to the next-best NIDS pattern match engine which fits only 1/250ththe characters. PERG can scan at roughly 200 MB/s and match the speed of most network or disk interfaces.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Packet Processing and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207