L-CBF: A Low-Power, Fast Counting Bloom Filter Architecture
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of architectural techniques have relied on hardware counting bloom filters (CBFs) to improve upon the energy, delay, and complexity of various processor structures. CBFs improve the energy and speed of membership tests by maintaining an imprecise and compact representation of a large set to be searched. This paper studies the energy, delay, and area characteristics of two implementations for CBFs using full custom layouts in a commercial 0.13-mum fabrication technology. One implementation, S-CBF, uses an SRAM array of counts and a shared up/down counter. Our proposed implementation, L-CBF, utilizes an array of up/down linear feedback shift registers and local zero detectors. Circuit simulations show that for a 1 K-entry CBF with a 15-bit count per entry, L-CBF compared to S-CBF is 3.7times or 1.6times faster and requires 2.3times or 1.4times less energy depending on the operation. Additionally, this paper presents analytical energy and delay models for L-CBF. These models can estimate energy and delay of various CBF organizations during architectural level explorations when a physical level implementation is not available. Our results demonstrate that for a variety of L-CBF organizations, the estimations by analytical models are within 5% and 10% of Spectre simulation results for delay and energy, respectively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it