MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300744953 · doi:10.1145/2881025.2889473

Node configuration for the Aho-Corasick algorithm in Intrusion Detection Systems

2016· article· en· W2300744953 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Packet Processing and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemNode (physics)TrieAlgorithmMetric (unit)Set (abstract data type)Real-time computingData miningOperating systemData structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we analyze the performance and cost trade-off from selecting two representations of nodes when implementing the Aho-Corasick algorithm. This algorithm can be used for pattern matching in network-based intrusion detection systems such as Snort. Our analysis uses the Snort 2.9.7 rules set, which contains almost 26k patterns. Our methodology consists of code profiling and analysis, followed by the selection of a parameter to maximize a metric that combines clock cycles count and memory usage. The parameter determines which of two types of nodes is selected for each trie node. We show that it is possible to select the parameter to optimize the metric, which results in an improvement by up to 12× compared with the single node-type case.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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