MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792692675 · doi:10.1049/iet-com.2017.1093

Enhanced Bloom filter utilisation scheme for string matching using a splitting approach

2018· article· en· W2792692675 on OpenAlexafffund
Shervin Vakili, J. M. Pierre Langlois, Yvon Savaria, Naraig Manjikian

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBloom filterComputer scienceBloomMatching (statistics)Filter (signal processing)Scheme (mathematics)String (physics)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatisticsBiologyEcologyMathematical analysisComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bloom filters (BFs) are widely utilised to speed up string matching in crucial network applications such as real‐time intrusion detection and spam filters. This study introduces a new approach to improve the efficiency of BFs for string matching functions. The approach splits each target string into two substrings and considers the second substring for programming the BF. The objective is to minimise the false positive rate by maximising the common hash signatures from the second substring. Results show that compared to the traditional means of using BFs, the proposed approach reduces the false positive rate by averages of 76 and 88% for 32 and 64 Kb BFs, respectively. Moreover, a complete string matching architecture has been developed in hardware based on the proposed approach. Results demonstrate the advantages of this new architecture compared to similar previous works.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET CommunicationsSame topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207