MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New Resource Efficient Multi-PUF Techniques

2024· article· en· W4402716353 on OpenAlexaff
Sai Preetham Bonagiri, Mohammed Khalid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceResource (disambiguation)Computer architectureComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Physical Unclonable Function (PUF) is a lightweight hardware solution that offers affordable hardware-based security for electronic devices and systems. Due to their unpredictable response generation and inability to be replicated, their utilization is rapidly growing in authentication and security applications. It presents an alternative to conventional cryptographic systems that require large chip area and memory storage. However, a significant concern lies in the vulnerability of PUFs to popular machine learning attacks, such as Covariance Matrix Adaptability and Evaluation Strategy (CMA-ES) attacks and Linear Regression (LR) attacks, among others. To mitigate these vulnerabilities, numerous PUF models have been proposed, aiming to make it difficult to determine the Challenge-Response Pairs (CRPs) for those PUFs. Among these models, Multi-PUFs (MPUFs) have gained popularity for their success in enhancing security. however, MPUFs demand considerable resources and exhibit relatively low PUF metric values, despite their improved security against ML attacks. To increase resource efficiency further, two new Multi-PUF technique has been proposed in this paper, aiming to achieve a balance between resource utilization and challenge obfuscation complexity. The key idea involves reducing the number of resources used in a PUF line while concurrently increasing complexity during challenge obfuscation. The proposed design is implemented and verified on the Arty A7 100t FPGA board using AMD Vivado and Vitis Environment. Experimental results show that resource usage has been significantly reduced, by 9 and 46.5 percent respectively, for the two proposed techniques.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhysical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware SecurityFrench-language works237,207