MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance and Implementation Comparison of Knuth-Morris-Pratt and Boyer-Moore String Search Algorithms

2025· article· en· W4409642825 on OpenAlexaff
Taj Saleh, Fatma Corut Ergin, Malek Malkawi, Reda Alhajj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmBoyer–Moore string search algorithmString (physics)Theoretical computer scienceString searching algorithmCommentz-Walter algorithmMathematicsProgramming languageData structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

String search algorithms play an important role in many research areas such as data mining and bioinformatics. While there exist a number of algorithms that handles the topic, we are exploring the the Knuth-Morris-Pratt (KMP) and Boyer-Moore algorithms due to their efficiency and versatility. In this work, we compared the algorithms in terms of characteristics, performance and implementation details. We also tested both the algorithms with various patterns and texts that differs in size. We also analyzed the performance of the algorithms on 4 different processors to understand the technological advancements effects on their performance. Our findings suggest that the BM algorithm perform better with large texts and patterns, while the KMP algorithm is better suited for smaller ones. Also, while newer processor generally exhibit improved performance, the significance of these enhancements may vary. Thus, we should rather be looking specific architectural advancements within generations rather than focusing solely on the generational gap.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207