Unequal Message Protection: Asymptotic and Non-Asymptotic Tradeoffs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a form of unequal error protection that we term unequal message protection (UMP). The message set of a UMP code is a union of m disjoint message classes. Each class has its own error protection requirement, with some classes needing better error protection than others. We analyze the tradeoff between rates of message classes and the levels of error protection; our analysis reveals new tradeoffs, which were not captured by prior works on UMP codes. To obtain our results, we generalize finite block length achievability and converse bounds due to Polyanskiy-Poor-Verdú. We evaluate our bounds for the binary symmetric and binary erasure channels, and analyze the asymptotic characteristic of the bounds in the fixed error and moderate deviations regimes. In addition, we consider two questions related to the practical construction of UMP codes. First, we study a header construction that prefixes the message class into a header followed by data protection using a standard homogeneous (classical) code. We show that, in general, this construction is not optimal at finite block lengths. We further demonstrate that our main UMP achievability bound can be obtained using coset codes, which suggests a path to implementation of tractable UMP codes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".