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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We establish upper and lower bounds on the secrecy capacity of the degraded Gaussian diamond-wiretap channel, and identify several ranges of channel parameters where these bounds coincide with useful intuitions. Furthermore, we investigate the effect of the presence of an eavesdropper on the capacity. We consider the following two scenarios: 1) common randomness is available at the source and the two relays and 2) randomness is available only at the source, and there is no randomness at the relays. Our upper bounds are established by taking into account the correlation between the two relay signals and the available randomness at the encoders, which generalize the techniques recently developed for the case without secrecy constraint. For the lower bounds, we propose two types of coding schemes: 1) decode-and-forward schemes where the relays cooperatively transmit the message and the fictitious message and 2) partial decode-and-forward schemes incorporated with multicoding in which each relay sends an independent partial message and the whole or partial fictitious message using dependent codewords.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it