Optimal Design of Multiple Description Lattice Vector Quantizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the design of multiple description lattice vector quantizers (MDLVQ), index assignment plays a critical role. In addition, one also needs to choose the Voronoi cell size of the central lattice v, the sublattice index N, and the number of side descriptions K to minimize the expected MDLVQ distortion, given the total entropy rate of all side descriptions Rt and description loss probability p. In this paper we propose a linear-time MDLVQ index assignment algorithm for any K >= 2 balanced descriptions in any dimensions, based on a new construction of so-called K-fraction lattice. The algorithm is greedy in nature but is proven to be asymptotically (N -> infinity) optimal for any K >= 2 balanced descriptions in any dimensions, given Rt and p. The result is stronger when K = 2: the optimality holds for finite N as well, under some mild conditions. For K > 2, a local adjustment algorithm is developed to augment the greedy index assignment, and conjectured to be optimal for finite N. Our algorithmic study also leads to better understanding of v, N and K in optimal MDLVQ design. For K = 2 we derive, for the first time, a non-asymptotical closed form expression of the expected distortion of optimal MDLVQ in p, Rt, N. For K > 2, we tighten the current asymptotic formula of the expected distortion, relating the optimal values of N and K to p and Rt more precisely.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".