Improved Low-Complexity Soliton-Like Network Coding for a Resource-Limited Relay
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
In this paper, we examine the marriage of Fountain coding and network coding (NC). Fountain codes are capacity achieving erasure codes designed for point-to-point transmissions. NC is a throughput-optimal data dissemination technique, but its high-complexity decoding makes it unattractive for applications where limited resources are available. In this paper, we consider Fountain network coding to take advantage of efficient fountain decoders. Protocols such as Soliton-like rateless coding (SLRC) have previously addressed this issue, yet the re-encoding at the relay is expensive while there is still room for improving the performance. Extending SLRC, we propose the Improved Soliton-like Rateless Coding (ISLRC) protocol, where the relay is designed to perform distribution shaping given limited resources. ISLRC preserves the same properties as SLRC, but also makes the aggregate degree distribution more efficient for Fountain decoding. We analyze ISLRC's degree distribution and perform an asymptotic error analysis for the case where resources are most scarce. The ISLRC scheme is compared against other existing schemes. Simulation results show that even under the worst-case scenario of ISLRC, better performance can be achieved compared to SLRC and other existing schemes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 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