MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966899942 · doi:10.1109/cit.2012.137

Searching for Optimal Deletion Correcting Codes: New Properties and Extensions of Tenengolts Codes

2012· article· en· W1966899942 on OpenAlex
Zhiyuan Li, Sheridan Houghten

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Biological Computing
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamming codeLuby transform codeBlock codeLinear codeTornado codeReed–Muller codeExpander codeConcatenated error correction codeRaptor codeComputer scienceTurbo codeHamming distanceFountain codeCode (set theory)Hamming boundConstruct (python library)AlgorithmMathematicsDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Codes capable of correcting insertions or deletions due to synchronization errors are of increasing importance as the speed of transmission grows. Finding optimal deletion-correcting codes is particularly difficult because unlike traditional codes defined over Hamming distance, the sizes of the spheres about the code words are of varying sizes. Our research focuses on the Tenengolts codes, a class of non-binary one-deletion-correcting codes. These codes are asymptotically near-optimal. We examine parameters for which the largest Tenengolts codes are to be expected and consider how to extend these to construct larger codes. Several hypotheses, which are supported by the results of experiments, are made and partially proven.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDNA and Biological ComputingFrench-language works237,207