MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985033232 · doi:10.1049/iet-com.2014.0658

Improved finite‐length Luby‐transform codes in the binary erasure channel

2015· article· en· W1985033232 on OpenAlexafffund
Khaled F. Hayajneh, Shahram Yousefi, Mehrdad Valipour

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYarmouk University
KeywordsErasureLuby transform codeBinary erasure channelOnline codesTornado codeComputer scienceErasure codeBinary numberChannel (broadcasting)AlgorithmDecoding methodsMathematicsLow-density parity-check codeComputer networkError floorArithmeticChannel capacity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fountain codes were introduced to provide high reliability and scalability and low complexities for networks such as the Internet. Luby‐transform (LT) codes, which are the first realisation of Fountain codes, achieve the capacity of the binary erasure channel (BEC) asymptotically and universally. Most previous work on single‐layer Fountain coding targets the design via the right degree distribution. The left degree distribution of an LT code is left as a Poisson to protect the universality. For finite lengths, this is no longer an issue; thus, the author's focus is on designing better codes for the BEC at practical lengths. Their left degree shaping provides codes outperforming LT codes and all other competing schemes in the literature. At a bit error rate of 10 −7 and packet length k = 256, their scheme provides a realised rate of 0.6 which is 23.5% higher than that of Sorensen et al. ’s decreasing‐ripple‐size scheme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET CommunicationsSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207