MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995409733 · doi:10.1049/ip-com:20050020

Gallager first bounding technique for the performance evaluation of maximum-likelihood decoded linear binary block codes

2006· article· en· W1995409733 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEE Proceedings - Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBounding overwatchUpper and lower boundsCode wordMathematicsBinary numberAlgorithmComplement (music)Decoding methodsProbability of errorDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exact bit or frame error rate expressions for most communication systems are either too complex or unlikely to exist in nice closed forms. A good alternative is to bound the performance measure by tight enough lower and upper bounds. Many tight upper bounds on the error probability of binary codes are based on the so-called Gallager's first bounding technique (GFBT). In this method, Gallager splits the error probability to the joint probability of error and noise residing in a region $\Re$ (here referred to as the Gallager region) plus joint probability of error and noise residing in the complement of $\Re$ (also referred to as regions of many and few errors, respectively); where $\Re$ is a volume around the transmitted codeword. A comprehensive study of a number of upper bounds on the error probability of ML decoding of binary codes based on GFBT is provided. For some bounds, their applicability to other schemes and channels is also pointed out and argued.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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