Coding Opportunity Densification Strategies for Instantly Decodable Network Coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we aim to identify the strategies that maximize and monotonically increase the density of coding opportunities in instantly decodable network coding (IDNC). Using the graph representation of IDNC, we first derive an expression for the exact evolution of the edge set size after the transmission of any arbitrary coded packet. From the derived expression, we show that sending commonly wanted packets for all the receivers can maximize the number of coding opportunities. Since guaranteeing such property in IDNC is usually impossible, this strategy does not guarantee the achievement of our target. Consequently, we further investigate the problem by deriving an expression for the expected edge set size evolution after ignoring the identities of the packets requested by the different receivers and considering only their numbers. This expression was then employed to show that serving the maximum number of receivers with largest numbers of missing packets and erasure probabilities tends to maximize and monotonically increase the expected density of coding opportunities. Simulation results justify our theoretical findings. Finally, we validate the importance of our work through two case studies showing that our\ignore{ identified} strategy outperforms several well-known IDNC solutions in optimizing the IDNC completion delay and receiver goodput.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".