MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000812989 · doi:10.1049/ip-com:20050493

Improved tangential sphere bound on the ML decoding error probability of linear binary block codes in AWGN and block fading channels

2006· article· en· W2000812989 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Mehrabian, Shahram Yousefi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEE Proceedings - Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpper and lower boundsMathematicsFadingAdditive white Gaussian noiseDecoding methodsAlgorithmBlock codeBounding overwatchCombinatoricsTopology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceStatisticsWhite noiseMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the added-hyperplane (AHP) bound was proposed on the foundation of the tangential sphere bound (TSB) of Poltyrev. AHP utilises a Bonferroni-type inequality (known as the Hunter bound) together with the Gallager first bounding technique (GFBT) and is tighter than TSB; however, it suffers from a performance-degrading overhead. Another inequality from the Hunter-bound family is applied to the GFBT and a novel technique has been proposed to waive the need for global geometrical properties of the code, removing the aforementioned overhead. Also, a star-structured graph is proposed as the corresponding spanning tree for the Hunter bound. The improved tangential sphere bound (ITSB) is tighter than TSB and AHP and does not impose any overhead or extra optimisation. ITSB is thus the tightest upper bound on the performance of linear binary block codes over AWGN channel. ITSB is then applied to different block (slow) fading channels as well as low-density parity-check codes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEE Proceedings - CommunicationsSame topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207