MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036466669 · doi:10.1109/tit.2014.2361347

Prefactor Reduction of the Guruswami–Sudan Interpolation Step

2014· article· en· W2036466669 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Senger

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMathematicsInterpolation (computer graphics)UnivariatePolynomialMonomialApplied mathematicsModuloProjection (relational algebra)Reduction (mathematics)Discrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldAlgorithmPure mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisMultivariate statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most computationally intensive step of the Guruswami-Sudan list decoder for generalized Reed-Solomon codes is the formation of a bivariate interpolation polynomial. Complexity can be reduced if this polynomial has prefactors, i.e., factors of its univariate constituent polynomials that are independent of the received vector, and hence known a priori. For example, the well-known re-encoding projection due to Koetter et al. leads to one class of prefactors. This paper introduces so-called Sierpínski prefactors that result from the property that many binomial coefficients, which arise in the multiplicity constraints defined in terms of the Hasse derivative, are zero modulo the underlying field characteristic. It is shown that re-encoding prefactors and Sierpínski prefactors can be combined to achieve a significantly reduced Guruswami-Sudan interpolation step. In certain practically relevant cases, the introduction of Sierpínski prefactors reduces the number of unknown polynomial coefficients by an additional 10% or more (beyond the reduction due to re-encoding prefactors alone), without incurring additional computational effort at the decoder.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207