Optimality and Approximate Optimality of Source-Channel Separation in Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the source-channel separation architecture for lossy source coding in communication networks. It is shown that the separation approach is optimal in two general scenarios and is approximately optimal in a third scenario. The two scenarios for which separation is optimal complement each other: the first is when the memoryless sources at source nodes are arbitrarily correlated, each of which is to be reconstructed at possibly multiple destinations within certain distortions, but the channels in this network are synchronized, orthogonal, and memoryless point-to-point channels; the second is when the memoryless sources are mutually independent, each of which is to be reconstructed only at one destination within a certain distortion, but the channels are general, including multi-user channels, such as multiple access, broadcast, interference, and relay channels, possibly with feedback. The third scenario, for which we demonstrate approximate optimality of source-channel separation, generalizes the second scenario by allowing each source to be reconstructed at multiple destinations with different distortions. For this case, the loss from optimality using the separation approach can be upper-bounded when a difference distortion measure is taken, and in the special case of quadratic distortion measure, this leads to universal constant bounds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".