MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2043454408 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2013.6621613

An efficient Soliton-like network coding protocol for the resource-constrained Y-network

2013· article· en· W2043454408 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Liau, Il‐Min Kim, Shahram Yousefi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear network codingFountain codeComputer scienceRelayBinary erasure channelComputer networkDecoding methodsCoding (social sciences)ErasureErasure codeLuby transform codeTheoretical computer scienceDistributed computingAlgorithmChannel (broadcasting)Channel capacityBlock codeNetwork packetConcatenated error correction codeMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Originally designed for point-to-point transmissions, fountain codes are capacity-achieving codes over a binary erasure channel. On the other hand, network coding is an optimal multihop data dissemination protocol whose high decoding complexity makes it too expensive for resource-constrained applications. Soliton-like rateless coding (SLRC) has previously combined network and fountain coding paradigms such that a less complex decoder can be applied. Specifically, the coding done at an intermediate relay node allows a belief propagation decoder to be efficiently applied. We extend the SLRC protocol and propose the Improved Soliton-like Rateless Coding (ISLRC) protocol. In ISLRC, the relay applies intelligent coding and shapes the degree distribution such that performance is better than SLRC. In addition, ISLRCs performance gains are achieved using fewer resources than SLRC while maintaining all the key properties of SLRC. Simulation results show that even under the worst-case scenario of ISLRC, better performance can be achieved compared to SLRC and other existing schemes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network Coding→French-language works237,207→