Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network coding is known to improve the throughput and the resilience to losses in most network scenarios. In a practical network scenario, however, the accurate modeling of the traffic is often too complex and/or infeasible. The goal is thus to design codes that perform close to the capacity of any network (with arbitrary traffic) efficiently. In this context, random linear network codes are known to be capacity-achieving while requiring a decoding complexity quadratic in the message length. Chunked Codes (CC) were proposed by Maymounkov et al. to improve the computational efficiency of random codes by partitioning the message into a number of non-overlapping chunks. CC can also be capacity-achieving but have a lower encoding/decoding complexity at the expense of slower convergence to the capacity. In this paper, we propose and analyze a generalized version of CC called Overlapped Chunked Codes (OCC) in which chunks are allowed to overlap. Our theoretical analysis and simulation results show that compared to CC, OCC can achieve the capacity with a faster speed while maintaining almost the same advantage in computational efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".