MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2068360111 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1303.2735

Efficient Codes for Limited View Adversarial Channels

2013· preprint· en· W2068360111 on OpenAlexaff
Reihaneh Safavi–Naini, Pengwei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode wordDecoding methodsComputer scienceList decodingCode (set theory)AdversaryAdversary modelConstruct (python library)Adversarial systemTheoretical computer scienceError detection and correctionAlgorithmConcatenated error correction codeBlock codeComputer networkComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce randomized Limited View (LV) adversary codes that provide protection against an adversary that uses their partial view of the communication to construct an adversarial error vector to be added to the channel. For a codeword of length N, the adversary selects a subset of ρ_rN of the codeword components to "see", and then "adds" an adversarial error vector of weight ρ_wN to the codeword. Performance of the code is measured by the probability of the decoder failure in recovering the sent message. An (N, q^{RN},δ)-limited view adversary code ensures that the success chance of the adversary in making decoder fail, is bounded by δwhen the information rate of the code is at least R. Our main motivation to study these codes is providing protection for wireless communication at the physical layer of networks. We formalize the definition of adversarial error and decoder failure, construct a code with efficient encoding and decoding that allows the adversary to, depending on the code rate, read up to half of the sent codeword and add error on the same coordinates. The code is non-linear, has an efficient decoding algorithm, and is constructed using a message authentication code (MAC) and a Folded Reed-Solomon (FRS) code. The decoding algorithm uses an innovative approach that combines the list decoding algorithm of the FRS codes and the MAC verification algorithm to eliminate the exponential size of the list output from the decoding algorithm. We discuss application of our results to Reliable Message Transmission problem, and open problems for future work.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.100 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicCooperative Communication and Network Coding→French-language works237,207→