Sparse Binary-to-Ternary Encoding for Holographic Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In holographic data storage, information is recorded within the volume of a holographic medium. Typically, the data is presented as an array of pixels with modulation in amplitude and/or phase. In the 4-f orientation, the Fourier domain representation of the data array is produced optically, and this image is recorded. If the Fourier image contains large peaks, the recording material can saturate, which leads to errors in the read-out data array. In this paper, we present a coding process that produces sparse ternary data arrays. Ternary modulation is used because it inherently provides Fourier domain smoothing and allows more data to be stored per array in comparison to binary modulation. Sparse arrays contain fewer on-pixels than dense arrays, and thus contain less power overall, which reduces the severity of peaks in the Fourier domain. The coding process first converts binary data to a sequence of ternary symbols via a high-rate block code, and then uses guided scrambling to produce a set of candidate codewords, from which the most sparse is selected to complete the encoding process. Our analysis of the guided scrambling division and selection processes demonstrates that, with primitive scrambling polynomials, a sparsity greater than 1/3 is guaranteed for all encoded arrays, and that the probability of this worst-case sparsity decreases with increasing block size.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".