Simultaneous zero-tailing of parallel concatenated codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a parallel concatenated convolutional code, an information sequence is encoded by a convolutional encoder, and an interleaved version of the information sequence is encoded by another convolutional encoder. We discuss the situation in which we require both convolutional encoders to end in the all-zero state. To do so, we have to split an information word in two parts. One part contains the true information bits, and the second part contains the so-called tail bits, which are special bits with values computed such that both encoders end in the all-zero state. Depending on the interleaver, a different number of tail bits are needed. By using a constructive method, we give a characterization of all interleavers for a prescribed number of tail bits. We explain the method of encoding. In addition, simulations have been carried out to investigate the performance of codes resulting from simultaneous zero-tailing. This shows that simultaneous zero-tailing is similar in performance as compared to previously known zero-tailing methods (but with fewer trellis termination bits) and that it is better than zero-tailing just one of the encoders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".