MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108236351 · doi:10.1109/18.841196

The capacity-cost function of discrete additive noise channels with and without feedback

2000· article· en· W2108236351 on OpenAlexaff
Fady Alajaji, N. Whalen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Communication Security Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpper and lower boundsAperiodic graphMarkov chainMathematicsNoise (video)Function (biology)Channel capacityMarkov processTopology (electrical circuits)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider modulo-q additive noise channels, where the noise process is a stationary irreducible and aperiodic Markov chain of order k. We begin by investigating the capacity-cost function (C(/spl beta/)) of such additive-noise channels without feedback. We establish a tight upper bound to (C(/spl beta/)) which holds for general (not necessarily Markovian) stationary q-ary noise processes. This bound constitutes the counterpart of the Wyner-Ziv lower bound to the rate-distortion function of stationary sources with memory. We also provide two simple lower bounds to C(/spl beta/) which along with the upper bound can be easily calculated using the Blahut algorithm for the computation of channel capacity. Numerical results indicate that these bounds form a tight envelope on C(/spl beta/). We next examine the effect of output feedback on the capacity-cost function of these channels and establish a lower bound to the capacity-cost function with feedback (C/sub FB/(/spl beta/)). We show (both analytically and numerically) that for a particular feedback encoding strategy and a class of Markov noise sources, the lower bound to C/sub FB/(/spl beta/) is strictly greater than C(/spl beta/). This demonstrates that feedback can increase the capacity-cost function of discrete channels with memory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicWireless Communication Security TechniquesFrench-language works237,207