MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Asymptotical Analysis of Several Multiple Description Scenarios with L≥ 3 Descriptions

2014· article· en· W2119561941 on OpenAlexaff
Sorina Dumitrescu, Ting Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErasureAlgorithmComputer scienceLattice (music)Code (set theory)MathematicsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work compares theoretically the performance of several representative practical multiple description (MD) frameworks with L ≥ 3 symmetric descriptions. The first scenario is the classic unequal erasure protection (UEP) scheme using a successively refinable code (SRC) and Reed-Solomon codes. The second scenario is an improvement upon UEP by applying domain partitioning and permuted Reed-Solomon codes. The third scenario uses a finer partitioning and erasure correction via repetition codes. Additionally, the MD lattice vector quantizer and another recent MD scheme are considered in the comparison. The aforementioned MD schemes are compared in terms of the expected squared error asymptotically achievable as the rate R of a description approaches ∞, assuming independent description losses. Our analysis reveals that the improvement of the second scenario upon the first one when R → ∞ can reach up to 1.68 dB, but it approaches 0 as the description loss rate p goes to 0 and L approaches ∞. Additionally, we find that the first two schemes outperform the third one with an unbounded gain when R → ∞, as p→ 0 or L → ∞. Further, we show that the first three scenarios achieve unbounded improvements over the other two as R → ∞ and p → 0. On the other hand, we point out that some of the results of our asymptotic analysis rely on strong assumptions and therefore an experimental validation is needed before applying them to practical situations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207