MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122211813 · doi:10.1109/isit.2006.261768

Windowed Erasure Codes

2006· article· en· W2122211813 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsErasureOverhead (engineering)List decodingComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmMathematicsCombinatoricsTheoretical computer scienceBlock codeConcatenated error correction code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of erasure correcting codes and their decoding algorithms is now at the point where capacity achieving codes are available with decoding algorithms that have complexity that is linear in the number of information symbols. One aspect of these codes is that the overhead (number of coded symbols beyond the number of information symbols required to achieve decoding completion with high probability) is linear in k. This work considers a new class of random codes which have the following advantages: (i) the overhead is constant (in the range of 5 to 10) (ii) the probability of completing decoding for such an overhead is essentially one (iii) the codes are effective for a number of information symbols as low as a few tens. The price for these properties is that the decoding complexity is greater, on the order of k <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3/2</sup> . However, for the lower values of k where these codes are of particular interest, this increase in complexity might be outweighed by other significant advantages. The parity check matrices of these codes are chosen at random as windowed matrices i.e. for each column an initial starting position of a window of length w is chosen and the succeeding w positions are chosen at random by zero or one. It can be shown that it is necessary that w = O(k <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1/2</sup> ) for the probabilistic matrix rank properties to behave as a non-windowed random matrix. The sufficiency of the condition has so far been established by extensive simulation, although other arguments strongly support this conclusion

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207