MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135626675 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2010.08.100548

Trapping Sets of Fountain Codes

2010· article· en· W2135626675 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

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFountain codeBinary erasure channelLow-density parity-check codeComputer scienceLuby transform codeRaptor codeDecoding methodsTornado codeOnline codesBinary numberErasureFountainTrappingAlgorithmChannel (broadcasting)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsChannel capacityError floorArithmeticTelecommunicationsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The remarkable results of Fountain codes over the binary erasure channel (BEC) have motivated research on their practical implementation over noisy channels. Trapping sets are a phenomenon of great practical importance for certain graph codes on noisy channels. Although trapping sets have been extensively studied for low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes, to the best of our knowledge they have never been fully explored for Fountain codes. In this letter, we demonstrate that trapping sets are damaging to the realized rate and decoding cost of Fountain codes. Furthermore, we show that through trapping set detection we may combat these negative effects.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

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 science0.0040.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.275 · 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