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

Trapping Sets of Fountain Codes

2010· article· en· W2135626675 on OpenAlexaff
Vivian Lucia Orozco, Shahram Yousefi

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207