MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135870687 · doi:10.1109/isit.2008.4595149

Packet loss recovery codes based on Vandermonde matrices and shift operators

2008· article· en· W2135870687 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Al‐Shaikhi, Jacek Ilow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVandermonde matrixNetwork packetComputer scienceFountain codeErasureAlgorithmErasure codeOnline codesMatrix (chemical analysis)Block codeDecoding methodsTheoretical computer scienceHamming codeComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increasing number of real-time applications in packet networks uses erasure codes to cope with packet losses. Most of these codes were designed originally for bit or symbol oriented transmission. This paper introduces packet oriented block codes for the recovery of lost packets. Specifically, a family of systematic erasure codes is proposed based on the Vandermonde matrix applied to a group of k information packets to construct r redundant packets. The elements of the Vandermonde matrix are bit level right arithmetic shift operators applied to the information packets. With low-overhead packet padding, the code design is applicable to packets of any size with the same lengths within the block of k information packets. The recovery of lost packets is based on inverting a matrix corresponding to the coefficient -Vandermonde- matrix augmented by the identity matrix with the rows removed according to the sequence number of the lost packets. The general code design principles are illustrated in this paper with examples of codes of different parameters. Erasure recovery capability of the proposed codes is characterized by simple decoding procedures. The code designs are tested using Monte Carlo simulations and their performance shows good agreement with theoretical results.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207