Unequal Erasure Protection Technique for Scalable Multistreams
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a novel unequal erasure protection (UEP) strategy for the transmission of scalable data, formed by interleaving independently decodable and scalable streams, over packet erasure networks. The technique, termed multistream UEP (M-UEP), differs from the traditional UEP strategy by: 1) placing separate streams in separate packets to establish independence and 2) using permuted systematic Reed-Solomon codes to enhance the distribution of message symbols amongst the packets. M-UEP improves upon UEP by ensuring that all received source symbols are decoded. The R-D optimal redundancy allocation problem for M-UEP is formulated and its globally optimal solution is shown to have a time complexity of O(2(N)N(L+1)(N+1)) , where N is the number of packets and L is the packet length. To address the high complexity of the globally optimal solution, an efficient suboptimal algorithm is proposed which runs in O(N(2)L(2)) time. The proposed M-UEP algorithm is applied on SPIHT coded images in conjunction with an appropriate grouping of wavelet coefficients into streams. The experimental results reveal that M-UEP consistently outperforms the traditional UEP reaching peak improvements of 0.6 dB. Moreover, our tests show that M-UEP is more robust than UEP in adverse channel conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it