On the Compound Broadcast Channel: Multiple Description Coding and Interference Decoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigates the general two-user compound Broadcast Channel (BC) in which an encoder wishes to transmit two private messages W1 and W2 to two receivers while being oblivious to the actual channel realizations controlling the communication. The focus is on the characterization of the largest achievable rate region by resorting to more involved encoding and decoding techniques than the usual coding schemes of the standard BC. Involved decoding schemes are first explored, and an achievable rate region is derived based on the principle of Interference Decoding (ID), in which each receiver decodes its intended message and chooses to (non-uniquely) decode, or not, the interfering non-itended message. This decoding scheme is shown to be capacity achieving for a class of non-trivial compound BEC/BSC broadcast channels while the worst-case of Marton's inner bound-based on No Interference Decoding (NID)-fails to achieve the capacity region. Involved encoding schemes are later investigated, and an achievable rate region is derived based on Multiple Description (MD) coding wherin the encoder transmits a common description as well as multiple dedicated private descriptions to the many possible channel realizations of the users. It turns out that MD coding yields larger inner bounds than the single description scheme-Common Description (CD) coding-for a class of compound Multiple Input Single Output Broadcast Channels (MISO BC).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".