A Class of Binary Locally Repairable Codes
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
An (n, k) erasure code that can recover any coded symbol by at most r other coded symbols is called a locally repairable code (LRC) with locality r. LRCs have been recently implemented in distributed storage systems. Coding complexity reduction can be significantly decreased by using binary LRCs (BLRCs) as they eliminate costly multiplication calculation. In this paper, motivated by the recently erasure codes with d = 4 used in practice, we propose BLRCs when (r + 1) | n and d = 4. We prove that our proposed binary codes are optimal for r ∈ {1, 3}, meaning that neither their locality nor their minimum distance can be improved by non-binary codes. For r ≥ 4, our proposed binary codes offer near-optimal code rate, with a rate gap of O(log r/n) compared with optimal nonbinary codes. While keeping the bulk of code structure binary, we eliminate this rate gap by using fields with sizes as small as r + 2 for only two redundant symbols. These non-binary codes still eliminate the need for costly multiplications in many operations including a single failure repair (a dominant repair scenario). Using the construction of spanning BLRC with d = 4 as a backbone, we also construct LRCs with minimum distance d ≥ 6. Furthermore, we obtain a closed-form equation for the mean-time to data-loss of arbitrary erasure codes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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