MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524854129 · doi:10.1109/iwcmc.2016.7577057

Towards a smart universe: One droplet at a time

2016· article· en· W2524854129 on OpenAlexafffund
Khaled F. Hayajneh, Shahram Yousefi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFountain codeComputer scienceCode (set theory)Overhead (engineering)Network packetLuby transform codeTheoretical computer scienceTransmission (telecommunications)UnavailabilityDegree distributionAlgorithmScalabilitySet (abstract data type)Bit error rateComputer engineeringDecoding methodsBlock codeComputer networkMathematicsTelecommunicationsConcatenated error correction code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of smart platforms in the Internet-of-Things (IoT) paradigm requires a number of technological advances to go hand in hand. IoT devices and entities have very diverse set of capabilities in terms of memory, power, and processing and are connected via a wide range of links with various qualities and capacities. This work focuses on the design of state-of-the-art data transmission methodology with arguably the highest level of flexibility and adaptability. We present a novel fountain-based encoding technique using overlapped generations of Luby-Transform (LT) codes. The proposed overlapped LT (OLT) codes achieve significant gains in BER and/or code rate. They are highly energy-efficient, scalable, and robust. Our analysis shows in particular that by using OLT codes, we can modify the fountain degree distribution such that it does not contain degree-one packets starting from the second generation. Thus, we introduce new degree distributions to improve the performance of OLT codes; the new scheme is referred to as smart OLT (SOLT). Simulation results are provided to show the improvements of OLT and SOLT codes in AWGN channel in terms of error rate. For example, SOLT codes can achieve the same error performance as LT codes, but they require smaller transmission overhead, for instance, at SNR of 9 dB and error rate of 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-5</sup> , SOLT codes require a code rate of 0.476 while LT codes require a code rate of 0.417.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207