MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552101656 · doi:10.1109/allerton.2009.5394496

Interactive encoding and decoding based on syndrome accumulation over binary LDPC ensembles: Universality and rate-adaptivity

2009· article· en· W2552101656 on OpenAlexaff
Jin Meng, En‐hui Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeDecoding methodsAlgorithmEncoderBinary numberComputer scienceDistributed source codingUniversality (dynamical systems)MathematicsTheoretical computer scienceChannel codeStatisticsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we investigate the performance of linear interactive encoding and decoding based on syndrome accumulation(SA-IED) over binary LDPC ensembles. Assume that the source alphabet is GF(2), and the side information alphabet is finite. It is shown that we can construct universal SA-IED schemes, which are asymptotically optimal for any stationary ergodic source-side information pair. Our analysis further shows that the word error probability will approach 0 sub-exponentially with respect to the block length, while at the same time, the rate approaches H(X|Y) as the average variable node degree of the LDPC ensemble approaches ¿. Further, if the source and side information are correlated through a binary symmetrical memoryless channel, but the cross-over probability of the channel is not known to either the encoder or the decoder, our result on the performance of SA-IED can be further improved for LDPC ensembles with finite average variable node degree. Simulation results on binary source-side information pairs confirm the theoretical analysis above, and further show that SA-IED schemes using LDPC codes coupled with linear time belief propagation decoding consistently outperform Slepian-Wolf coding schemes based on LDPC 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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207