MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740333227 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2017.7994816

Robust LT designs in binary erasures

2017· article· en· W2740333227 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled F. Hayajneh, Shahram Yousefi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFountain codeLuby transform codeErasureComputer scienceCode (set theory)Erasure codeCode rateAlgorithmOnline codesRaptor codeBinary numberPrefix codeBinary codeTheoretical computer scienceLinear codeDiscrete mathematicsDecoding methodsMathematicsBlock codeArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fountain codes are used in many applications where the channels are time varying and it is difficult at the transmitter to predict the appropriate code rate. In this situation, fixed-rate codes are not suitable. Despite the good performance of fountain codes, universally optimal codes do not exist in the finite-length regime. In this paper, we design new fountain codes that are robust to the communication system's parameters such as erasure probability as well as the source length. We employ density evolution together with linear programming to design robust fountain codes offering some of the attractive properties of universally optimal codes. Different objectives are used in the analysis such as minimizing the erasure probability and maximizing the code rate. Analytically, results indicate that fountain codes can decrease the failure probability to the level of 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-12</sup> using the optimized parameters at source length k = 128, code rate R = 1/2 and erasure probability ε = 0. Further, simulation results show that the code rate can be improved significantly. For example, at a source length k = 512, Shokrollahi distribution achieves code rate R = 0.7268 while our novel design provides a code rate R = 0.76331, that is an improvement of 5%.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207