On the List-Decodability of Random Linear Rank-Metric Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The list-decodability of random linear rank-metric codes is shown to match that of random rank-metric codes. Specifically, an Fq-linear rank-metric code over Fqm×nof rate R=(1-ρ)(1-[n/m]ρ)-ε is shown to be (with high probability) list-decodable up to fractional radius ρ ∈ (0,1) with lists of size at most [(Cp,q)/(ε)], where Cρ,qis a constant depending only on ρ and q. This matches the bound for random rank-metric codes (up to constant factors). The proof adapts the approach of Guruswami, Håstad, Kopparty (STOC 2010), who established a similar result for the Hamming metric case, to the rank-metric setting. A full version of this paper is accessible at https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.11516.
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 | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".