MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791716769 · doi:10.3934/amc.2019006

Maximum weight spectrum codes

2018· article· en· W2791716769 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Mathematics of Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCardinality (data modeling)CombinatoricsConjectureFinite fieldHamming distanceDiscrete mathematicsPrime powerBounded functionInteger (computer science)Hamming codePrime (order theory)Upper and lower boundsSpectrum (functional analysis)Linear codeBlock codeAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the recent work [9], a combinatorial problem concerning linear codes over a finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$ was introduced. In that work the authors studied the weight set of an $[n,k]_q$ linear code, that is the set of non-zero distinct Hamming weights, showing that its cardinality is bounded above by $\frac{q^k-1}{q-1}$. They showed that this bound was sharp in the case $ q = 2 $, and in the case $ k = 2 $. They conjectured that the bound is sharp for every prime power $ q $ and every positive integer $ k $. In this work we quickly establish the truth of this conjecture. We provide two proofs, each employing different construction techniques. The first relies on the geometric view of linear codes as systems of projective points. The second approach is purely algebraic. We establish some lower bounds on the length of codes that satisfy the conjecture, and the length of the new codes constructed here are discussed.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · 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