MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796841874 · doi:10.1109/tit.2018.2873140

Stopping Redundancy Hierarchy Beyond the Minimum Distance

2018· preprint· en· W2796841874 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yauhen Yakimenka, Vitaly Skachek, Irina E. Bocharova, Boris D. Kudryashov

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignITMO UniversityUniversity of CambridgeTallinna TehnikaülikoolTartu ÜlikoolNanyang Technological UniversityBelarusian State UniversitySaint Petersburg State UniversityLunds UniversitetMcGill UniversityEesti TeadusagentuurTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyUniversity College Dublin
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)RowMathematicsCode (set theory)Decoding methodsCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsBinary erasure channelDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceCoding (social sciences)StatisticsSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stopping sets play a crucial role in failure events of iterative decoders over a binary erasure channel (BEC). The ℓth stopping redundancy is the minimum number of rows in the parity-check matrix of a code, which contains no stopping sets of size up to ℓ. In this paper, a notion of coverable stopping sets is defined. In order to achieve maximum-likelihood performance under iterative decoding over the BEC, the parity-check matrix should contain no coverable stopping sets of size ℓ, for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ n-k, where n is the code length, k is the code dimension. By estimating the number of coverable stopping sets, we obtain upper bounds on the ℓth stopping redundancy, 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ n-k. The bounds are derived for both specific codes and code ensembles. In the range 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ d-1, for specific codes, the new bounds improve on the results in the literature. Numerical calculations are also presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207