MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889062623 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2018.2867436

Performance Analysis and Improvement of Online Fountain Codes

2018· article· en· W2889062623 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBeijing Council of Science and TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFountain codeFountainComputer scienceTelecommunicationsElectronic engineeringEngineeringDecoding methodsBlock codeConcatenated error correction codeHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The online property of fountain codes enables the encoder to efficiently find the optimal encoding strategy that minimizes the encoding overhead based on the instantaneous decoding state. Therefore, the receiver is able to optimally recover data from losses that differ significantly from the initial expectation. In this paper, we propose a framework to analyze the relationship between overhead and the number of recovered source symbols for online fountain codes based on random graph theory. Motivated by the analysis, we propose improved online fountain codes (IOFCs) by introducing a designated selection of source symbols. Theoretical analysis shows that IOFC has lower overhead compared with the conventional online fountain codes. We verify the proposed analysis via simulation results and demonstrate the tradeoff between full recovery and intermediate performance in comparison to other online fountain 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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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