Systematic Fountain Codes for Massive Storage Using the Truncated Poisson Distribution
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erasure codes for distributed storage systems (DSS) are required to offer systematic encoding, low repair locality, low encoding/decoding complexity, and low decoding/storage overhead. However, the information theoretical bounds have shown that all these metrics might need to be carefully traded-off with one another. In this paper, we consider systematic Fountain codes with belief propagation (BP) decoding for massive scale DSSs. Analyzing the role of some degrees in the BP decoding process, we propose using the truncated Poisson distribution (TPD) for encoded symbol degrees. Identifying encoded symbol redundancy as a factor that degrades decoding overhead, we derive the probability of redundancy during the BP decoding process and use this as a tool for determining the Poisson parameter. Our proposed solution nicely addresses the first three DSS metrics with a slight toll on storage/decoding overhead. Through simulations, we show that the decoding overhead performance of the proposed scheme exhibits significant improvement over some existing Fountain code degree distributions in the literature. For instance, at a decoding overhead of 60%, we achieve a data loss probability closely approaching 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-4</sup> , while other Fountain codes compared are about a factor of 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> higher.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it