Randomized generation of error control codes with automata and transducers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce the concept of an -maximal error-detecting block code, for some parameter in (0,1), in order to formalize the situation where a block code is close to maximal with respect to being error-detecting. Our motivation for this is that it is computationally hard to decide whether an error-detecting block code is maximal. We present an output-polynomial time randomized algorithm that takes as input two positive integers N, ℓ and a specification of the errors permitted in some application, and generates an error-detecting, or error-correcting, block code of length ℓ that is 99%-maximal, or contains N words with a high likelihood. We model error specifications as (nondeterministic) transducers, which allow one to represent any rational combination of substitution and synchronization errors. We also present some elements of our implementation of various error-detecting properties and their associated methods. Then, we show several tests of the implemented randomized algorithm on various error specifications. A methodological contribution is the presentation of how various desirable error combinations can be expressed formally and processed algorithmically.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".