MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945709631 · doi:10.1109/jcn.2019.000021

Error detection algorithm for Lempel-Ziv-77 compressed data

2019· article· en· W2945709631 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beom Kwon, Sanghoon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Communications and Networks · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDefense Acquisition Program AdministrationAgency for Defense Development
KeywordsComputer scienceParity bitAlgorithmChecksumHamming codeError detection and correctionCyclic redundancy checkBit error rateData compressionRedundancy (engineering)Decoding methodsBlock code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we develop a novel error detection algorithm for Lempel-Ziv-77 (LZ77) compressed data. In the proposed algorithm, additional bits are not used to detect bit errors, unlike in conventional methods such as checksum, cyclic redundancy check, Hamming code, and repetition code. We also introduce eight special features of LZ77-compressed data for detecting the presence of errors. We demonstrate the feasibility of the algorithm based on simulations and evaluate it using two publicly available databases comprising the Calgary and Canterbury corpora. The error detection rate using the proposed algorithm is below those of conventional methods, but the compression ratio is better. The application of a parity bit in the algorithm improves the error detection performance. The number of redundant bits increases owing to the insertion of the parity bit, but the code rate is still greater than or equal to 0.9, whereas conventional methods obtain code rates less than 0.9. Simulations demonstrate that the algorithm obtains significant performance improvements when a parity bit is periodically inserted. In particular, we achieve an error detection rate of 100% using the parity bit when the number of bit errors is greater than seven.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Communications and NetworksSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207