On the Average Locality of Locally Repairable Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A linear block code with dimension $k$, length $n$, and minimum distance $d$ is called a locally repairable code (LRC) with locality $r$ if it can retrieve any coded symbol by at most $r$ other coded symbols. LRCs have been recently proposed and used in practice in distributed storage systems (DSSs) such as Windows Azure storage and Facebook HDFS-RAID. Theoretical bounds on the maximum locality of LRCs ($r$) have been established. The \textit{average} locality of an LRC ($\overline{r}$) directly affects the costly repair bandwidth, disk I/O, and number of nodes involved in the repair process of a missing data block. There is a gap in the literature studying $\overline{r}$. In this paper, we establish a lower bound on $\overline{r}$ of arbitrary $(n,k,d)$ LRCs. Furthermore, we obtain a tight lower bound on $\overline{r}$ for a practical case where the code rate $(R=\frac{k}{n})$ is greater than $(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})^2$. Finally, we design three classes of LRCs that achieve the obtained bounds on $\overline{r}$. Comparing with the existing LRCs, our proposed codes improve the average locality without sacrificing such crucial parameters as the code rate or minimum distance.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".