MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950506350 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.02468

Theory of supports for linear codes endowed with the sum-rank metric

2018· preprint· en· W2950506350 on OpenAlexaff
Umberto Martínez-Peñas

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsRank (graph theory)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsBlock codeLinear codeHamming codeCoding theoryMetric (unit)Hamming distanceAlgorithmDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sum-rank metric naturally extends both the Hamming and rank metrics in coding theory over fields. It measures the error-correcting capability of codes in multishot matrix-multiplicative channels (e.g. linear network coding or the discrete memoryless channel on fields). Although this metric has already shown to be of interest in several applications, not much is known about it. In this work, sum-rank supports for codewords and linear codes are introduced and studied, with emphasis on duality. The lattice structure of sum-rank supports is given; characterizations of the ambient spaces (\textit{support spaces}) they define are obtained; the classical operations of restriction and shortening are extended to the sum-rank metric; and estimates (bounds and equalities) on the parameters of such restricted and shortened codes are found. Three main applications are given: 1) Generalized sum-rank weights are introduced, together with their basic properties and bounds; 2) It is shown that duals, shortened and restricted codes of maximum sum-rank distance (MSRD) codes are in turn MSRD; 3) Degenerateness and effective lengths of sum-rank codes are introduced and characterized. In an appendix, skew supports are introduced, defined by skew polynomials, and their connection to sum-rank supports is given.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207