Lattice Strategies for the Dirty Multiple Access Channel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A generalization of the Gaussian dirty-paper problem to a multiple access setup is considered. There are two additive interference signals, one known to each transmitter but none to the receiver. The rates achievable using Costa's strategies (i.e. by a random binning scheme induced by Costa's auxiliary random variables) vanish in the limit when the interference signals are strong. In contrast, it is shown that lattice strategies ("lattice precoding") can achieve positive rates independent of the interferences, and in fact in some cases - which depend on the noise variance and power constraints - they are optimal. In particular, lattice strategies are optimal in the limit of high SNR. It is also shown that the gap between the achievable rate region and the capacity region is at most 0.167 bit. Thus, the dirty MAC is another instance of a network setup, like the Korner-Marton modulo-two sum problem, where linear coding is potentially better than random binning. Lattice transmission schemes and conditions for optimality for the asymmetric case, where there is only one interference which is known to one of the users (who serves as a "helper" to the other user), and for the "common interference" case are also derived. In the former case the gap between the helper achievable rate and its capacity is at most 0.085 bit.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".