Product Matrix MSR Codes with Bandwidth Adaptive Exact Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a distributed storage systems (DSS) with $k$ systematic nodes, robustness against node failure is commonly provided by storing redundancy in a number of other nodes and performing repair mechanism to reproduce the content of the failed nodes. Efficiency is then achieved by minimizing the storage overhead and the amount of data transmission required for data reconstruction and repair, provided by coding solutions such as regenerating codes [1]. Common explicit regenerating code constructions enable efficient repair through accessing a predefined number, $d$, of arbitrary chosen available nodes, namely helpers. In practice, however, the state of the system dynamically changes based on the request load, the link traffic, etc., and the parameters which optimize system's performance vary accordingly. It is then desirable to have coding schemes which are able to operate optimally under a range of different parameters simultaneously. Specifically, adaptivity in the number of helper nodes for repair is of interest. While robustness requires capability of performing repair with small number of helpers, it is desirable to use as many helpers as available to reduce the transmission delay and total repair traffic. In this work we focus on the minimum storage regenerating (MSR) codes, where each node is supposed to store $α$ information units, and the source data of size $kα$ could be recovered from any arbitrary set of $k$ nodes. We introduce a class MSR codes that realize optimal repair bandwidth simultaneously with a set of different choices for the number of helpers, namely $D=\{d_{1}, \cdots, d_δ\}$. Our coding scheme follows the Product Matrix (PM) framework introduced in [2], and could be considered as a generalization of the PM MSR code presented in [2], such that any $d_{i} = (i+1)(k-1)$ helpers can perform an optimal repair. ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".