On the Optimality of Successive Decoding in Compress-and-Forward Relay Schemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
..... joint decoding provides more freedom in choosing the compression at the relay. However, the question remains whether this freedom of selecting the compression necessarily improves the achievable rate of the original message. It has been shown in (El Gamal and Kim, 2010) that the answer is negative in the single-relay case. In this paper, it is further demonstrated that in the case of multiple relays, there is no improvement on the achievable rate by joint decoding either. More interestingly, it is discovered that any compressions not supporting successive decoding will actually lead to strictly lower achievable rates for the original message. Therefore, to maximize the achievable rate for the original message, the compressions should always be chosen to support successive decoding. Furthermore, it is shown that any compressions not completely decodable even with joint decoding will not provide any contribution to the decoding of the original message. The above phenomenon is also shown to exist under the repetitive encoding framework recently proposed by (Lim, Kim, El Gamal, and Chung, 2010), which improved the achievable rate in the case of multiple relays. Here, another interesting discovery is that the improvement is not a result of repetitive encoding, but the benefit of delayed decoding after all the blocks have been finished. The same rate is shown to be achievable with the simpler classical encoding process of (Cover and El Gamal, 1979) with a block-by-block backward decoding process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".