MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006937682 · doi:10.1109/tit.2020.2975162

Sliding-Window Superposition Coding: Two-User Interference Channels

2020· article· en· W3006937682 on OpenAlexafffund
Lele Wang, Young-Han Kim, Chiao-Yi Chen, Hosung Park, Eren Şaşoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsDecoding methodsSingle antenna interference cancellationCoding (social sciences)Computer scienceDirty paper codingAlgorithmEncoderChannel (broadcasting)Interference (communication)Superposition principleMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceTelecommunicationsMIMOPrecodingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A low-complexity coding scheme is developed to achieve the rate region of maximum likelihood decoding for interference channels. As in the classical rate-splitting multiple access scheme by Grant, Urbanke, and Whiting, the proposed coding scheme uses superposition of multiple codewords with successive cancellation decoding, which can be implemented using standard point-to-point encoders and decoders. Unlike rate-splitting multiple access, which is not rate-optimal for multiple receivers, the proposed coding scheme transmits codewords over multiple blocks in a staggered manner and recovers them successively over sliding decoding windows, achieving the single-stream optimal rate region as well as the more general Han–Kobayashi inner bound for the two-user interference channel. The feasibility of this scheme in practice is verified by implementing it using commercial channel codes over the two-user Gaussian interference channel.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207