Rate-Optimal Streaming Codes for Channels With Burst and Random Erasures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we design erasure-correcting codes for channels with burst and random erasures, when a strict decoding delay constraint is in place. We consider the sliding-window-based packet erasure model proposed by Badr et al., where any time-window of width w contains either up to a random erasures or an erasure burst of length at most b. One needs to recover any erased packet with a strict decoding delay deadline of τ, where erasures are as per the channel model. Presently existing rate-optimal constructions in the literature require, in general, a field-size which grows exponential in τ, as long as a/τ remains a constant. In this work, we present a new rate-optimal code construction covering all channel and delay parameters, which requires an O(τ2) field-size. As a special case, when (b - a) = 1, we have a field-size linear in τ. We also present two other constructions having linear fieldsize, under certain constraints on channel and decoding delay parameters. As a corollary, we obtain low field-size, rate-optimal convolutional codes for any given column distance and column span. Simulations indicate that the newly proposed streaming code constructions offer lower packet-loss probabilities compared to existing schemes, for selected instances of Gilbert-Elliott and Fritchman channels.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".