Capacities and Optimal Input Distributions for Particle-Intensity Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work introduces the particle-intensity channel (PIC) as a new model for molecular communication systems that includes imperfections at both transmitter and receiver and provides a new characterization of the capacity limits as well as properties of the optimal (capacity-achieving) input distributions for such channels. In the PIC, the transmitter encodes information, in symbols of a given duration, based on the probability of particle release, and the receiver detects and decodes the message based on the number of particles detected during the symbol interval. In this channel, the transmitter may be unable to control precisely the probability of particle release, and the receiver may not detect all the particles that arrive. We model this channel using a generalization of the binomial channel and show that the capacity-achieving input distribution for this channel always has mass points at probabilities of particle release of zero and one. To find the capacity-achieving input distributions, we develop a novel and efficient algorithm we call dynamic assignment Blahut-Arimoto (DAB). For diffusive particle transport, we also derive the conditions under which the input with two mass points is capacity-achieving.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".