MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080469496 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2020.3018937

Codes With Minimum Bandwidth Cooperative Local Regeneration

2020· article· en· W3080469496 on OpenAlex
M. Nikhil Krishnan, V. Lalitha, Sreeranjani Didugu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBandwidth (computing)Computer scienceLocalityDistributed data storeBlock codeComputer networkDistributed computingAlgorithmDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Locally recoverable codes (LRCs) are known to reduce the repair locality, i.e., the number of nodes accessed during node repair, in distributed storage systems. Regenerating codes, on the other hand, offer a decreased repair bandwidth, which is the repair traffic incurred during node repairs. Locally regenerating codes (LRGCs), which are constructed via intertwining regenerating codes of smaller block lengths, simultaneously offer a small repair locality and repair bandwidth. In this letter, we construct a family of LRGCs where the constituent codes are bandwidth-efficient, minimum bandwidth cooperative regenerating codes. The newly constructed LRGCs are optimal with respect to both minimum distance and rate.

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.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.227 · 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