MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186796962

Relaxed Locally Correctable Codes with Improved Parameters.

2020· article· en· W3186796962 on OpenAlexaff
Vahid R. Asadi, Igor Shinkar

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode wordMathematicsDecoding methodsCombinatoricsBlock (permutation group theory)Constant (computer programming)Discrete mathematicsList decodingBlock codeAlgorithmComputer scienceConcatenated error correction code
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Locally decodable codes (LDCs) are error-correcting codes $C : Sigma^k to Sigma^n$ that admit a local decoding algorithm that recovers each individual bit of the message by querying only a few bits from a noisy codeword. An important question in this line of research is to understand the optimal trade-off between the query complexity of LDCs and their block length. Despite importance of these objects, the best known constructions of constant query LDCs have super-polynomial length, and there is a significant gap between the best constructions and the known lower bounds in terms of the block length. For many applications it suffices to consider the weaker notion of relaxed LDCs (RLDCs), which allows the local decoding algorithm to abort if by querying a few bits it detects that the input is not a codeword. This relaxation turned out to allow decoding algorithms with constant query complexity for codes with almost linear length. Specifically, [Ben-Sasson et al. (2006)] constructed a $q$-query RLDC that encodes a message of length $k$ using a codeword of block length $n = O_q(k^{1+O(1/sqrt{q})})$ for any sufficiently large $q$, where $O_q(cdot)$ hides some constant that depends only on $q$. In this work we improve the parameters of [Ben-Sasson et al. (2006)] by constructing a $q$-query RLDC that encodes a message of length $k$ using a codeword of block length $O_q(k^{1+O(1/q)})$ for any sufficiently large $q$. This construction matches (up to a multiplicative constant factor) the lower bounds of [Katz and Trevisan (2000), Woodruff (2007)] for constant query LDCs, thus making progress toward understanding the gap between LDCs and RLDCs in the constant query regime. In fact, our construction extends to the stronger notion of relaxed locally correctable codes (RLCCs), introduced in [Gur et al. (2018)], where given a noisy codeword the correcting algorithm either recovers each individual bit of the codeword by only reading a small part of the input, or aborts if the input is detected to be corrupt.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)Same topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207