Weighted Online Fountain Codes With Limited Buffer Size and Feedback Transmissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online fountain codes (OFC) have attracted much attention for their good intermediate performance, which is important for receivers with low-complexity requirement. However, low-complexity receivers generally have limited buffer size to store coded symbols that have not been fully decoded yet, as well as limited power budget for feedback transmissions. In this paper, we propose improved transmission schemes for online fountain codes to reduce the buffer occupancy and feedback transmissions. Firstly, we analyze the relationship between buffer occupancy and overhead as well as the relationship between recovery rate and overhead for online fountain codes. Motivated by the analysis, we propose the weighted online fountain codes (WOFC) which can adapt to various buffer sizes by adjusting the weight to control the probability that a coded symbol can be fully processed immediately, and analyze its performance. Then we further propose weighted online fountain codes with low feedback (WOFC-LF), which utilize the proposed analysis to estimate the recovery rate, and reduce feedback transmissions. Simulation results verify the effectiveness of the analysis for both OFC and WOFC, and demonstrate the superior performance of WOFC-LF with limited buffer size and feedback transmissions.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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".