Weighted Online Fountain Codes With Limited Buffer Size and Feedback Transmissions
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it