MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246011204 · doi:10.1109/isit.1993.748393

Upper Bound for Uniquely Decodable Codes in a Binary Input N-User Adder Channel

2005· article· en· W4246011204 on OpenAlexaff
S. Bross, I.F. Blake

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Biological Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpper and lower boundsAdderBinary numberChannel (broadcasting)Binary symmetric channelBlock (permutation group theory)Code (set theory)Block codeComputer scienceBoundary (topology)Binary codeMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsSet (abstract data type)CombinatoricsDecoding methodsAlgorithmArithmeticChannel capacityTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The binary input N-user adder channel models a communicant ion media accessed simultaneously by N users. In this model each user transmits binary sequences and the channel's output on each bit slot equals the sum of the corresponding N inputs. A uniquely decodable code for this channel is a set of N codes - a code for each of the N users - such that the receiver can determine all possible combinations of transmitted codewords from their sum. Van-Tilborg presented a method for determining an upper bound on the size of a uniquely decodable code for the two-user binary adder channel. He showed that for sufficiently large block length this combinatorial bound converges to the corresponding capacity region boundary. In the present work we use a similar method to derive an upper bound on the size of a uniquely decodable code for the binary input N-user adder channel. The new combinatorial bound is iterative - i.e., the bound for the (N - I)-user case can be obtained by projecting the N-user bound on (N - 1) combinatorial variables and in particular it subsumes the two-user result. For sufficiently large block length the N-user bound converges to the capacity region boundary of the binary input N-user adder channel.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDNA and Biological ComputingFrench-language works237,207