Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an approach to showing that a linear code is resilient to random errors. We use this approach to obtain decoding results for both transitive and doubly transitive codes. We give three kinds of results about linear codes in general, and transitive linear codes in particular.1. We give a tight bound on the weight distribution of every transitive linear code $ C \subseteq \mathbb{F}_2^N $:$ \mathop {\Pr }\limits_{c \in C}[ \text{wt}(c) = \alpha N] \leq 2^{-(1-h(\alpha)) \mathsf{dim}(C)}. $2. We give a criterion that certifies that a linear code $ C $ can be decoded on the binary symmetric channel. Let $ K_s(x) $ denote the Krawtchouk polynomial of degree $ s $, and let $ C^\perp $ denote the dual code of $ C $. We show that bounds on $ \mathbb{E}_{c \in C^{\perp}}[ K_{\epsilon N}( \text{wt}(c))^2] $ imply that $ C $ recovers from errors on the binary symmetric channel with parameter $ \epsilon $. Weaker bounds can be used to obtain list-decoding results using similar methods. One consequence of our criterion is that whenever the weight distribution of $ C^\perp $ is sufficiently close to the binomial distribution in some interval around $ \frac{N}{2} $, $ C $ is resilient to $ \epsilon $-errors.3. We combine known estimates for the Krawtchouk polynomials with our weight bound for transitive codes, and with known weight bounds for doubly transitive codes, to obtain list-decoding results for both these families of codes. In some regimes, our bounds for doubly transitive codes achieve the information-theoretic optimal trade-off between rate and list size.
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".