MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399487636 · doi:10.1109/tit.2024.3411919

Capacity of Finite State Channels With Feedback: Algorithmic and Optimization Theoretic Properties

2024· article· en· W4399487636 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Grigorescu, Holger Boche, Rafael F. Schaefer, H. Vincent Poor

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationFinite stateState (computer science)AlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsMarkov chain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capacity of finite state channels (FSCs) with feedback has been expressed by a limit of a sequence of multi-letter expressions. Despite many efforts, a closed-form single-letter capacity characterization remains unknown to date. In this paper, the feedback capacity is studied from a fundamental algorithmic point of view by addressing the question of whether or not the capacity can be algorithmically computed. To this aim, the concept of Turing machines is used, which provides fundamental performance limits of digital computers. It is shown that the feedback capacity of FSCs is not Banach-Mazur computable and therefore also not Borel-Turing computable. It is further shown that it is even impossible to approximate the feedback capacity function of FSCs by a computable function. As a consequence, it is shown that computable achievability and converse can never be tight, which means that there are FSCs for which it is impossible to find computable tight upper and lower bounds. Furthermore, it is shown that the feedback capacity cannot be characterized as the maximization of a finite-letter formula of entropic quantities.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207