Improved Bounds on the Interactive Capacity via Error Pattern Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any interactive protocol between a pair of parties can be reliably simulated in the presence of noise with a multiplicative overhead on the number of rounds (Schulman 1996). The reciprocal of the best (least) overhead is called the interactive capacity of the noisy channel. In this work, we present lower bounds on the interactive capacity of the binary erasure channel. Our lower bound improves the best-known bound due to Ben- Yishai et al. 2021 by roughly a factor of 1.75. The improvement is due to a tighter analysis of the correctness of the simulation protocol using error pattern analysis. More precisely, instead of using the well-known technique of bounding the least number of erasures needed to make the simulation fail, we identify and bound the probability of specific erasure patterns causing simulation failure. We remark that error pattern analysis can be useful in solving other problems involving stochastic noise, such as bounding the interactive capacity of different channels.
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 | 0.010 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".