Linearized Reed-Solomon Codes With Support-Constrained Generator Matrix and Applications in Multi-Source Network Coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linearized Reed-Solomon (LRS) codes are evaluation codes based on skew polynomials. They achieve the Singleton bound in the sum-rank metric and therefore are known as maximum sum-rank distance (MSRD) codes. In this work, we give necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of MSRD codes with a support-constrained generator matrix. The conditions on the support constraints are identical to those for MDS codes and MRD codes. The required field size for an$[n,k]_{q^{m}}$LRS codes with support-constrained generator matrix is$q\geq \ell +1$and$m\geq \max _{l\in [\ell]}\{k-1+\log _{q}k, n_{l}\}$, where$\ell $is the number of blocks and$n_{l}$is the size of the l-th block. The special cases of the result coincide with the known results for Reed-Solomon codes and Gabidulin codes. For the support constraints that do not satisfy the necessary conditions, we derive the maximum sum-rank distance of a code whose generator matrix fulfills the constraints. Such a code can be constructed from a subcode of an LRS code with a sufficiently large field size. Moreover, as an application in network coding, the conditions can be used as constraints in an integer programming problem to design distributed LRS codes for a distributed multi-source network.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".