Babel Storage: Uncoordinated Content Delivery from Multiple Coded Storage Systems

Joachim Neu; Muriel M\'edard

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Babel Storage: Uncoordinated Content Delivery from Multiple Coded Storage Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Mixing codes cuts uncoordinated download waste to 3 extra symbols

desk verdict Solid new characterization of the multi-server coupon collector tradeoff; the empirical code-diversity claim rests on an under-documented simulation with an unproven LDPC block-alignment assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09271 v1 pith:WDWPMXSR submitted 2019-08-25 cs.IT cs.DCcs.NImath.IT

Joachim Neu , Muriel Médard This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITcs.DCcs.NImath.IT

keywords uncoordinatedcontentdeliverycodedstoragecouponcollectorproblemcodediversityReed-SolomoncodesrandomlinearnetworkcodingLDPCtransmissionoverhead

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies what happens when a user downloads a file from several independently operated storage systems that do not coordinate which coded symbols they transmit. For the case where all $S$ systems store the same maximum-distance-separable code of rate $R$, it proves that the fraction of codeword symbols still unseen after $\tau n$ received transmissions converges to $(1-\tau/S)^S$ as $n\to\infty$, giving a transmission overhead factor $\delta = S(1-(1-R)^{1/S})/R$; storage redundancy can partially pay for the coupon-collector waste. For the opposite case, it reports that a mix of Reed-Solomon, random linear network, and LDPC codes decodes with probability $99.9\%$ after $k+3$ transmitted symbols, independently of the mixture. The paper's message is that code diversity, which is the natural state of heterogeneous networks, turns uncoordinated delivery from a serious inefficiency into a near-optimal operation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object of Section III is a time-varying Markov chain tracking $U_\ell$, the number of codeword symbols the user has not yet seen after $\ell$ transmissions. At round $\ell$ the active storage system samples uniformly from the $n - \lfloor \ell/S \rfloor$ symbols it has not previously transmitted, so when $i$ symbols are unknown the probability that the next symbol is new is $r_{i,\ell} = i/(n - \lfloor\ell/S\rfloor)$; the chain either moves to $i-1$ or stays at $i$. The argument uses the exact mean recursion and a variance bound of order $O(n)$ to prove convergence in probability to the deterministic curve $u_S(\tau) = (1-\tau/S)^S$. For the diversity result, the machinery is a field-lifting construction: parity-check equations over $\mathbb{F}_{256}$ are expanded over $\mathbb{F}_2$ by replacing multiplication by $\alpha$ with the matrix $m(\alpha)$, and erasures are applied in aligned blocks of eight binary columns so that the $\mathbb{F}_{256}$-symbol structure is preserved. This lifting is what lets the three different code families be decoded jointly by Gaussian elimination on the stacked generator matrix.

What would settle it

Run the Section III protocol with $S=2$ servers holding the same MDS code of large block length $n$ and rate $R=1/2$, and measure the fraction of unseen symbols after $\tau n$ transmissions for several $\tau$; if the values deviate from $(1-\tau/2)^2$ beyond the variance bound, the theorem is wrong. For the diversity claim, repeat many trials of downloading exactly 131 $\mathbb{F}_{256}$ symbols in a one-third mix of RS, RLN, and LDPC symbols from $[160,128]_{256}$-equivalent codes and check whether decoding succeeds in at least $99.9\%$ of trials regardless of mix order.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a closed-form description of the coupon collector's problem that arises when $S$ storage systems all use the same $[n,k]_q$ MDS code and alternately transmit a uniformly random codeword symbol they have not previously sent. The number of unseen symbols $U_\ell$ after $\ell$ transmissions obeys the recursion $\mathbb{E}[U_{\ell+1}] = (1 - 1/(n - \lfloor\ell/S\rfloor)) \, \mathbb{E}[U_\ell]$, and in the large-block limit the fraction of unseen symbols is $u_S(\tau) = (1-\tau/S)^S$. Inverting this for rate $R$ gives the transmission factor $\delta = S(1-(1-R)^{1/S})/R$, the multiplicative penalty for uncoordinated same-code delivery. The paper's second claim is empirical: if the storage systems instead use different codes, specifically a Reed-Solomon code, a random linear network code over $\mathbb{F}_{256}$, and a binary AR4JA LDPC code, then after downloading only $k+3$ $\mathbb{F}_{256}$-symbols the user can decode with probability $99.9\%$, essentially independently of how the three code families are mixed. The interpretation is that maximum code diversity makes the collection of received symbols behave like a small-field random linear network code, which is close to the optimal rate of information per transmitted symbol.

Load-bearing premise

The tradeoff curve in Theorem 1 assumes that every storage system, in a fixed round-robin order, sends a uniformly random symbol among those it has not yet transmitted, with no user feedback and no coordination between systems; if real systems schedule symbols, allow repeats, or miss stored symbols, the curve does not describe the download.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any fixed storage factor $\sigma = 1/R > 1$, the transmission factor remains finite as $S\to\infty$, so a user can pull from arbitrarily many same-code servers with bounded uncoordinated overhead.
The curve $\delta = S(1-(1-R)^{1/S})/R$ gives operators a quantitative tradeoff: extra storage buys a directly computable reduction in transmission overhead, and vice versa.
With diverse codes, no duplicate-suppression or scheduling feedback is needed; downloading $k+3$ symbols suffices for $99.9\%$ success, so a digital-fountain style 'send until I stop you' protocol is nearly optimal.
The field-lifting construction plus Gaussian elimination means the mixed-code scheme can be decoded with standard erasure-decoding software, without belief propagation.
Operators can emulate near-optimal performance even without designing new codes by randomly recoding stored symbols before transmission, effectively converting any code into a random linear code at the transport layer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The formula $u_S(\tau)=(1-\tau/S)^S$ has a reading the paper does not spell out: for a fixed symbol, it is the probability that none of the $S$ servers has picked it by normalized time $\tau$, i.e., the fraction unseen is the survivor function of a coupon collector seen from the symbol's point of view. That symmetry suggests a direct connection to order statistics of independent geometric draws.
The $k+3$ result is demonstrated for $[160,128]_{256}$ and $[1280,1024]_2$ parameters and for the specific LDPC code AR4JA; a natural extension, not pursued in the paper, is to test whether the 'three extra symbols' constant persists for other rates, field sizes, and LDPC ensembles.
If storage systems transmit at different rates or hold different numbers of symbols, the symmetric round-robin assumption breaks; an obvious extension is a weighted or heterogeneous version of the Markov chain, which would tell operators whether the same-code penalty worsens when one server is much faster than the others.
The block-aligned erasure assumption is natural for RS and RLN symbols but is an approximation for LDPC: a testable extension is to randomize the alignment or use LDPC codes over $\mathbb{F}_{256}$ directly, and check whether the near-optimal decoding threshold survives.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper is worth your attention for Section III alone. Theorem 1—for S uncoordinated storage systems sending distinct symbols round-robin without replacement, the fraction of unseen symbols after τn transmissions converges to (1−τ/S)^S—is a clean, new characterization. The derivation is elementary but exact: the recursion for the expectation is correct, the variance bound via Chebyshev is standard, and the finite-n plots match the formulas. The resulting storage-versus-transmission tradeoff curves are useful design guidance.

The second half is where I get off the train. Section IV claims that mixing RS, RLN, and AR4JA LDPC codes lets a user decode with 99.9% probability after k+3 F256 symbols, independent of the mixture. That claim rests entirely on an unreported simulation: no code, no data, no trial counts, no error bars. More importantly, the LDPC part depends on the assertion that block-aligned erasures of eight F2 columns faithfully mimic F256 symbol erasures, and that the LDPC-C's performance is unaffected. For RS and RLN, symbol alignment is native; for a binary LDPC code there is no F256 symbol structure. The rank distribution of a structured generator matrix over random subsets of 1048 columns need not match a binary random linear code. The stress-test note is on target: if that 99.9% figure is an artifact of the chosen 8-bit alignment, the Section IV conclusion and the Section V recommendation collapse.

There is also a smaller modeling gap: the theoretical part in Section III assumes each storage system holds all n codeword symbols and sends each at most once. Storage erasures are mentioned in Section II but never enter the analysis. That is a simplification, not a fatal flaw, but readers should know the tradeoff curves apply only to the erasure-free case.

All told, this is a solid theoretical contribution with an under-documented empirical add-on. The math in Section III holds up; Section IV needs to ship its artifacts and justify the LDPC block-alignment step before the main practical message is credible. The paper deserves a serious referee—I'd accept it for review, not desk reject—but I'd make the authors release the simulation code and redo the LDPC analysis.

For a reading group, I'd bring it as an example of a clean asymptotic argument paired with a cautionary empirical appendix.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes uncoordinated content delivery from S storage systems that use the same MDS code, modeling the number of unseen codeword symbols as a time-inhomogeneous Markov chain and deriving the asymptotic fraction u_S(τ) = (1 − τ/S)^S of unseen symbols after τn received transmissions (Theorem 1, Eq. (11)). From this it obtains a storage–transmission tradeoff via the relation R = 1 − (1 − τ̃/S)^S in Eq. (26). The paper then presents an empirical case study (Section IV) in which a mixture of an RLN code, an RS code, and an AR4JA LDPC code is downloaded without coordination, claiming that decoding succeeds with 99.9% probability after k + 3 F256 symbols regardless of the mixture, and concluding that binary LDPC codes can be treated as binary RLN codes for this purpose.

Significance. The Section III result is a clean, self-contained characterization of a natural coupon-collector tradeoff and appears to be correct; if the empirical Section IV claim were fully substantiated, the paper would provide a practically relevant design principle for content-centric storage systems. However, the central 'code diversity' message currently rests on an unreported simulation with an unproven modeling assumption, so the paper's overall significance is contingent on that evidence being supplied.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Fig. 6 and the paragraph 'Fig. 6 shows ...'] The claim that after downloading one, two, and three additional F256 symbols the probability of successful decoding reaches 90%, 99%, and 99.9%, 'independent of the mixture,' is not reproducible from the manuscript: there is no description of the number of simulation trials, the random seeds, the exact generator-matrix constructions (e.g., the specific RS evaluation points, the RLN coefficient distribution, and the AR4JA parity-check matrix), or the procedure for mixing symbol types. Without these details, a reader cannot verify the load-bearing empirical result; the authors should provide the code and data or a complete experimental protocol with confidence intervals.
[Section IV, paragraph beginning 'We thus get ...'] The statement 'while the LDPC-C's performance is unaffected' by block-aligned erasures is asserted without proof or supporting data. For a binary LDPC code there is no inherent F256 symbol structure, and grouping eight F2 coordinates into a block can materially change the rank distribution of the reduced generator matrix; the MDS properties of RS and RLN codes do not imply anything about the AR4JA code's behavior under this grouping. The paper needs either a formal argument that the AR4JA rank profile over block-aligned subsets matches that of a binary random linear code, or a systematic empirical study of the grouping's effect on the decoding probability.
[Section IV, concluding paragraph 'As a result of our empirical case study ...'] The conclusion that 'binary LDPC-Cs can be treated as binary RLN-Cs' is an extrapolation far beyond the single AR4JA code and the single parameter set (n = 1280, k = 1024) studied. Even if the simulation were fully reproducible, the paper provides no reason to expect this equivalence to hold for other LDPC codes, other rates, or other block sizes; if this is intended as a general design rule, it requires supporting analysis, and otherwise the claim should be explicitly restricted to the studied code and parameters.

minor comments (5)

[Theorem 1 statement] The phrase 'F orn→∞' contains a typo and should read 'For n→∞'.
[Eq. (26)] The expression for τ̃ writes the S-th root as 'S√ 1−R', which is ambiguous; it should be typeset as (1−R)^{1/S} or $\sqrt[S]{1-R}$.
[Section II system model vs. Section III analysis] The system model introduces storage erasures (the $\hat{c}_i$ vectors), but the Markov-chain analysis in Section III assumes all n codeword symbols are available for transmission. The paper should state explicitly that the tradeoff characterization ignores storage erasures, or incorporate them into the model.
[Fig. 6 caption and surrounding text] The caption says 'minimum number of k = 128 symbols' but the text refers to k′ = 1024 base-field F2 symbols; please clarify consistently that the 128 symbols are F256 symbols, which correspond to 128 blocks of 8 F2 symbols.
[Theorem 1 proof] The limit argument uses the informal approximations labeled (a), (b), and (c) without rigorous error bounds; providing explicit bounds on the approximation errors would make the proof of convergence of the expectation fully rigorous, although the concentration part is standard.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main analytic result is derived from an explicit Markov model, and the code-diversity claim is empirical rather than constructed.

full rationale

Theorem 1 and Eq. (26) follow from a self-contained Markov-chain model (Eqs. (3)-(5)) of round-robin sampling without replacement. The transition probabilities are direct consequences of the stated protocol; Lemma 1 and Corollary 1 give the exact expectation recursion, and the variance bound (Eqs. (17)-(23)) yields concentration. No fitted parameter enters the asymptotic expression u_S(τ) = (1 - τ/S)^S, and Eq. (26) is just inversion of that expression, so the storage-transmission tradeoff is not an input restated as an output. Section IV is an empirical case study: it simulates mixed RS/RLN/LDPC delivery and reports observed decoding probabilities; the claim that k+3 symbols suffice with 99.9% probability is an experimental observation, not derived from the model, so it cannot be circular in the equation-identity sense. The only self-citation, [26] (Hellge and Médard), is invoked for the lifting-to-base-field technique, but the needed equivalence is re-derived in the paper (Eqs. (27)-(30)) and also attributed to independent reference [32]; no central conclusion depends on [26] as unverified authority. The block-aligned erasure assumption for LDPC is an unproven modeling choice, and the simulation details are unreported, but those are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circularity. Thus no circular step is identifiable with quoted evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. The central results rest on the protocol model (random without-replacement transmission), the MDS assumption for the same-code analysis, and the field-lifting and block-alignment assumptions in the mixed-code study. The latter assumptions are the least supported.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Each storage system transmits uniformly at random without replacement from its stored n codeword symbols, in a fixed round-robin order, with no coordination.
This is the protocol model used to write the transition probabilities (Eq. (5)) and the entire Section III analysis; if the protocol differs, the results do not apply.
domain assumption All S storage systems use the same [n,k] MDS code, so any k distinct received codeword symbols permit decoding.
The coupon collector count of k unique symbols is equivalent to decodability only under the MDS property (Section III).
domain assumption Storage erasures are ignored in the transmission analysis: each server has all n symbols available for transmission.
The system model mentions erasures (Section II), but the Markov chain assumes a pool of n - floor(ℓ/S) available un-transmitted symbols per server, so the analysis covers only the transmission phase under full availability.
standard math Multiplication in F_{2^8} can be represented as a linear map over F_2, allowing all codes to be lifted to a common binary field.
Used in Section IV, Eqs. (27)-(30), to combine RS, RLN, and LDPC codes over F_2.
domain assumption Block-aligned erasures of 8 binary coordinates 'mimic' F256-symbol erasures for all three codes.
Adopted in Section IV so that RLN and RS codes retain their MDS properties; this grouping is not justified for the binary LDPC code and may not reflect real erasure behavior.
domain assumption The AR4JA LDPC code is representative of binary LDPC codes for the purpose of drawing general conclusions.
The conclusion that 'binary LDPC-Cs can be treated as binary RLN-Cs' is drawn from a single code instance (Section IV).
domain assumption The user decodes by Gaussian elimination over the received generator matrix (maximum likelihood decoding).
Belief propagation is not used; this affects the required number of excess symbols for LDPC and is stated in Section IV.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Babel Storage: Uncoordinated Content Delivery from Multiple Coded Storage Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDWPMXSR

@misc{pith2026190809271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Babel Storage: Uncoordinated Content Delivery from Multiple Coded Storage Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDWPMXSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09271}
}

read the original abstract

In future content-centric networks, content is identified independently of its location. From an end-user's perspective, individual storage systems dissolve into a seemingly omnipresent structureless `storage fog'. Content should be delivered oblivious of the network topology, using multiple storage systems simultaneously, and at minimal coordination overhead. Prior works have addressed the advantages of error correction coding for distributed storage and content delivery separately. This work takes a comprehensive approach to highlighting the tradeoff between storage overhead and transmission overhead in uncoordinated content delivery from multiple coded storage systems. Our contribution is twofold. First, we characterize the tradeoff between storage and transmission overhead when all participating storage systems employ the same code. Second, we show that the resulting stark inefficiencies can be avoided when storage systems use diverse codes. What is more, such code diversity is not just technically desirable, but presumably will be the reality in the increasingly heterogeneous networks of the future. To this end, we show that a mix of Reed-Solomon, low-density parity-check and random linear network codes achieves close-to-optimal performance at minimal coordination and operational overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09271 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A file is stored and distributed using S different storage systems in the following way. For each storage system i ∈ {1, ..., S}, the file u is encoded into ci which is stored. Some symbols of ci get erased over time; the remaining ones are collected in the vector ˆci. Of these, some are chosen for transmission; the symbols that arrive at the requesting user are denoted as ˜ci. As long as rank h G˜1 . . . G˜S i = k,… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Time-varying Markov chain modeling the evolution of the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** PMFs PK` (k`) of the number of received unique symbols K` after transmitting ` symbols, for S = 2 storage systems and block length n = 50, and approximation E[K`] ≈ n · 1 − uS ` n according to Theorem 1. Second, we show the concentration of U (n) τ to its expectation as n → ∞. Note that ∀S, n : E[U`] ≤ n 1 − ` SnS ≤ n exp − ` n , (17) ∀` ∀` 0 ≤ ` : 0 ≤ a` ≤ a` 0 ≤ 1, 2a` − 1 ≤ a 2 ` . (18) Hence, Var[… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Tradeoff between storage factor σ and transmission factor δ for different numbers of storage systems S at large block length n → ∞. Ergo, as n → ∞, the fraction of unique received symbols is fully characterized by 1 − uS(τ ) = 1 − [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Probability of successful decoding (mark color) after downloading the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

P. L. Dordal, An Introduction to Computer Networks , 2018, release 1.9.16. [Online]. Available: http://intronetworks.cs.luc.edu/

work page 2018
[2]

A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture,

T. Koponen et al., “A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf. Appl., Technol., Architectures, and Protocols for Comput. Commun. , 2007, pp. 181–192

work page 2007
[3]

Bossert, Channel Coding for Telecommunications

M. Bossert, Channel Coding for Telecommunications . Wiley, 1999

work page 1999
[4]

Towards an archival intermemory,

A. V . Goldberg and P. N. Yianilos, “Towards an archival intermemory,” in Proc. IEEE F orum Res. and Technol. Advances in Digit. Libraries (ADL), 1998, pp. 147–156

work page 1998
[5]

OceanStore: An architecture for global-scale per- sistent storage,

J. Kubiatowicz et al., “OceanStore: An architecture for global-scale per- sistent storage,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Architectural Support for Program. Lang. and Operating Syst. (ASPLOS) , 2000, pp. 190–201

work page 2000
[6]

A solution to the network challenges of data recovery in erasure-coded distributed storage systems: A study on the Facebook warehouse cluster,

K. V . Rashmi et al. , “A solution to the network challenges of data recovery in erasure-coded distributed storage systems: A study on the Facebook warehouse cluster,” in Proc. USENIX Workshop Hot Topics in Storage and File Syst. (HotStorage) , 2013

work page 2013
[7]

How good is random linear coding based distributed networked storage?

S. Acedanski et al., “How good is random linear coding based distributed networked storage?” in Workshop Network Coding, Theory and Applicat. (NETCOD), Riva del Garda, Italy, 2005

work page 2005
[8]

On the practical use of LDPC erasure codes for distributed storage applications,

J. S. Plank and M. G. Thomason, “On the practical use of LDPC erasure codes for distributed storage applications,” University of Tennessee, Tech. Rep. CS-03-510, September 2003

work page 2003

Show all 33 references

[9]

LDPC code design for distributed storage: Balancing repair bandwidth, reliability, and storage overhead,

H. Park, D. Lee, and J. Moon, “LDPC code design for distributed storage: Balancing repair bandwidth, reliability, and storage overhead,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 507–520, 2018

2018
[10]

Liquid cloud storage,

M. G. Luby et al. , “Liquid cloud storage,” arXiv:1705.07983v1, 2017

2017 arXiv
[11]

Capacity bounds for distributed storage,

M. Luby, “Capacity bounds for distributed storage,” arXiv:1610.03541v5, 2018

2018 arXiv
[12]

XORing elephants: Novel erasure codes for big data,

M. Sathiamoorthy et al. , “XORing elephants: Novel erasure codes for big data,” Proc. VLDB Endowment , vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 325–336, 2013

2013
[13]

Locally repairable codes,

D. S. Papailiopoulos and A. G. Dimakis, “Locally repairable codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 5843–5855, 2014

2014
[14]

Erasure coding in Windows Azure storage,

C. Huang et al. , “Erasure coding in Windows Azure storage,” in Proc. USENIX Annu. Tech. Conf. , 2012, pp. 15–26

2012
[15]

A survey on network codes for distributed storage,

A. G. Dimakis et al. , “A survey on network codes for distributed storage,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 476–489, 2011

2011
[16]

Raptor codes,

M. A. Shokrollahi and M. Luby, “Raptor codes,” F oundations and Trends in Commun. and Inf. Theory , vol. 6, no. 3-4, pp. 213–322, 2009

2009
[17]

STAIR codes: A general family of erasure codes for tolerating device and sector failures,

M. Li and P. P. C. Lee, “STAIR codes: A general family of erasure codes for tolerating device and sector failures,” ACM Trans. Storage (TOS), vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 14:1–14:30, Oct. 2014

2014
[18]

Optimizing the error recovery capabilities of LDPC-staircase codes featuring a Gaussian elimination decoding scheme,

M. Cunche and V . Roca, “Optimizing the error recovery capabilities of LDPC-staircase codes featuring a Gaussian elimination decoding scheme,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Signal Process. for Space Commun. (SPSC) , 2008, pp. 1–7

2008
[19]

Performance versus overhead for fountain codes over Fq,

G. Liva, E. Paolini, and M. Chiani, “Performance versus overhead for fountain codes over Fq,” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 178– 180, 2010

2010
[20]

Cache-aided interference channels,

M. A. Maddah-Ali and U. Niesen, “Cache-aided interference channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1714–1724, 2019

2019
[21]

Erasure coding for decentralized coded caching,

H. Reisizadeh, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and S. Mohajer, “Erasure coding for decentralized coded caching,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2018, pp. 1715–1719

2018
[22]

MDS-coded distributed caching for low delay wireless content delivery,

A. Piemontese and A. Graell i Amat, “MDS-coded distributed caching for low delay wireless content delivery,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 1600–1612, 2019

2019
[23]

Algebraic gossip: A network coding approach to optimal multiple rumor mongering,

S. Deb, M. M ´edard, and C. Choute, “Algebraic gossip: A network coding approach to optimal multiple rumor mongering,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2486–2507, 2006

2006
[24]

Analyzing network coding (gossip) made easy,

B. Haeupler, “Analyzing network coding (gossip) made easy,” J. ACM, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 26:1–26:22, 2016

2016
[25]

A digital fountain approach to reliable distribution of bulk data,

J. W. Byers et al. , “A digital fountain approach to reliable distribution of bulk data,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf. Appl., Technol., Archi- tectures, and Protocols for Comput. Commun. , 1998, pp. 56–67

1998
[26]

Multi-code distributed storage,

C. Hellge and M. M ´edard, “Multi-code distributed storage,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Cloud Comput. (CLOUD) , 2016, pp. 839–842

2016
[27]

A random linear network coding approach to multicast,

T. Ho et al. , “A random linear network coding approach to multicast,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 4413–4430, 2006

2006
[28]

Polynomial codes over certain ﬁnite ﬁelds,

I. S. Reed and G. Solomon, “Polynomial codes over certain ﬁnite ﬁelds,” J. SIAM, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 300–304, 1960

1960
[29]

A new class of rateless codes based on Reed-Solomon codes,

R. R. Borujeny and M. Ardakani, “A new class of rateless codes based on Reed-Solomon codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 49–58, 2016

2016
[30]

Protograph based LDPC codes with minimum distance linearly growing with block size,

D. Divsalar et al. , “Protograph based LDPC codes with minimum distance linearly growing with block size,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , 2005, pp. 1152–1156

2005
[31]

TM synchronization and channel coding – summary of concept and rationale,

“TM synchronization and channel coding – summary of concept and rationale,” CCSDS SLS-C&S Working Group, Tech. Rep. 130.1-G-2, November 2012

2012
[32]

An XOR-based erasure-resilient coding scheme,

J. Blmer et al. , “An XOR-based erasure-resilient coding scheme,” Int. Comput. Sci. Inst. (ICSI) Berkeley, Tech. Rep. TR-95-048, August 1995

1995
[33]

T. J. Richardson and R. L. Urbanke, Modern Coding Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2008

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. L. Dordal, An Introduction to Computer Networks , 2018, release 1.9.16. [Online]. Available: http://intronetworks.cs.luc.edu/

work page 2018

[2] [2]

A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture,

T. Koponen et al., “A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf. Appl., Technol., Architectures, and Protocols for Comput. Commun. , 2007, pp. 181–192

work page 2007

[3] [3]

Bossert, Channel Coding for Telecommunications

M. Bossert, Channel Coding for Telecommunications . Wiley, 1999

work page 1999

[4] [4]

Towards an archival intermemory,

A. V . Goldberg and P. N. Yianilos, “Towards an archival intermemory,” in Proc. IEEE F orum Res. and Technol. Advances in Digit. Libraries (ADL), 1998, pp. 147–156

work page 1998

[5] [5]

OceanStore: An architecture for global-scale per- sistent storage,

J. Kubiatowicz et al., “OceanStore: An architecture for global-scale per- sistent storage,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Architectural Support for Program. Lang. and Operating Syst. (ASPLOS) , 2000, pp. 190–201

work page 2000

[6] [6]

A solution to the network challenges of data recovery in erasure-coded distributed storage systems: A study on the Facebook warehouse cluster,

K. V . Rashmi et al. , “A solution to the network challenges of data recovery in erasure-coded distributed storage systems: A study on the Facebook warehouse cluster,” in Proc. USENIX Workshop Hot Topics in Storage and File Syst. (HotStorage) , 2013

work page 2013

[7] [7]

How good is random linear coding based distributed networked storage?

S. Acedanski et al., “How good is random linear coding based distributed networked storage?” in Workshop Network Coding, Theory and Applicat. (NETCOD), Riva del Garda, Italy, 2005

work page 2005

[8] [8]

On the practical use of LDPC erasure codes for distributed storage applications,

J. S. Plank and M. G. Thomason, “On the practical use of LDPC erasure codes for distributed storage applications,” University of Tennessee, Tech. Rep. CS-03-510, September 2003

work page 2003