Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 38 references

New Bounds and Constructions for Variable Packet-Error Coding

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For 2T+1 parallel packet channels with up to T adversarial corruptions, a repetition-code variant achieves the optimal trade-off between packet rate and erasure distortion.

desk verdict Solid VPEC paper with genuinely new bounds and constructions; the optimality claim is blocklength-specific and the abstract slightly oversells it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15233 v1 pith:7THPHV7G submitted 2025-06-18 cs.IT math.COmath.IT

Xiangliang Kong , Xin Wang , Ron M. Roth , Itzhak Tamo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.COmath.IT MSC 94B0594B3594A15
keywords variablepacket-errorcodingrate-distortiontrade-offerasuredistortionhigher-orderMDScodeslistdecodingrepetitionadversarialpacketerrorsnetwork
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

Variable packet-error coding (VPEC) asks for a code that sends a source over N parallel packet channels, tolerates up to T corrupted packets, and reconstructs the source losslessly when no corruption occurs, while keeping erasure distortion small when errors do occur. The paper proves new lower bounds on the achievable rate–distortion trade-off and gives two explicit constructions. The first construction uses higher-order MDS codes (L-MDS codes) with interleaving to beat the previously known polytope codes for general parameters. The second, a variant of the repetition code, is optimal when $N = 2T+1$: for any $s \le T$ it gives per-packet rate $1 - \frac{s}{2T+1}$ and distortion at most $\frac{s}{2T+1}$, with decoding in $O(T^3)$ time. With the paper's lower bound, this shows the pair $(R, 1-R)$ is optimal for $2T+1$ packets when the alphabet is large enough.

What carries the argument

The optimal construction is a variant of the repetition code: a message of $2T+1$ fragments is encoded into $2T+1$ packets, where packet $j$ contains all fragments except the $s$ consecutive fragments in a cyclic window. Each fragment therefore appears in $2T+1-s$ packets, so a majority vote recovers it when few packets are corrupted; when the vote is inconclusive, a pairing lemma (Lemma IV.2) guarantees two unresolved indices with cyclic separation in $\{s, \ldots, 2T+1-s\}$, and the decoder compares frequency counts in the two corresponding packets to decide which fragment to trust and which to erase. The general-parameter construction instead interleaves an $L$-MDS code $N$ times; its $(T,L)$-list decodability keeps at most $L$ candidate codewords after a $T$-error pattern, and erasing columns where candidates disagree costs at most $\frac{LT}{N}$ distortion.

What would settle it

Exhaustively simulate the decoder of Construction 2 for a small case, such as $T = 2$ and $s = 1$ with $N = 5$, over every error pattern of size at most $T$ and all source messages; if any pattern yields more than $s$ erasures, Theorem II.4 would be false. For Theorem II.3, finding a parameter set $(N, T, L)$ that meets the hypotheses but for which no $[N, \rho N]$ $L$-MDS code with $\rho = 1 - (1+1/L)\frac{T}{N}$ exists would falsify the claimed rate–distortion region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For any alphabet, positive integers $T$ and $s \le T$, and blocklength $k$ divisible by $2T+1$, there exists a $T$-VPEC code with $N = 2T+1$ packets, per-packet rate $R = 1 - \frac{s}{2T+1}$, and erasure distortion at most $D = \frac{s}{2T+1}$ under up to $T$ packet errors; decoding runs in $O(T^3)$. The code is built by partitioning the message into $2T+1$ fragments and having each packet carry all fragments except a cyclic block of $s$ of them. Together with the lower bound of Corollary II.1, this makes the rate–distortion pair $(R, 1-R)$ optimal for $0 \le D \le \frac{T}{2T+1}$ whenever the alphabet size is at least $\frac{4(T+2)}{3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The improved general-parameter construction (Construction 1) assumes the existence of an $[N, \rho N]$ $L$-MDS code over a sufficiently large field with $\rho = 1 - (1+1/L)\frac{T}{N}$, which the paper does not explicitly construct for $L > 2$; the optimal repetition-based construction makes no such assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With $N = 2T+1$ packets, the rate–distortion pair $(R, 1-R)$ is achievable for $\frac{T+1}{2T+1} \le R \le 1$ and is optimal in the range $0 \le D \le \frac{T}{2T+1}$ when the alphabet has size at least $\frac{4(T+2)}{3}$.
  • The MDS-based construction achieves strictly better rate–distortion points than polytope codes for $N \ge F(T)+1$ and $T \ge 4(L+1)$, and for $L=2$ it needs only a finite field of size polynomial in $N$ for fixed $T$, rather than the real alphabet used by polytope codes.
  • The lower bounds in Theorem II.2 recover the known bound $R \ge \frac{1}{N-T}$ for $0 \le D \le 1$ and $R \ge \frac{1}{N-2T}$ for $D=0$, and via the Diametric Theorem give a closed form $R \ge \max\{(1-D)/(N-2T), 1/(N-T)\}$ for large alphabets.
  • In the asymptotic regime with fixed error fraction $\theta = T/N$ and $N \to \infty$, the $L$-MDS construction achieves a strictly better overall rate–distortion curve than classical MDS codes whenever $\theta \le 1/(L+1)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cyclic-omission structure of Construction 2 is a special balanced design; generalizing it to other designs may yield optimal codes for $N \ne 2T+1$ or for channels with different per-packet rates, which the paper leaves open.
  • The $O(T^3)$ decoding time makes the optimal scheme computationally plausible; an empirical test against adversarial erasure patterns for small $T$ would directly confirm the distortion guarantee and the majority-vote logic.
  • Optimality here is proven only for alphabets with $|\Sigma| \ge \frac{4(T+2)}{3}$; whether the same trade-off is achievable over smaller alphabets, including the binary case, is a natural open question suggested by the paper's own bounds.
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.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies variable packet-error coding (VPEC), in which a source of blocklength k is encoded into N packets of equal rate R and the decoder must recover the source losslessly when no packets are corrupted and with erasure distortion at most D when at most T packets are adversarially corrupted. The main results are: (i) three lower bounds on the achievable rate-distortion trade-off, obtained from the Singleton bound, a pigeonhole/anticode argument invoking the Ahlswede-Khachatrian Diametric Theorem, and a linear-anticode dimension bound; (ii) Construction 1, which interleaves an L-MDS [N, rho N] code to produce a T-VPEC code of rate 1/(rho N) and distortion LT/N, conditional on the existence of the underlying L-MDS code; and (iii) Construction 2, a repetition-code variant for N=2T+1 that for every s<=T yields a T-VPEC code of rate 1-s/(2T+1) and distortion s/(2T+1), decodable in O(T^3) time, with blocklength k=m(2T+1) handled by m independent batch transmissions. For k=N=2T+1 and alphabet size at least 4(T+2)/3, Remark II.3 shows the pair (1-D,D) matches the lower bound from Corollary II.1, establishing optimality of the construction for this parameter regime. I verified that the optimality claim in the paper is explicitly scoped to k=N=2T+1; the paper does not claim a converse for the longer blocklengths in Remark IV.4.

Significance. The paper is a solid contribution to the VPEC literature. The lower bounds unify and slightly generalize the first part of [8, Theorem 1], and the second construction pins down the exact rate-distortion curve in the N=2T+1 case for a nontrivial alphabet-size range, a genuinely new result. The proofs are mostly elementary and transparent, with no fitted parameters: the only external ingredients are the Singleton bound, the Diametric Theorem, and the existence of higher-order MDS codes. Both constructions are compared with the polytope codes of [8] in explicit parameter regimes. One caveat is that Construction 1 is explicit only conditional on an [N, rho N] L-MDS code; explicit constructions are available for L=2 via [18], while for L>2 the paper cites existence results rather than giving a deterministic construction. This is stated transparently in Theorem II.3, so it does not affect the validity of the theorem, but it should be kept in mind when reading the word 'explicit' in the abstract.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Remark II.3 and Abstract] The optimality statement is proved only for blocklength k=N=2T+1; for the blocklength-extended codes in Remark IV.4 with k=m(2T+1), Corollary II.1 does not provide a converse because its alphabet-size condition q >= 2k(1-D)/3+2 grows with k. The abstract's phrase 'optimal rate-distortion trade-off' should be qualified accordingly, for example as 'for codes of length N=2T+1', to prevent an overbroad reading.
  2. [Algorithm 2 and Lemma IV.3] The definitions of A_i and B_i appear to have missing complement bars: A_i should be the multiset of candidates from the packets that actually contain x_i, i.e., from the complement of S_{i-s+1}. In addition, Algorithm 2 sets 'xi2 = MFA1', which should read 'xi2 = MFA2'. Please correct these in the final version.
  3. [Proof of Corollary II.1] The Diametric Theorem is stated for integer d, but kD may be non-integral. The derivation should explicitly use d=floor(kD), or state that Dk is assumed integral, since the final bound (1-D)/(N-2T) then follows immediately.
  4. [Proof of Theorem II.3] In the distortion analysis, the sentence 'the remaining columns are those where all the outputted codewords agree with Y' should read 'agree with one another (and hence equal the transmitted codeword in those columns)'; agreement with the received word Y is not required and, in fact, the decoder only needs the agreed-upon symbols. The column-erasure accounting is unaffected.
  5. [Theorem II.3 and Remark II.1] For L>2, the underlying [N, rho N] L-MDS code is only known to exist for sufficiently large fields; the paper should state more explicitly that for these values of L the construction is conditional on existence, whereas for L=2 explicit constructions from [18] are available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lower bounds are independent (Singleton/anticode/Diametric Theorem), and both constructions are explicit and matched against those bounds rather than assumed into them.

full rationale

The paper's derivations are self-contained in the relevant sense. The lower bounds in Theorem II.2 follow from the Singleton bound, a pigeonhole/anticode argument, and the external Diametric Theorem of Ahlswede and Khachatrian; no bound is assumed from the constructions. Construction 2's rate and distortion are computed directly from the repetition-type packet structure and its decoding algorithm, and its optimality is presented as matching the independent lower bound of Corollary II.1 only at blocklength k=N=2T+1, as scoped in Remark II.3 and Section V. Construction 1 is explicitly conditional on the existence of an L-MDS code, which is cited to prior published work (including [18] by a coauthor, but also external [34] and [35]); the paper does not rename or reuse its own conclusion as a premise. There are no fitted parameters, no 'prediction' that is a fit in disguise, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors to force a choice. The only caveat, that the optimality claim for Theorem II.4 is proven for k=N=2T+1 rather than for arbitrary blocklength, is a scope limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. It relies on standard coding-theoretic bounds (Singleton, anticode bounds), a standard combinatorial theorem (Diametric Theorem), and the externally supplied existence of higher-order MDS codes. No free parameters are fitted to data; L and s are design parameters chosen to satisfy stated constraints.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Singleton bound for codes over an alphabet of size q^{kR}
    Used in the proof of Theorem II.2 part 1 to obtain R >= 1/(N-d+1) from the minimum distance of the T-VPEC code.
  • standard math Ahlswede-Khachatrian Diametric Theorem
    Used to evaluate Ant_q(k,kD) in Corollary II.1 and Appendix A, yielding the closed form q^{kD} when q >= 2k(1-D)/3+2.
  • domain assumption Existence of [L]-MDS codes over sufficiently large finite fields
    Theorem II.3 and Construction 1 require an [N,rho N] L-MDS code with rho = 1-(1+1/L)T/N; the paper cites [18], [34], and [35] for existence rather than providing a deterministic construction for all L.
  • standard math A linear anticode of diameter d in F_q^k has dimension at most d
    Used in the proof of Theorem II.2 part 3 to conclude that the message subspace corresponding to C'' has dimension at most kD; stated without proof, standard in coding theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Bounds and Constructions for Variable Packet-Error Coding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7THPHV7G

@misc{pith2026250615233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Bounds and Constructions for Variable Packet-Error Coding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7THPHV7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15233}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we consider the problem of variable packet-error coding, which emerges in network communication scenarios where a source transmits information to a destination through multiple disjoint paths. The objective is to design codes with dynamic error-correcting capabilities that adapt to varying numbers of errors. Specifically, we first provide several bounds on the rate--distortion trade-off for general variable packet-error coding schemes. Then, we present two explicit constructions of variable packet-error coding schemes. The first construction uses higher-order MDS codes and provides a coding scheme that achieves a better rate--distortion trade-off compared to known results for general parameter regimes. The second construction is based on a variant of the repetition code and yields a coding scheme with an optimal rate--distortion trade-off, with respect to our bound, for certain parameter regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the results on the rate–distortion trade-off from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the results on the rate–distortion trade-off from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Asymptotic bounds on the overall rate–distortion trade-off from Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Variable Packet-Error Coding,

    X. Fan, O. Kosut, and A. B. Wagner, “Variable Packet-Error Coding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1530–1547, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [18]

    Higher-Order MDS Codes,

    R. M. Roth, “Higher-Order MDS Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 7798–7816, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Network Information Flow,

    R. Ahlswede, N. Cai, S.-Y . Li, and R. W. Yeung, “Network Information Flow,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1204–1216, 2000

    2000

  4. [2]

    Network Coding and Error Correction,

    N. Cai and R. W. Yeung, “Network Coding and Error Correction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Information Theory Workshop . IEEE, 2002, pp. 119–122

    work page 2002

  5. [3]

    Network Error Correction, I: Basic Concepts and Upper Bounds,

    ——, “Network Error Correction, I: Basic Concepts and Upper Bounds,” Communications in Information and Systems , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 19–35, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [4]

    Network Error Correction, II: Lower Bounds,

    ——, “Network Error Correction, II: Lower Bounds,” Communications in Information and Systems , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37 – 54, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [5]

    Network Codes Resilient to Jamming and Eavesdropping,

    H. Yao, D. Silva, S. Jaggi, and M. Langberg, “Network Codes Resilient to Jamming and Eavesdropping,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1978–1987, 2014

    work page 1978

  8. [6]

    Network Coding Theory: A Survey,

    R. Bassoli, H. Marques, J. Rodriguez, K. W. Shum, and R. Tafazolli, “Network Coding Theory: A Survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1950–1978, 2013

    work page 1950

Show all 38 references
  1. [7]

    Coding for the Large-Alphabet Adversarial Channel,

    E. Ahmed and A. B. Wagner, “Coding for the Large-Alphabet Adversarial Channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 6347–6363, 2017

    2017

  2. [9]

    Cluster Storage Systems Gotta Have HeART: Improving Storage Efficiency by Exploiting Disk-Reliability Heterogeneity,

    S. Kadekodi, K. V . Rashmi, and G. R. Ganger, “Cluster Storage Systems Gotta Have HeART: Improving Storage Efficiency by Exploiting Disk-Reliability Heterogeneity,” in Proceedings of the 17th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies , ser. FAST’19. USA: USENIX Associ...

    2019

  3. [10]

    PACEMAKER: Avoiding HeART Attacks in Storage Clusters with Disk-adaptive Redundancy,

    S. Kadekodi, F. Maturana, S. J. Subramanya, J. Yang, K. Rashmi, and G. R. Ganger, “PACEMAKER: Avoiding HeART Attacks in Storage Clusters with Disk-adaptive Redundancy,” in 14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 20) , 2020, pp. 369–385

    2020

  4. [11]

    Convertible Codes: Enabling Efficient Conversion of Coded Data in Distributed Storage,

    F. Maturana and K. V . Rashmi, “Convertible Codes: Enabling Efficient Conversion of Coded Data in Distributed Storage,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 4392–4407, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Code Conversions in Storage Systems,

    F. Maturana and K. Rashmi, “Code Conversions in Storage Systems,” IEEE BITS the Information Theory Magazine , 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Multiple Description Coding: Compression Meets the Network,

    V . K. Goyal, “Multiple Description Coding: Compression Meets the Network,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 74–93, 2001

    2001

  7. [14]

    Achievable Rates for Multiple Descriptions,

    A. Gamal and T. Cover, “Achievable Rates for Multiple Descriptions,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 851–857, 1982

    1982

  8. [15]

    Erasure Multiple Descriptions,

    E. Ahmed and A. B. Wagner, “Erasure Multiple Descriptions,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 1328–1344, 2012

    2012

  9. [16]

    Goldreich, Foundations of Cryptography: Volume 2, Basic Applications

    O. Goldreich, Foundations of Cryptography: Volume 2, Basic Applications . USA: Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  10. [17]

    Lossy Source Coding with Byzantine Adversaries,

    E. Ahmed and A. B. Wagner, “Lossy Source Coding with Byzantine Adversaries,” in 2011 IEEE Information Theory Workshop . IEEE, 2011, pp. 462–466

    2011

  11. [19]

    Lower Bounds for Maximally Recoverable Tensor Codes and Higher Order MDS Codes,

    J. Brakensiek, S. Gopi, and V . Makam, “Lower Bounds for Maximally Recoverable Tensor Codes and Higher Order MDS Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 7125–7140, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Rate Distortion Theory . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005, ch. 10, pp. 301–346

    2005

  13. [21]

    Elias, List Decoding for Noisy Channels

    P. Elias, List Decoding for Noisy Channels . Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1957

    1957

  14. [22]

    List Decoding,

    J. M. Wozencraft, “List Decoding,” Quarterly Progress Report, vol. 48, pp. 90–95, 1958

    1958

  15. [23]

    Channel Capacities for List Xodes,

    R. Ahlswede, “Channel Capacities for List Xodes,” Journal of Applied Probability , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 824–836, 1973

    1973

  16. [24]

    Bounds for Codes in Decoding by a List of Finite Length,

    V . M. Blinovskiı, “Bounds for Codes in Decoding by a List of Finite Length,” Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 11–25, 1986

    1986

  17. [25]

    Blinovsky, Asymptotic Combinatorial Coding Theory

    V . Blinovsky, Asymptotic Combinatorial Coding Theory . Springer Science & Business Media, 1997, vol. 415

    1997

  18. [26]

    Error-Correcting Codes for List Decoding,

    P. Elias, “Error-Correcting Codes for List Decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 5–12, 1991

    1991

  19. [27]

    On the Hardness of Permanent,

    J.-Y . Cai, A. Pavan, and D. Sivakumar, “On the Hardness of Permanent,” in Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Springer, 1999, pp. 90–99

    1999

  20. [28]

    Unbalanced Expanders and Randomness Extractors from Parvaresh–Vardy Codes,

    V . Guruswami, C. Umans, and S. Vadhan, “Unbalanced Expanders and Randomness Extractors from Parvaresh–Vardy Codes,” Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1–34, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    On Membership Comparable Sets,

    D. Sivakumar, “On Membership Comparable Sets,” Journal of Computer and System Sciences , vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 270–280, 1999

    1999

  22. [30]

    Pseudorandom Generators without the XOR Lemma,

    M. Sudan, L. Trevisan, and S. Vadhan, “Pseudorandom Generators without the XOR Lemma,” in Proceedings of the thirty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 1999, pp. 537–546

    1999

  23. [31]

    Essential coding theory,

    V . Guruswami, A. Rudra, and M. Sudan, “Essential coding theory,” Draft available at http://cse. buffalo. edu/faculty/atri/courses/coding- theory/book, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    The Diametric Theorem in Hamming Spaces-Optimal Anticodes,

    R. Ahlswede and L. H. Khachatrian, “The Diametric Theorem in Hamming Spaces-Optimal Anticodes,” Advances in Applied mathematics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 429–449, 1998

    1998

  25. [33]

    List decoding tensor products and interleaved codes,

    P. Gopalan, V . Guruswami, and P. Raghavendra, “List decoding tensor products and interleaved codes,” SIAM Journal on Computing , vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1432–1462, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137/090778274

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    Generic Reed-Solomon Codes Achieve List-decoding Capacity,

    J. Brakensiek, S. Gopi, and V . Makam, “Generic Reed-Solomon Codes Achieve List-decoding Capacity,” in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , 2023, pp. 1488–1501

    2023

  27. [35]

    Improved Field Size Bounds for Higher Order MDS Codes,

    J. Brakensiek, M. Dhar, and S. Gopi, “Improved Field Size Bounds for Higher Order MDS Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Tighter List-Size Bounds for List-Decoding and Recovery of Folded Reed-Solomon and Multiplicity Codes,

    I. Tamo, “Tighter List-Size Bounds for List-Decoding and Recovery of Folded Reed-Solomon and Multiplicity Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Explicit Folded Reed-Solomon and Multiplicity Codes Achieve Relaxed Generalized Singleton Bounds,

    Y . Chen and Z. Zhang, “Explicit Folded Reed-Solomon and Multiplicity Codes Achieve Relaxed Generalized Singleton Bounds,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15925, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    MJRTY-A Fast Majority V ote Algorithm,

    R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore, “MJRTY-A Fast Majority V ote Algorithm,” in Automated reasoning: essays in honor of Woody Bledsoe . Springer, 1991, pp. 105–117

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.