MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122414545 · doi:10.1109/isit.1991.695140

A Neural Network Implementation Of A Permutation Decoder For Binary Cyclic Codes

2005· article· en· W2122414545 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Allard, C.A. Jansen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode wordDecoding methodsPermutation (music)Computer scienceParity-check matrixAlgorithmArtificial neural networkHopfield networkBinary numberWord (group theory)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsArithmeticArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we consider the decoding of binary cyclic block codes utilizing a permutation decoding technique based on a Hopfield type neural network architecture. It is well known that the maximum likelihood decoding of an $ n,k,t) :: binary hear code is equivalent to finding the minimum of a polynomial orm in k blnary vambles [ 11, (31. Using results from the work of Baldi [2], we show that a generalized Hopfield neural network whose connections are governed by the generator matrix of the code and the received word has a stable state corresponding to the transmitted codeword if? or fewer errors are introduced in the transmission process. An energy function is defined and is the basis of the updating of the network operating in serial mode. It is shown that changes to the state of the network based on a local improvement algorithm results in a lowering of the corresponding energy of the network and hence a descent in the energy space towards the codeword. If the codeword corresponding to the state of the network is within the Hamming energy sphere of the received word, then successful decoding has been achieved otherwise a permutation is applied to the received word and the process is repeated. This provides a useful mechanism for handling the local minimum problem which plagues optimization problems. We discuss the conditions under which the state will converge to the right codeword in the presence of random errors. We present a detailed algorithm for updating the state of the network and simulation results for non-trivial cyclic codes such as the (63,30,6) and (127,64,10) BCH codes. Summan,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207