MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154004095 · doi:10.1109/icc.2006.254906

Procedures for Efficient Iterative Decoding of Orthogonal Convolutional Codes

2006· article· en· W2154004095 on OpenAlexaff
Yucheng He, David Haccoun, Christian Cardinal

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE International Conference on Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional codeSequential decodingDecoding methodsConcatenation (mathematics)Computer scienceList decodingAlgorithmSerial concatenated convolutional codesBelief propagationConcatenated error correction codeBerlekamp–Welch algorithmInterleavingTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsBlock codeArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A procedure for the forward-only iterative belief propagation decoding of orthogonal convolutional codes is presented. It can be dramatically simplified to perform the iterative threshold decoding of convolutional self-doubly-orthogonal codes without interleaving. These procedures can help implement iterative decoders efficiently using a serial concatenation of one-step BP decoders or one-step threshold decoders, respectively. Simulations have shown that the error performance of orthogonal convolutional codes can be improved by iterative decoding whether based on belief propagation decoding or threshold decoding. For convolutional self-doubly-orthogonal codes, iterative threshold decoding can achieve the same error performance as iterative belief propagation decoding, but with greatly reduced decoding complexity, allowing an advantageous tradeoff between implementation complexity and latency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE International Conference on CommunicationsSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207