MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290407458 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2015.7421362

List sphere decoding of polar codes

2015· article· en· W2290407458 on OpenAlexaff
Seyyed Ali Hashemi, Carlo Condo, Warren J. Gross

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsPolar codeList decodingComputer scienceAlgorithmPolarChannel (broadcasting)Sequential decodingError detection and correctionCode (set theory)RADIUSConcatenated error correction codeTelecommunicationsBlock codeComputer networkSet (abstract data type)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar codes have gained a lot of attention during the past few years, because they can provably achieve the capacity of a memoryless channel. The design of efficient polar code decoders has been an active topic of research. The simple Successive Cancellation (SC) decoding algorithm yields poor error correction performance on short polar codes: the SC- List (SCL) algorithm overcomes this problem, but its hardware implementation requires a large amount of memory. Sphere Decoding (SD) is an alternative decoding technique that has been shown to work well for short polar codes, but it is burdened by undesirable characteristics. The performance of SD strongly depends on the choice of a suitable sphere radius, whose value must be selected according to the conditions of the channel. Channel conditions also affect the algorithm's time complexity, that is consequently variable. In this paper, we introduce a List- SD algorithm for short polar codes. It has a fixed time complexity and does not make use of a radius: thus, no knowledge of the channel noise level is required. It is shown that the error correction performance of List-SD can match that of SC and SCL with as low as 72% of their memory requirements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207