MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333338207 · doi:10.1049/iet-com.2015.0881

Decoding schedule generating method for successive‐cancellation decoder of polar codes

2016· article· en· W2333338207 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dan Le, Xianyan Wu, Xiamu Niu

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesUniversity of TorontoHarbin Institute of TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDecoding methodsComputer scienceSchedulePolarAlgorithmSequential decodingArithmeticMathematicsBlock code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successive cancellation (SC) is the first and widely known decoder of polar codes, which has received a lot of attentions. However, its decoding schedule generating methods are still primitive. Based on a newly found factor, this study proposes an online method to generate the decoding schedule of SC decoder by a non‐recursive way. The decoding schedule of SC decoder includes two parts. One is to determine which of likelihood ratios (LRs) can be shared and which of LRs need to be calculated. The other is to select a calculation formula for a LR to be computed. As shown by the comparisons among the proposed method and existing methods, the proposed method solves the first part of the decoding schedule with constant critical path delay and lower space complexity, and solves the second part of the decoding schedule with less calculations. Besides, experimental results show that the proposed method does not affect the error performance of polar codes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET CommunicationsSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207