Improved successive cancellation flip decoding of polar codes based on error distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polar codes are a class of linear block codes that provably achieves channel capacity, and have been selected as a coding scheme for 5thgeneration wireless communication standards. Successive-cancellation (SC) decoding of polar codes has mediocre error-correction performance on short to moderate codeword lengths: the SC-Flip decoding algorithm is one of the solutions that have been proposed to overcome this issue. On the other hand, SC-Flip has a higher implementation complexity compared to SC due to the required log-likelihood ratio (LLR) selection and sorting process. Moreover, it requires a high number of iterations to reach good error-correction performance. In this work, we propose two techniques to improve the SC-Flip decoding algorithm for low-rate codes, based on the observation of channel-induced error distributions. The first one is a fixed index selection (FIS) scheme to avoid the substantial implementation cost of LLR selection and sorting with no cost on error-correction performance. The second is an enhanced index selection (EIS) criterion to improve the error-correction performance of SC-Flip decoding. A reduction of 24.6% in the implementation cost of logic elements is estimated with the FIS approach, while simulation results show that EIS leads to an improvement on error-correction performance improvement up to 0.34 dB at a target FER of 10-4.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".