MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773681515 · doi:10.1109/icc.2018.8422464

Partitioned Successive-Cancellation Flip Decoding of Polar Codes

2018· article· en· W2773681515 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsThroughputFrame (networking)Code (set theory)Computational complexity theoryChannel (broadcasting)PolarEnergy (signal processing)Sequential decoding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar codes are a class of channel capacity achieving codes that has been selected for the next generation of wireless communication standards. Successive-cancellation (SC) is the first proposed decoding algorithm, suffering from mediocre errorcorrection performance at moderate code lengths. In order to improve the error-correction performance of SC, two approaches are available: (i) SC-List decoding which keeps a list of candidates by running a number of SC decoders in parallel, thus increasing the implementation complexity, and (ii) SC-Flip decoding that relies on a single SC module, and keeps the computational complexity close to SC. In this work, we propose the partitioned SC-Flip (PSCF) decoding algorithm, which outperforms SCFlip in terms of error-correction performance and average computational complexity, leading to higher throughput and reduced energy consumption per codeword. We also introduce a partitioning scheme that best suits our PSCF decoder. Simulation results show that at equivalent frame error rate, PSCF has up to 4.1× less computational complexity than the SC-Flip decoder. At equivalent average number of iterations, the error-correction performance of PSCF outperforms SC-Flip by up to 0.26 dB at frame error rate of 10-3.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207