MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802514696 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2018.2832207

Decoder Partitioning: Towards Practical List Decoding of Polar Codes

2018· article· en· W2802514696 on OpenAlexaff
Seyyed Ali Hashemi, Marco Mondelli, S. Hamed Hassani, Carlo Condo, Rüdiger Urbanke, Warren J. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsDecoding methodsComputer scienceList decodingSequential decodingPolarAlgorithmConcatenated error correction codeElectronic engineeringTheoretical computer scienceParallel computingBlock codeEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar codes represent one of the major recent breakthroughs in coding theory and, because of their attractive features, they have been selected for the incoming 5G standard. As such, a lot of attention has been devoted to the development of decoding algorithms with good error performance and efficient hardware implementation. One of the leading candidates in this regard is represented by successive-cancellation list (SCL) decoding. However, its hardware implementation requires a large amount of memory. Recently, a partitioned SCL (PSCL) decoder has been proposed to significantly reduce the memory consumption. In this paper, we consider the paradigm of PSCL decoding from a practical standpoint, and we provide several improvements. First, by changing the target signal-to-noise ratio and consequently modifying the construction of the code, we are able to improve the performance at no additional computational, latency, or memory cost. Second, we bridge the performance gap between SCL and PSCL decoding by introducing a generalized PSCL decoder and a layered PSCL decoder. In this way, we obtain almost the same performance of the SCL decoder with a significantly lower memory requirement, as testified by hardware implementation results. Third, we present an optimal scheme to allocate cyclic redundancy checks. Finally, we provide a lower bound on the list size that guarantees optimal maximum a posteriori performance for the binary erasure channel.

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)0.005
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations51
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207