MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886581636 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2018.2873322

Improved Bit-Flipping Algorithm for Successive Cancellation Decoding of Polar Codes

2018· article· en· W2886581636 on OpenAlexaff
Furkan Ercan, Carlo Condo, Warren J. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmDecoding methodsComputer scienceError detection and correctionBit error rateSortingList decodingCode (set theory)Concatenated error correction codeBlock code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interest in polar codes has been increasing significantly since their adoption for use in the 5thgeneration wireless systems standard. Successive cancellation (SC) decoding algorithm has low implementation complexity, but yields mediocre error-correction performance at the code lengths of interest. SC-Flip algorithm improves the error-correction performance of SC by identifying possibly erroneous decisions made by SC and re-iterates after flipping one bit. It was recently shown that only a portion of bit-channels are most likely to be in error. In this paper, we investigate the average log-likelihood ratio (LLR) values and their distribution related to the erroneous bit-channels, and develop the Thresholded SC-Flip (TSCF) decoding algorithm. We also replace the LLR selection and sorting of SC-Flip with a comparator to reduce the implementation complexity. Simulation results demonstrate that for practical code lengths and a wide range of rates, TSCF shows negligible loss compared with the error-correction performance obtained when all single-errors are corrected. At matching maximum iterations, TSCF has an error-correction performance gain of up to 0.45 dB compared with SC-Flip decoding. At matching error-correction performance, the computational complexity of TSCF is reduced by up to 40% on average and requires up to 5× lower maximum number of iterations.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations68
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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