MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889372359 · doi:10.1109/spawc.2018.8445986

Neural Successive Cancellation Decoding of Polar Codes

2018· article· en· W2889372359 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsComputer scienceSoft-decision decoderSequential decodingList decodingAlgorithmArtificial neural networkPolarBerlekamp–Welch algorithmLatency (audio)Concatenated error correction codeTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceBlock code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural network (NN) based decoders have appeared as potential candidates to replace successive cancellation (SC) based and belief propagation (BP) decoders for polar codes, due to their one-shot-decoding property. Partitioned NN (PNN) decoder has provided a solution to make use of multiple NN decoders which are connected with BP decoding, with the presence of insufficient training data for practical-length polar codes. However, PNN decoder requires BP iterations that detrimentally affect the decoding latency as compared to noniterative approaches. In this paper, we propose a neural SC (NSC) decoder to overcome the issue associated with PNN. Unlike PNN, the NSC decoder is constructed by multiple NN decoders connected with SC decoding. Compared to a PNN decoder for a polar code of length 128 and rate 0.5, the proposed NSC decoder achieves the same decoding performance, while reducing the decoding latency by 42.5%.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207