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 OpenAlexaff
Nghia Doan, Seyyed Ali Hashemi, Warren J. Gross

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.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
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

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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207