MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899161352 · doi:10.1109/icc.2019.8761399

Neural Belief Propagation Decoding of CRC-Polar Concatenated Codes

2019· preprint· en· W2899161352 on OpenAlexaff
Nghia Doan, Seyyed Ali Hashemi, Elie Ngomseu Mambou, Thibaud Tonnellier, Warren J. Gross

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclic redundancy checkBelief propagationComputer scienceFactor graphDecoding methodsPolar codeAlgorithmPolarRedundancy (engineering)Low-density parity-check codeError detection and correctionPropagation of uncertaintyConcatenated error correction codeForward error correctionOverhead (engineering)Turbo codeBlock code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar codes are the first class of error correcting codes that provably achieve the channel capacity at infinite code length. They were selected for use in the fifth generation of cellular mobile communications (5G). In practical scenarios such as 5G, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is concatenated with polar codes to improve their finite length performance. This is mostly beneficial for sequential successive-cancellation list decoders. However, for parallel iterative belief propagation (BP) decoders, CRC is only used as an early stopping criterion with incremental error-correction performance improvement. In this paper, we first propose a CRC-polar BP (CPBP) decoder by exchanging the extrinsic information between the factor graph of the polar code and that of the CRC. We then propose a neural CPBP (NCPBP) algorithm which improves the CPBP decoder by introducing trainable normalizing weights on the concatenated factor graph. Our results on a 5G polar code of length 128 show that at the frame error rate of 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-5</sup> and with a maximum of 30 iterations, the error-correction performance of CPBP and NCPBP are approximately 0.25 dB and 0.5 dB better than that of the conventional CRC-aided BP decoder, respectively, while introducing almost no latency overhead.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207