MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899538333 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2018.2880204

Throughput-Based Design for Polar-Coded Modulation

2018· preprint· en· W2899538333 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Khoshnevis, Ian Marsland, Halim Yanıkömeroğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHybrid automatic repeat requestComputer scienceThroughputAlgorithmDecoding methodsCoding gainCode rateQuadrature amplitude modulationPolar codeAutomatic repeat requestReal-time computingBit error rateTelecommunications linkComputer networkTelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typically, forward error correction (FEC) codes are designed based on the minimization of the error rate for a given code rate. However, for applications that incorporate hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) protocol and adaptive modulation and coding, the throughput is a more important performance metric than the error rate. Polar codes, a new class of FEC codes with simple rate matching, can be optimized efficiently for maximization of the throughput. In this paper, we aim to design HARQ schemes using multilevel polar-coded modulation (MLPCM). Thus, we first develop a method to determine a set-partitioning-based bit-to-symbol mapping for high-order quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) constellations. We simplify the log-likelihood ratio estimation of set-partitioned QAM constellations for a multistage decoder, and we introduce a set of algorithms to design throughput-maximizing MLPCM for the successive cancellation decoding (SCD). These codes are specifically useful for non-combining, chase-combining, and incremental redundancy HARQ protocols. Furthermore, since optimized codes for SCD are not optimal for SC list decoders (SCLDs), we propose a rate matching algorithm to find the best rate for SCLD while using the polar codes optimized for SCD. The resulting codes provide throughput close to the capacity with low decoding complexity when used with HARQ protocols.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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