Asymmetric Construction of Low-Latency and Length-Flexible Polar Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polar codes are a class of capacity-achieving error correcting codes that have been selected for use in enhanced mobile broadband in the 3GPP 5thgeneration (5G) wireless standard. Most polar code research examines the original Arkan polar coding scheme, which is limited in block length to powers of two. This constraint presents a considerable obstacle since practical applications call for all code lengths to be readily available. Puncturing and shortening techniques allow for flexible polar codes, while multi-kernel polar codes produce native code lengths that are powers of two and or three. In this work, we propose a new low complexity coding scheme called asymmetric polar coding that allows for any arbitrary block length. We present details on the generator matrix, frozen set design, and decoding schedule. Our scheme offers flexible polar code lengths with decoding complexity lower than equivalent state-of-the-art length-compatible approaches under successive cancellation decoding. Further, asymmetric decoding complexity is directly dependent on the codeword length rather than the nearest valid polar code length. We compare our scheme with other length matching techniques, and simulations are presented. Results show that asymmetric polar codes present similar error correction performance to the competing schemes, while dividing the number of SC decoding operations by up to a factor of 2 using the same codeword length.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".