MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923621805 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2019.2906232

Fast Successive-Cancellation-Based Decoders of Polar Codes

2019· article· en· W2923621805 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Haghighi Ardakani, Muhammad Hanif, Masoud Ardakani, Chintha Tellambura

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDecoding methodsComputer scienceSequential decodingList decodingPolar codeAlgorithmLatency (audio)Code (set theory)Parallel computingReduction (mathematics)Berlekamp–Welch algorithmConcatenated error correction codeMathematicsTelecommunicationsBlock codeSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The successive-cancellation list (SCL) and successive-cancellation flip (SCF) decoding can be used to improve the performance of polar codes, especially for short to moderate length codes. However, their serial decoding nature results in significant decoding latencies. Implementing some operations in parallel can reduce their decoding latencies. This paper presents fast implementations of the SCL and SCF decoders. In particular, we propose fast parallel list decoders for five newly identified types of nodes in the decoding tree of a polar code, which significantly improves the decoding latency. We also present novel fast SCF decoders that decode some special nodes in the decoding tree of a polar code without serially computing bit log-likelihood ratios. Using our proposed fast parallel SCF decoders, we observed an improvement up to 81% with respect to the original SCF decoder. This significant reduction in the decoding latency is observed without sacrificing the bit-error-rate performance of the code.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations61
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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