MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938346405 · doi:10.1109/ciss.2019.8692789

Length-Compatible Polar Codes: A Survey : (Invited Paper)

2019· article· en· W2938346405 on OpenAlexaff
Thibaud Tonnellier, Adam Cavatassi, Warren J. Gross

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPuncturingPolarComputer sciencePolar codeFlexibility (engineering)AlgorithmCoding (social sciences)Code (set theory)Block (permutation group theory)Block codeTheoretical computer scienceComputer engineeringTelecommunicationsMathematicsDecoding methodsProgramming languageStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar codes natively lack the flexibility that is desired for practical application. Namely, Arikan's polar code definition can only achieve code lengths that are powers of two. Rate-matching techniques, known as puncturing and shortening, have been applied to polar codes to grant a flexible block length. By considering polarizing kernels of alternate dimensions, Multi-kernel polar codes improve natural block length flexibility. With the recent advent of the 3GPP 5thgeneration New Radio specification, there now exists an industry standard for length-flexible polar codes. This paper outlines various state-of-the-art flexible polar coding schemes, such as puncturing, shortening, and multi-kernel construction, and evaluates their efficacy with respect to the newly designed 3GPP standard. Simulations and an in-depth analysis are presented.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207