MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941720294 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2910535

Low Complexity Polar Decoder for 5G Embb Control Channel

2019· article· en· W2941720294 on OpenAlexaff
Ce Sun, Zesong Fei, Congzhe Cao, Xinyi Wang, Dai Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHigher Education Discipline Innovation ProjectNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceDecoding methodsComputational complexity theoryBelief propagationAlgorithmError detection and correctionList decodingNode (physics)Bit error rateConcatenated error correction codeSequential decodingPolar codeCommunication complexityLinear network codingBlock codeTheoretical computer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar codes have become the channel coding scheme for control channel of enhanced mobile broadband in the fifth generation (5G) communication systems. Belief propagation (BP) decoding of polar codes has the advantage of low decoding latency and high parallelism but suffers from high complexity. In this paper, a low complexity BP decoder is proposed for polar codes. We reduce the computational complexity by two steps. First, the cyclic redundancy check is concatenated to the decoder in order to decrease the number iterations of the BP algorithm. Then, a threshold is proposed based on Gaussian approximation to save the computational complexity of BP nodes. If the log-likelihood ratio of a node in the tanner graph is larger than the threshold, this node is no longer updated during the rest of the decoding process. The simulation results show that the proposed scheme has a similar block error rate performance with the original BP decoder, while the computational complexity is reduced significantly.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207