Upper and Lower Bounds on the Computational Complexity of Polar Encoding and Decoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is shown that all polar encoding schemes using a standard encoding matrix with rate R>1/2 and block length N have energy within the Thompson circuit model that scales at least as E ≥ Ω (N3/2). This lower bound is achievable up to polylogarithmic factors using a mesh network topology defined by Thompson and the encoding algorithm defined by Arıkan. A general class of circuits that compute successive cancellation decoding adapted from Arıkan's butterfly network algorithm is defined. It is shown that such decoders implemented on a rectangle grid for codes of rate R > 2/3 must take energy E ≥ Ω (N3/2). The energy of a Mead memory architecture and a mesh network memory architecture are analyzed and it is shown that a processor architecture using these memory elements can reach the decoding energy lower bounds to within a polylogarithmic factor. Similar scaling rules are derived for polar list decoders and belief propagation decoders. Capacity approaching sequences of energy optimal polar encoders and decoders, as a function of reciprocal gap to capacity χ = (1- R/C)-1(where R is rate C and is channel capacity), have energy that scales as Ω (χ5.3685) ≤ E ≤ O (χ7.071log4(χ)). Known results in constant depth circuit complexity theory imply that no polynomial size classical circuits can compute polar encoding, but this is possible in quantum circuits that include a constant depth quantum fan-out gate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".