MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949743890 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.08126

Fast Simplified Successive-Cancellation List Decoding of Polar Codes

2017· preprint· en· W2949743890 on OpenAlexaff
Seyyed Ali Hashemi, Carlo Condo, Warren J. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsAlgorithmNode (physics)Computer sciencePolar codePolarList decodingSet (abstract data type)Code (set theory)Word error rateError detection and correctionConcatenated error correction codeBlock codePhysicsSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar codes are capacity achieving error correcting codes that can be decoded through the successive-cancellation algorithm. To improve its error-correction performance, a list-based version called successive-cancellation list (SCL) has been proposed in the past, that however substantially increases the number of time-steps in the decoding process. The simplified SCL (SSCL) decoding algorithm exploits constituent codes within the polar code structure to greatly reduce the required number of time-steps without introducing any error-correction performance loss. In this paper, we propose a faster decoding approach to decode one of these constituent codes, the Rate-1 node. We use this Rate-1 node decoder to develop Fast-SSCL. We demonstrate that only a list-size-bound number of bits needs to be estimated in Rate-1 nodes and Fast-SSCL exactly matches the error-correction performance of SCL and SSCL. This technique can potentially greatly reduce the total number of time-steps needed for polar codes decoding: analysis on a set of case studies show that Fast-SSCL has a number of time-steps requirement that is up to 66.6% lower than SSCL and 88.1% lower than SCL.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207