MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Practical Near-Maximum-Likelihood Decoding of Error-Correcting Codes: An Overview

2021· article· en· W3161348053 on OpenAlex
Thibaud Tonnellier, Marzieh Hashemipour, Nghia Doan, Warren J. Gross, Alexios Balatsoukas‐Stimming

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsComputer scienceList decodingSequential decodingAlgorithmCode (set theory)Berlekamp–Welch algorithmLimit (mathematics)Field (mathematics)ImplementationBlock (permutation group theory)Noisy-channel coding theoremTheoretical computer scienceComputer engineeringConcatenated error correction codeBlock codeMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While in the past several decades the trend to go towards increasing error-correcting code lengths was predominant to get closer to the Shannon limit, applications that require short block length are developing. Therefore, decoding techniques that can achieve near-maximum-likelihood (near-ML) are gaining momentum. This overview paper surveys recent progress in this emerging field by reviewing the GRAND algorithm, linear programming decoding, machine-learning aided decoding and the recursive projection-aggregation decoding algorithm. For each of the decoding algorithms, both algorithmic and hardware implementations are considered, and future research directions are outlined.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207