List-GRAND: A Practical Way to Achieve Maximum Likelihood Decoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guessing random additive noise decoding (GRAND) is a recently proposed universal maximum likelihood (ML) decoder for short-length and high-rate linear block codes. Soft-GRAND (SGRAND) is a prominent soft-input GRAND variant, outperforming the other GRAND variants in decoding performance; nevertheless, SGRAND is not suitable for parallel hardware implementation. Ordered Reliability Bits-GRAND (ORBGRAND) is another soft-input GRAND variant that is suitable for parallel hardware implementation; however, it has lower decoding performance than SGRAND. In this article, we propose List-GRAND (LGRAND), a technique for enhancing the decoding performance of ORBGRAND to match the ML decoding performance of SGRAND. Numerical simulation results show that LGRAND enhances ORBGRAND’s decoding performance by 0.5–0.75 dB for channel codes of various classes at a target frame error rate (FER) of 10−7. For linear block codes of length 127/128 and different code rates, LGRAND’s VLSI implementation can achieve an average information throughput of 47.27–51.36 Gb/s. In comparison to ORBGRAND’s VLSI implementation, the proposed LGRAND hardware has a 4.84% area overhead.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".