A Fixed Latency ORBGRAND Decoder Architecture With LUT-Aided Error-Pattern Scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guessing Random Additive Noise Decoding (GRAND) is a universal decoding algorithm that has been recently proposed as a practical way to perform maximum likelihood decoding. It generates a sequence of possible error patterns and applies them to the received vector, checking if the result is a valid codeword. Ordered reliability bits GRAND (ORBGRAND) improves on GRAND by considering soft information received from the channel. Both GRAND and ORBGRAND have been implemented in hardware, focusing on average performance, sacrificing worst case throughput and latency. In this work, an improved pattern schedule for ORBGRAND is proposed. It provides$> 0.5$dB gain over the standard schedule at a block error rate$\le 10^{-5}$, and outperforms more complex GRAND flavors with a fraction of the complexity. The proposed schedule is used within a novel code-agnositic decoder architecture: the decoder guarantees fixed high throughput and low latency, making it attractive for latency-constrained applications. It outperforms the worst-case performance of decoders by orders of magnitude, and outperforms many best-case figures. Decoding a code of length 128, it achieves a throughput of 79.21 Gb/s with 58.49 ns latency, yielding better energy efficiency and comparable area efficiency with respect to the state of the art.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".