MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309001612 · doi:10.3390/electronics11223721

Performance Improvement of Polar Codes via UEP Product Coding

2022· article· en· W4309001612 on OpenAlexaff
Yiting Liang, Huihui Wu, Kui Cai, Lin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPolar codePolarAlgorithmDecoding methodsComputer scienceCoding (social sciences)Additive white Gaussian noiseConcatenated error correction codeTurbo codeChannel (broadcasting)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsBlock codeTelecommunicationsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aiming to improve the error correction performance of polar codes, researchers have proposed employing the product coding structure involving RS codes of different rates in the horizontal direction and the short polar codewords along the vertical direction. However, there is no efficient algorithm optimizing the rate allocation of RS codes. In order to address this problem, this paper provides an analytical formulation by maximizing the number of correctly decoded information bits. The proposed rate allocation formulation takes the channel statistics into consideration, and we further find that the number of different RS code rates could be limited to a small value. By doing so, the complexities of both the rate allocation optimization and the iterative product decoding could be reduced. Simulation results demonstrate the superiority of RS-polar product codes with the proposed rate allocation method over both additive white Gaussian noise channels and Gilbert–Elliott channels. When the inner polar codes of rate 1/2 are utilized, the optimized RS-polar product codes of low-to-medium rates significantly outperform the successive cancellation decoding of long polar codes, in the regime of a frame error rate ≥10−3.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207