Decoding Reed-Muller Codes With Successive Codeword Permutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel recursive list decoding (RLD) algorithm for Reed-Muller (RM) codes based on successive permutations (SP) of the codeword is presented. A low-complexity SP scheme applied to a subset of the symmetry group of RM codes is first proposed to carefully select a good codeword permutation on the fly. Then, the proposed SP technique is integrated into an improved RLD algorithm that initializes different decoding paths with random codeword permutations, which are sampled from the full symmetry group of RM codes. Finally, efficient latency and complexity reduction schemes are introduced that virtually preserve the error-correction performance of the proposed decoder. Simulation results demonstrate that at the target frame error rate of 10−3 for the RM code of length 256 with 163 information bits, the proposed decoder reduces 6% of the computational complexity and 22% of the decoding latency of the state-of-the-art semi-parallel simplified successive-cancellation decoder with fast Hadamard transform (SSC-FHT) that uses 96 permutations from the full symmetry group of RM codes, while relatively maintaining the error-correction performance and memory consumption of the semi-parallel permuted SSC-FHT decoder.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".