MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unrolled and Pipelined Decoders based on Look-Up Tables for Polar Codes

2023· article· en· W4387485598 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Giard, Syed Aizaz Ali Shah, Alexios Balatsoukas‐Stimming, Maximilian Stark, Gerhard Bauch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLookup tableComputer scienceDecoding methodsThroughputSoft-decision decoderElectronic circuitParallel computingPolar codeVideo decoderCode (set theory)Error detection and correctionAlgorithmComputer hardwareComputer engineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringWirelessSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unrolling a decoding algorithm allows to achieve extremely high throughput at the cost of increased area. Lookup tables (LUTs) can be used to replace functions otherwise implemented as circuits. In this work, we show the impact of replacing blocks of logic by carefully crafted LUTs in unrolled decoders for polar codes. We show that using LUTs to improve key performance metrics (e.g., area, throughput, latency) may turn out more challenging than expected. We present three variants of LUT-based decoders and describe their inner workings as well as circuits in detail. The LUT-based decoders are compared against a regular unrolled decoder, employing fixed-point representations for numbers, with a comparable error-correction performance. A short systematic polar code is used as an illustration. All resulting unrolled decoders are shown to be capable of an information throughput of little under 10 Gbps in a 28 nm FD-SOI technology clocked in the vicinity of 1.4 GHz to 1.5 GHz. The best variant of our LUT-based decoders is shown to reduce the area requirements by 23% compared to the regular unrolled decoder while retaining a comparable error-correction performance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207