Restart Mechanisms for the Successive-Cancellation List-Flip Decoding of Polar Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polar codes concatenated with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code have been selected in the 5G standard with the successive-cancellation list (SCL) of list size L = 8 as the baseline algorithm. Despite providing great error-correction performance, a large list size increases the hardware complexity of the SCL decoder. Alternatively, flip decoding algorithms were proposed to improve the error-correction performance with a low-complexity hardware implementation. The combination of list and flip algorithms, the successive-cancellation list flip (SCLF) and dynamic SCLF (DSCLF) algorithms, provides error-correction performance close to SCL-32 with a list size L = 2 and Tmax = 300 maximum additional trials. However, these decoders have a variable execution time, a characteristic that poses a challenge to some practical applications. In this work, we propose a restart mechanism for list-flip algorithms that allows us to skip parts of the decoding computations without affecting the error-correction performance. We show that the restart location cannot realistically be allowed to occur at any location in a codeword as it would lead to an unreasonable memory overhead under DSCLF. Hence, we propose a mechanism where the possible restart locations are limited to a set and propose various construction methods for that set. The construction methods are compared, and the tradeoffs are discussed. For a polar code of length N = 1024 and rate ¼, under DSCLF decoding with a list size L = 2 and a maximum number of trials Tmax = 300, our proposed approach is shown to reduce the average execution time by 41.7% with four restart locations at the cost of approximately 1.5% in memory 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".