Successive-Cancellation Flip and Perturbation Decoder of Polar Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, two decoding algorithms based on Successive-Cancellation (SC) are proposed to improve the error-correction performance of cyclic redundancy check (CRC)-aided polar codes while aiming for a low-complexity implementation. Comparisons with Dynamic SC Flip (DSCF) and SC Perturbation (SCP) are carried out since the proposed DSCF and Perturbation (DSCFP) and Perturbed DSCF (PDSCF) algorithms combine both methods. The analysis includes comparisons with several code lengths$N$and various number of decoding attempts$T_{max}$. For$N=1024$and the coding rate$R= 1/2$, the DSCF and the SCP algorithms with$T_{\max}= 17$are bested by approximately 0.1 dB at block-error rate (BLER) of 0.001. At BLER = 10−6and for$T_{max}= 64$, the gain is of 0.375 dB and > 0.5 dB with respect to DSCF and SCP, respectively. At high signal-to-noise ratio, the average computational complexity of the proposed algorithms is virtually equivalent to that of SC.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".