Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 16 references

Low-Complexity Decoding for Low-Rate Block Codes of Short Length Based on Concatenated Coding Structure

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a way to decode short, low-rate block codes with near-maximum-likelihood accuracy at reduced complexity, by using a concatenated coding structure to build a better reliability ordering.

desk verdict Improved MRIP from inner-code SISO LLRs is a genuinely new twist with solid simulation support, but the headline 'much more efficient than eBCH' claim leans on an unverified minimum distance for the convolutional-inner codes. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09978 v1 pith:QPKSVUI2 submitted 2025-05-15 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Mao-Chao Lin , Shih-Kai Lee , Pin Lin , Ching-Chang Lin , Chia-Chun Chen , Teng-Yuan Syu , Huang-Chang Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT MSC 94B3594B6594B12
keywords shortblockcodeslow-rateorderedstatisticsdecodingA*MRIPframeconcatenatedsoft-insoft-outerrorrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper addresses the problem of decoding short, low-rate linear block codes, where standard near-optimum decoders like ordered statistics decoding (OSD) or A* decoding become impractical because the required search space is too large. Its central proposal is to use a concatenated coding structure—a Reed-Solomon outer code with a short inner code—and to derive the decoder's reliability ordering (the "improved MRIP frame") from soft-in soft-out (SISO) decoding of the inner code instead of from raw channel measurements. This improved ordering places fewer errors in the most reliable positions, so the same near-maximum-likelihood performance can be achieved with a smaller search order (lower $\lambda$). For a benchmark (128,36) extended BCH code, the paper constructs several (128,36) concatenated codes and reports that the one using a (2,1,6) convolutional inner code achieves block error rates close to the maximum-likelihood bound at $E_b/N_0 = 3$ dB and 3.5 dB, while the eBCH code needs a higher search order to come close. If correct, this offers a practical way to decode low-rate short codes with near-optimal performance at significantly lower complexity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the improved MRIP frame: instead of ordering received symbols by the magnitude of their channel LLRs, the decoder permutes the received vector (and the generator matrix) according to the magnitudes of LLRs output by a soft-in soft-out (SISO) decoder for the inner code of the concatenated code. This ordering is used to establish the systematic generator matrix and the hard-decision vector for A* decoding with a path constraint (PC-out-$\lambda$). The paper also introduces a modified stack for A* decoding that requires no sorting—nodes are appended at the bottom—and proves (Theorem 1) that this stack searches goal nodes in order of their Hamming distance from the hard-decision MRIP vector, which gives it similar properties to OSD ordering without the comparison overhead.

What would settle it

Compute the exact minimum distance of the (128,36) concatenated code using the (16,9) Reed-Solomon outer code over GF(16) and a (2,1,6) convolutional inner code. If $d_{\min}$ turns out to be significantly smaller than the eBCH code's $d_{\min}=32$, then the BLER curves will flatten at a higher error floor, contradicting the claim that the concatenated code matches the eBCH code's performance at low error rates. A direct computation would settle this without relying on slope inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for short, low-rate block codes, replacing the conventional MRIP frame—built from the magnitudes of received symbols—with an improved MRIP frame built from the log-likelihood ratios (LLRs) produced by SISO decoding of an inner code can substantially reduce decoding complexity without sacrificing error performance. Specifically, for (128,36) concatenated codes using a (16,9) Reed-Solomon outer code over GF(16) and rate-1/2 inner codes, the A* decoder with path constraint PC-out-$\lambda$ for $\lambda = 4$ achieves BLER close to the maximum-likelihood bound for the (128,36) eBCH code. The best result comes from the (2,1,6) convolutional inner code: at $E_b/N_0 = 3$ dB, the BLER is about $3.5 \times 10^{-5}$, while the eBCH code requires $\lambda = 5$ to reach about $4.6 \times 10^{-5}$. The paper also reports that the improved MRIP frame reduces the probability of errors in the MRIP positions, and that the complexity of computing the LLRs from the inner code is negligible compared to the tree search.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the concatenated codes can match or beat the eBCH benchmark at low complexity depends on their true minimum distances being comparable to the eBCH codes, but the paper does not compute $d_{\min}$ for the convolutional-code-based constructions; it only infers from the slopes of the simulated ML-bound curves that the distances are close. If the true minimum distance is smaller, the error-rate curves will flatten below the eBCH code at lower error rates than the simulated range, undermining the general efficiency claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, a (128,36) concatenated code with a (2,1,6) convolutional inner code can be decoded with $\lambda = 4$ to achieve near-ML performance, whereas the (128,36) eBCH code requires $\lambda = 5$ or larger, so the concatenated structure cuts the search space from $\sum_{j=0}^{5} \binom{36}{j}$ candidates to $\sum_{j=0}^{4} \binom{36}{j}$ candidates while also reducing per-node operati
  • The improved MRIP frame lowers the probability of errors in the 36 MRIP positions, and the paper's simulations show that the (2,1,6) inner code yields the lowest such probability among the considered inner codes at $E_b/N_0 = 3$ dB.
  • The approach is most beneficial for low-rate codes (rate below 1/2); the paper reports that for a rate-1/2 (130,65) concatenated code, the advantage over the (128,64) eBCH code is not significant, suggesting the method's efficiency is tied to low-rate applications.
  • The modified stack design is a separate contribution: it removes the need for ordering comparisons in A* decoding, at the cost of requiring a larger stack, which the paper argues is acceptable in modern technology. It achieves BLER similar to a conventional stack of half the size, with lower complexity.
  • The decoding complexity of obtaining LLRs from the inner code is claimed to be negligible compared to the tree search when $\lambda \geq 3$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to apply the improved MRIP idea to other outer/inner code pairs, such as outer codes over larger fields or inner codes with higher memory convolutional codes, to see if the same complexity reduction holds for longer block lengths or higher rates.
  • The paper's slope-based inference that the minimum distances of the concatenated codes are close to the eBCH codes is indirect; a direct computation of $d_{\min}$ for the (2,1,6)-based constructions would settle whether the near-ML performance persists at lower error rates than those simulated.
  • If the improved MRIP works as described, it could be combined with other reduced-complexity decoding techniques such as OSD variants, not just A* with PC-out, potentially giving a general recipe for low-rate short codes.
  • The use of a threshold $M_{TH,\alpha}$ that does not require knowing $d_{\min}$ suggests a practical path for codes where the minimum distance is unknown, but the paper leaves open the question of how to choose $\alpha$ without simulation for a new code family.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a low-complexity decoding scheme for short, low-rate binary linear block codes, with a focus on (128,36) codes. The key idea is to replace the conventional MRIP frame, which is based on channel observations, with an improved MRIP frame based on log-likelihood ratios obtained from a soft-in soft-out decoder for an inner code in a concatenated construction. The authors construct several (128,36) codes by concatenating a (16,9) Reed-Solomon code over GF(16) with rate-1/2 inner codes, including a (8,4,4) extended Hamming code, a (16,8,5) block code, and (2,1,4) and (2,1,6) convolutional codes. They also introduce a modified stack for A* decoding that does not require ordering, prove a search-order property for it in Theorem 1, and propose a codeword-independent stopping threshold. Simulations report BLER values close to eBCH ML bounds at Eb/N0 = 3 dB and 3.5 dB using path constraint lambda = 4, and the paper claims that the concatenated codes are much more efficient than the (128,36) eBCH code, which requires lambda = 5 to approach the same bounds. Additional results are given for codes of length 128 and 130 at other rates.

Significance. The improved MRIP idea is a genuinely useful contribution: it shows that soft information from an inner code can produce a more reliable basis for tree-search decoding of concatenated codes, potentially reducing the path constraint needed for near-ML decoding. The modified stack without ordering is simple, and the proof of Theorem 1 is explicit. The BLER results at the tested Eb/N0 points are concrete, falsifiable, and clearly presented. The paper is also honest in disclosing that the minimum distances of the convolutional-inner codes are unknown and that the threshold alpha is chosen by simulation. If the distance properties are confirmed and a matched-complexity comparison is supplied, the near-ML results for lambda = 4 would be a meaningful advance for low-rate short-block decoding. In its present form, the contribution is promising, but the headline efficiency claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [V.D] The efficiency claim in V.A.2 depends on the concatenated codes having minimum distances comparable to the benchmark eBCH code. Section V.D explicitly states that the minimum distances of the convolutional-inner concatenated codes are unknown and then infers from the slopes of the ML-bound curves over the 0.5 dB interval from 3 dB to 3.5 dB that 'their minimum distances are close to the comparable eBCH codes.' This inference is weak: at these SNR values the BLER slope is affected by the error coefficient and by the operating point, and the d_min R products of the eBCH codes (11, 9, and 8.25) are close enough that a 0.5 dB slope comparison cannot reliably distinguish, for example, d_min = 24 from d_min = 32. The product bound used for the (8,4,4) inner code (8 x 4 = 32) does not apply to the convolutional inner codes because the inner map is not symbol-wise. The authors should compute, or provide an analytic lower bound on, d_min for the convolutional-inner constructions (for example, from the active distances of the convolutional code and the RS outer code), or explicitly restrict the headline claim to the simulated Eb/N0 points.
  2. [III.C and V.A.2] The headline claim that the concatenated codes are 'much more efficient' than the (128,36) eBCH code is not supported by a matched-complexity comparison. The BLER improvement for eBCH with lambda = 5 is quoted in V.A.2 (about 4.6e-5 at 3 dB and 7e-6 at 3.5 dB), but the only complexity results in the paper, Section III.C and Fig. 2, are for eBCH with lambda = 4. No complexity curves are reported for the proposed concatenated codes. To conclude lower complexity at equal or better BLER, the authors should report the number of visited edges and comparisons (or real-number operations) for eBCH with PC-out-5 and for each concatenated decoder with PC-out-4 at the same target BLER points.
  3. [V.A.3 / Fig. 7] The 'ML bound' used as the benchmark appears to be the empirical lower bound described in V.A.3, obtained by counting decoded codewords c_best with M(r,c_best) greater than the metric of the correct codeword. That procedure gives a lower bound on the ML error probability, not the ML bound itself, and its tightness is not demonstrated in the paper. Since the central observation in V.A.2 is that the (2,1,6)-inner concatenated decoder operates close to the eBCH ML bound, the authors should state explicitly how the eBCH ML-bound curve in Fig. 7 was obtained and provide evidence of its tightness (for example, by checking agreement with known ML bounds for small codes or with exhaustive search). A loose lower bound would make the near-ML claim vacuous.
  4. [II.E / V.A.4] The stopping threshold M_TH,alpha in Eq. (5) is a free parameter chosen by simulation on the same codes: the paper states, 'In practice, we usually choose alpha to be 0.045 or 0.05 which is obtained through simulation.' The paper does not quantify P(alpha), the probability that the early-stopping test declares a non-ML codeword to be ML, nor does it report the sensitivity of the complexity and BLER results to alpha. If any of the efficiency comparisons use alpha = 0.05, the claim depends on this fitted parameter. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over alpha (for example, alpha = 0, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07) and, if possible, justify the choice on a code or SNR grid separate from the test points used in the headline comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [I / Abstract] There are typos in the abstract and introduction: 'ordered statics decoding' should be 'ordered statistics decoding', and 'URLCC' should be 'URLLC'.
  2. [V.D] The sentence comparing slopes contains a duplicated phrase: 'for the three codes from Eb/N0 of 3 dB to 3.5 dB' appears twice and should be rewritten.
  3. [Figures 1, 5, 7] The BLER and CCDF plots do not report the number of simulation trials or confidence intervals; given the differences at the 1e-5 level, this information would help assess the statistical significance of the comparisons.
  4. [IV.C.2] The ordered-statistics Gaussian approximation in Eqs. (7)-(11) assumes independent LLRs, an assumption the authors later note is violated; the text should clarify that this analysis is illustrative and that the main P(j|MRIP) results come from direct simulation.
  5. [III.B] The exception clause in Theorem 1 ('except for the path c'' of which d_H(c''^{k-1}_0, z^{k-1}_0) = i+1 where c''_{k-1} != z_{k-1}') is difficult to parse; stating the exception in words or as a corollary after the proof would improve readability.
  6. [III.C] The complexity measure counts 'real-number operations' as visited edges plus comparisons, but the memory and push/pop costs of a 60000-node stack are not included; clarifying what operations are counted would make the complexity comparison easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Near-ML claims rest partly on an internal 'ML lower bound' computed from the constrained decoder's own output and on d_min slopes inferred from those same curves; the headline eBCH comparison itself remains an external benchmark.

  1. self definitional [Section V.A.3 (ML Bound)]
    "In the simulation, we also obtain the ML lower bounds for the four concatenated coding schemes using the A* decoding with the improved MRIP. These ML lower bounds are extremely close to the simulated BLER and hence are not plotted in Fig. 7. These results implies that increasing the λ parameter over 4 for the concatenated codes can barely improve the BLER performances. The ML bound is obtained by counting the number of codewords ˆc_best obtained in the decoding for which M(ˆr, ˆc_best) is greater than M(ˆr, ˆc), where ˆc is the correct codeword."

    The quantity called 'ML lower bound' is not computed from an exact ML search or from a code-distance formula; it is defined by taking ^c_best, the output of the very A* decoder with PC-out-λ whose near-ML optimality is at issue. If the constrained decoder misses the true ML codeword and returns a wrong codeword with metric smaller than the correct codeword, that error is simply not counted in the bound, while if it returns a wrong codeword with metric larger than correct, the event is counted even though the true ML decoder could still return the correct word. Hence the observed closeness of the 'bound' to BLER is a consistency property of the decoder's own error patterns and cannot by itself establish that increasing λ from 4 barely improves performance.

  2. other [Section V.D (Minimum Distance)]
    "The minimum distances of other concatenated codes are unknown. ... We may examine the slopes of the ML bound curves to estimate the minimum distances of the concatenated codes with unknown minimum distances. ... For the (128,64), (130,65), (128,22) concatenated codes using the (2,1,6) convolutional code as the inner code, the slopes of ML bound from Eb/N0 of 3 dB to 3.5 dB ... are similar to those for the comparable eBCH codes. This observation suggests that their minimum distances are close to the comparable eBCH codes."

    The slopes used for the d_min estimate are exactly the ML-bound curves of Section V.A.3, which are generated from codewords obtained by the same constrained decoder rather than by true ML search or by known code spectra. Using those slopes to conclude that the concatenated codes have minimum distances close to the eBCH codes therefore assumes the near-ML behavior that the paper is trying to establish; if the decoder is not ML, the slope reflects the decoder's search limitation as much as the code's distance. Moreover, the paper itself concedes 'The minimum distances of other concatenated codes are unknown,' so this inference is a conjecture, and the efficiency claim outside the simulated SNR points is unsupported.

full rationale

The core construction is not circular: the improved MRIP frame is a decoding mechanism obtained from inner-code SISO LLRs, and the main BLER comparison is against an external benchmark, the (128,36) eBCH code with its known d_min=32. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears; A*, PC-λ, and PC-out-λ are cited background algorithms. However, two supporting arguments are partly self-referential. First, the 'ML lower bounds' of the concatenated codes are constructed from the outputs of the same constrained decoder, so the claim that λ=4 is already near-ML is a decoder-internal consistency check, not an independent bound. Second, the Section V.D estimate that the unknown minimum distances are 'close to the comparable eBCH codes' is inferred from the slopes of those same decoder-generated ML-bound curves over only 0.5 dB, so it presupposes the near-ML behavior under test. Separately, the stopping threshold α in Eq. (5) is tuned by simulation on the same codes, as the paper discloses, but this tuning is not presented as a prediction and does not bear on the external eBCH benchmark. Overall, the central comparison has independent content, but the near-ML and d_min arguments are partially self-referential, warranting a moderate circularity score rather than a stronger one.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central decoding scheme rests on a small number of borrowed models and hand-chosen parameters. The most important is the Gaussian approximation for SISO LLRs, taken from turbo decoding literature rather than derived for these block codes. The unknown minimum distances of the convolutional-based concatenated codes are another load-bearing item, since the near-ML claim is only checked by simulation in a narrow SNR range.

free parameters (3)
  • Stopping threshold coefficient alpha = 0.045 or 0.05
    Introduced in Eq. (5) as M_TH,alpha = alpha * sum(|r_j|); Section II.E states alpha is chosen via simulation to keep P(alpha) small while reducing complexity. It is a fitted decoder parameter, not derived.
  • Path-constraint order lambda = 4 (with 5 used for some eBCH comparisons)
    The search-space radius lambda is chosen by hand for each code. The central comparison uses lambda=4 for the concatenated codes and quotes eBCH with lambda=5 for near-ML, which affects both BLER and complexity.
  • Stack size = 30000 conventional, 60000 modified
    Section III.B says a large stack is needed because the modified stack may delete ML codewords under small stack; sizes are chosen to avoid that, not derived.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SISO decoder output LLRs for the inner codes are approximately Gaussian with variance twice the mean, sigma_L^2 approximately 2 mu_L, as suggested in [16].
    Used in Section IV.C.1, Eqs. (6)-(9), to model ordered LLR distributions and estimate per-bit error probabilities in Eq. (12); not verified for the specific short inner codes, and the authors instead simulate P(j|MRIP).
  • standard math The (128,36), (128,64), and (128,22) eBCH codes have minimum distances 32, 22, and 48 respectively.
    These are standard code parameters from prior literature, used for the M_TH,hat_c stopping threshold and for interpreting ML-bound slopes.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical ML lower bounds, obtained by counting decoder outputs with metric larger than the correct codeword metric, are valid estimates of the true ML bound.
    No derivation establishes that this counting procedure over the constrained search gives a valid ML bound for the full code; the paper relies on it in Section V.A.3.
  • ad hoc to paper In the modified stack, deleting nodes with path metric greater than or equal to M_best does not change the final decoded codeword under PC-out-lambda.
    Theorem 1's proof explicitly waives the deletion condition of the actual algorithm, so the ordering guarantee is proven for a different procedure than the one implemented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-Complexity Decoding for Low-Rate Block Codes of Short Length Based on Concatenated Coding Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPKSVUI2

@misc{pith2026250509978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-Complexity Decoding for Low-Rate Block Codes of Short Length Based on Concatenated Coding Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPKSVUI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09978}
}
abstract

To decode a short linear block code, ordered statics decoding (OSD) and/or the $A^*$ decoding are usually considered. Either OSD or the $A^*$ decoding utilizes the magnitudes of the received symbols to establish the most reliable and independent positions (MRIP) frame. A restricted searched space can be employed to achieve near-optimum decoding with reduced decoding complexity. For a low-rate code with large minimum distance, the restricted search space is still very huge. We propose to use concatenated coding to further restrict the search space by proposing an improved MRIP frame. The improved MRIP frame is founded according to magnitudes of log likelihood ratios (LLRs) obtained by the soft-in soft-out (SISO) decoder for the inner code. We focus on the construction and decoding of several $(n,k)$ = (128,36) binary linear block codes based on concatenated coding. We use the (128,36) extended BCH (eBCH) code as a benchmark for comparison. Simulation shows that there exist constructed concatenated codes which are much more efficient than the (128,36) eBCH code. Some other codes of length 128 or close to 128 are also constructed to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed scheme.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. BLER performances for (128,36) eBCH code using PC-out- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of real-number operations for (128,36) eBCH code using PC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variances σ 2 L of LLR obtained from SISO decoders for various inner codes. V. VARIOUS CODES OF LENGTH NEAR 128 In [1], it has been shown that the eBCH codes of length 128 using OSD with order 5, i.e., OSD-5 provide error rates better than turbo codes, LDPC codes and polar codes of length 128. Hence, we use length-128 eBCH codes with various rates as benchmarks for comparison. The A∗ decoding is implemented using th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Means of LLR values in decreasing order for various inner codes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability regarding the number of errors at MRIP for (128,36) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: BLER for (128,64) and (130,65) codes C. (128,22) code and (128,24) code The BLER performances of (128,22) eBCH code with λ = 4 and λ = 5 are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: BLER for (128,22) codes the A* decoding with PC-out-λ, λ = 4 are far away from the eBCH (128,22) ML bound. The minimum distance of (128,22) eBCH code is 48. Hence, the value of min{⌈dmin/4⌉ − 1, k} is 11. If we increase λ to 5, the BLER of eBCH code will be improved bu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Short block-length codes for ultra-reliable low latency communications,

    M. Shirvanimoghaddam, M. S. Mohammadi, R. Abbas, A. Minja, C. Yue, B. Matuz, G. Han, Z. Lin, W. Liu, Y . Li, S. Johnson, and B. Vucetic, “Short block-length codes for ultra-reliable low latency communications,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 130–137, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Soft-decision decoding of linear block codes based on ordered statistics,

    M. Fossorier and S. Lin, “Soft-decision decoding of linear block codes based on ordered statistics,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1379–1396, 1995

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Efficient priority-first search maximum-likelihood soft-decision decoding of linear block codes,

    Y . Han, C. Hartmann, and C.-C. Chen, “Efficient priority-first search maximum-likelihood soft-decision decoding of linear block codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1514– 1523, 1993

    work page 1993

  4. [4]

    Ona ∗ algo- rithms for decoding short linear block codes,

    T.-H. Chen, K.-C. Chen, M.-C. Lin, and C.-F. Chang, “Ona ∗ algo- rithms for decoding short linear block codes,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 3471–3481, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Box and match techniques applied to soft-decision decoding,

    A. Valembois and M. Fossorier, “Box and match techniques applied to soft-decision decoding,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 796–810, 2004

    2004

  6. [6]

    Reliability-based soft-decision decoding with multiple biases,

    W. Jin and M. P. C. Fossorier, “Reliability-based soft-decision decoding with multiple biases,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 105–120, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Iterative reliability- based decoding of linear block codes with adaptive belief propagation,

    A. Kothiyal, O. Takeshita, W. Jin, and M. Fossorier, “Iterative reliability- based decoding of linear block codes with adaptive belief propagation,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 1067–1069, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Tree-search decoding with path constraints for linear block codes,

    C.-F. Chang, T.-Y . Lin, and M.-C. Lin, “Tree-search decoding with path constraints for linear block codes,” in2014 IEEE Wireless Communica- tions and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2014, pp. 753–757

    work page 2014

Show all 16 references
  1. [9]

    Tree-search decoding using reduced-size stacks,

    H.-S. Shih, C.-S. Wang, C.-C. Chen, and M.-C. Lin, “Tree-search decoding using reduced-size stacks,” in2018 International Symposium on Information Theory and Its Applications (ISITA), 2018, pp. 511–515

    2018

  2. [10]

    A systematic (16,8) code for correcting double errors and detecting triple-adjacent errors,

    T. Gulliver and V . Bhargava, “A systematic (16,8) code for correcting double errors and detecting triple-adjacent errors,”IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 109–112, 1993

    1993

  3. [11]

    Lin and D

    S. Lin and D. J. Costello,Error Control Coding, 2nd ed. NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    From sequential decoding to channel polarization and back again,

    E. Arikan, “From sequential decoding to channel polarization and back again,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.09594

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Fast list decoders for polarization-adjusted convolutional (pac) codes,

    H. Zhu, Z. Cao, Y . Zhao, D. Li, and Y . Yang, “Fast list decoders for polarization-adjusted convolutional (pac) codes,”IET Communications, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 842–851, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1049/cmu2.12587

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    An improvement to generalized-minimum- distance decoding,

    D. Taipale and M. Pursley, “An improvement to generalized-minimum- distance decoding,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 167–172, 1991

    1991

  7. [15]

    Optimal decoding of linear codes for minimizing symbol error rate (corresp.),

    L. Bahl, J. Cocke, F. Jelinek, and J. Raviv, “Optimal decoding of linear codes for minimizing symbol error rate (corresp.),”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 284–287, 1974. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 10

    1974

  8. [16]

    Convergence behavior of iteratively decoded parallel concatenated codes,

    S. ten Brink, “Convergence behavior of iteratively decoded parallel concatenated codes,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1727–1737, 2001

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.