Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Learning to Decode Quantum LDPC Codes via Cluster-Based Sequential Belief Propagation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cluster-based learned scheduling cuts QLDPC belief-propagation decisions from one per qubit to one per cluster while keeping most of the error-rate gain.

desk verdict A coherent, honest extension of learned sequential QLDPC decoding that trades a real latency claim for an ideal-model assumption; worth refereeing with requests for code and conflict-free partitions. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20130 v1 pith:BVS5EZZW submitted 2026-07-22 cs.IT math.ITmath.QAquant-ph

Mohsen Moradi , Taejoon Kim , Rémi A. Chou , David G. M. Mitchell This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.ITmath.QAquant-ph MSC 81P7094B35 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords quantumLDPCcodesbeliefpropagationdecodingreinforcementlearningschedulingcluster-basedsequentialpermutation-invariantstatequantizedhistogramerrorcorrectionCSS
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

Quantum low-density parity-check (QLDPC) codes need decoders that both suppress errors and run fast, but belief propagation is weak on their short-cycle, degenerate graphs. A learned, sequential schedule (RL-S) fixes much of the error-rate problem by letting a reinforcement-learning agent pick one variable node at a time, yet that serializes the decoder: up to n scheduling decisions per iteration. This paper claims the serial depth can be broken by partitioning the variable nodes into fixed clusters and letting the agent choose one cluster per step; all nodes in the chosen cluster then update in parallel from the same pre-update messages. The authors introduce a permutation-invariant cluster state—a quantized normalized histogram of local mismatch weights—whose size depends on quantization resolution, not cluster size, so tabular learning stays practical. On representative codes, clustered scheduling preserves most of RL-S's error-rate improvement while reducing scheduling decisions per iteration from n to ceil(n/B), e.g. from 288 to 29 for a [[288,12,18]] code, giving a roughly tenfold latency reduction under an ideal parallel-update model.

What carries the argument

A cluster-level Markov decision process whose state is a permutation-invariant quantized histogram of local mismatch weights. For each variable node, the local mismatch weight is the number of currently unsatisfied checks adjacent to it; a cluster's histogram counts how many of its nodes have each weight. Normalizing by cluster size and quantizing to L bins with a largest-remainder rule yields a state whose count is C(L+A_max, A_max), independent of B. The Q-learning update uses a one-step reward of normalized mismatch reduction plus a terminal bonus, and the action is the index of the next cluster; Lemma 1 gives the odd-parity rule for how a parallel set of flips changes the residual syndro

What would settle it

Build a cycle-accurate model or FPGA implementation of clustered RL-S with the paper's random partitions on the [[288,12,18]] BB code and measure wall-clock time for B=10 against VN-level RL-S. If 29 cluster decisions per iteration are not faster than 288 VN decisions—because updates contend for the same check-node memories—the central latency claim is falsified. A simpler check is to compare random partitions with an oracle conflict-free partition; if no conflict-free partition exists for a given code, the n-to-ceil(n/B) depth reduction is only theoretical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the benefit of learned sequential scheduling for QLDPC decoding comes mainly from the coarse, syndrome-driven order in which groups of bits are refreshed, not from the fine grain of one-bit updates. The paper argues this by replacing the VN-level action space with a cluster-level action space: at each scheduling step the agent selects a cluster, all variable nodes in it update simultaneously from identical pre-update messages, and hard-decision flips are applied at once. To keep that decision process tractable, each cluster is summarized by a normalized histogram of local mismatch weights, quantized onto an integer simplex; the resulting state space has C(L+A_max, A

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the ideal parallel cluster-update model—all variable nodes in a selected cluster update simultaneously from the same pre-update messages with no memory or communication conflicts; the paper's own random partitions are not conflict-free, so absent such hardware, the serial-depth reduction may not become real latency reduction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, learned sequential BP scheduling for QLDPC codes no longer needs a serial decision chain of length n: one BP iteration uses only ceil(n/B) scheduling decisions.
  • For the [[288,12,18]] BB code with B=10, this drops 288 VN-level decisions to 29 cluster-level decisions, an order-of-magnitude reduction in serial scheduling latency under the paper's ideal parallel cluster-update model.
  • The quantized histogram state keeps the Q-table size controlled by the quantization resolution L and the number of clusters, rather than by cluster size, so larger clusters do not blow up the learning state space.
  • The same cluster state and update rule carry over to the depolarizing channel by using two residual vectors (δX, δZ) and quaternary BP, so the latency improvement is not limited to bit-flip noise.
  • Moderate cluster sizes preserve most of the error-rate gain of VN-level RL-S, especially when the iteration budget is at least a few hundred.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The order-of-magnitude latency claim is conditional on conflict-free parallel cluster updates; the paper uses random, non-conflict-free partitions, so graph-aware partition design is the natural next step and may be required for real hardware to see the savings.
  • The histogram state discards within-cluster identity and correlations, so very large clusters may lose the scheduling adaptivity that produces the error-rate gain; adaptive or hierarchical cluster granularity is a testable remedy.
  • The same compressed state idea—summarizing a group by a quantized distribution of local mismatch weights—could transfer to other sequential message-passing decoders beyond quantum codes, wherever a residual syndrome guides the update order.
  • Combining cluster-level scheduling with list-based or bit-flipping continuation branches could push the latency–performance tradeoff further than either extension alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends RL-based sequential belief-propagation (RL-S) decoding of QLDPC codes from variable-node-level scheduling to cluster-level scheduling. The VNs are partitioned into fixed clusters; at each scheduling step an RL agent selects one cluster, and all VNs in that cluster are updated in parallel from pre-update messages. To keep tabular Q-learning tractable, the cluster state is a quantized, permutation-invariant normalized histogram of local mismatch weights. The paper formulates the cluster-level MDP, reward, and Q-learning update, and provides numerical results on the [[882,24,18≤d≤24]] code B1 over the independent Pauli-X channel and on the [[288,12,18]] BB code over the depolarizing channel. The central claim is that cluster-level scheduling preserves most of the error-rate benefit of VN-level RL-S while reducing the number of scheduling decisions per BP iteration from n to ceil(n/B), e.g., from 288 to 29 for the [[288,12,18]] code at B=10, yielding an order-of-magnitude reduction in serial scheduling latency under an ideal parallel cluster-update model.

Significance. If the latency claim can be substantiated, the proposed clustered RL-S decoder would be a meaningful step toward making learned sequential BP scheduling practical for latency-sensitive QLDPC decoding: it retains the state-dependent asymmetry that helps BP while enabling intra-cluster parallelism. The paper's quantized histogram state representation is a clean and useful idea for compressing cluster-level state, and Lemma 1 correctly characterizes the residual-mismatch update under simultaneous flips. The numerical comparison against QBP, QBPGD, and the VN-level RL-S baseline is honest and suggests the error-rate degradation from clustering is modest for moderate B. However, the headline latency advantage rests on an ideal parallel cluster-update model that the paper itself acknowledges is not realized by its random VN partitions; this is a load-bearing gap. The experimental section also omits training details and error bars, making the quantitative claims difficult to verify.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections III and IV] The central latency claim—serial scheduling depth reduced from O(n) to O(ceil(n/B))—depends entirely on the assumption that all VNs in a selected cluster can be updated in parallel with constant per-cluster latency. The paper states in Section III that the random VN partitions 'are not designed to guarantee conflict-free hardware implementations' and that 'the latency analysis assumes ideal parallel cluster updates.' In a random VN cluster, VNs frequently share check nodes. Under a standard single-port check-node memory or message-passing model, concurrent VN-to-CN updates to a shared check collide and must be serialized; simultaneous hard-decision flips and syndrome updates can similarly introduce read/write conflicts. Thus the per-cluster update time is not necessarily constant, and the O(Imax*Ncl) scaling in Section IV does not imply a comparable wall-clock latency reduction. The abst
  2. [Section V] The numerical results are not fully reproducible and do not support error bars or statistical significance. The paper does not report the number of training episodes E_max, the learning rate α, the initial and minimum exploration probabilities ε0/ε_min, the number of random VN partitions used, or the number of Monte Carlo trials per error probability. Figures 2–5 show single BLER/FER curves without confidence intervals. Since the central claim is that clustered RL-S 'preserves most' of the error-rate benefit of VN-level RL-S, the reader cannot tell whether the observed small gaps are robust or are artifacts of a particular partition and training run. Please provide the missing hyperparameters, repeat the experiments over multiple random partitions and channel realizations, and report confidence intervals or error bars. Without this, the qualitative conclusion is plausible but not quantit
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (9)] The expression C(L+A_max, A_max) counts all compositions of L into A_max+1 parts, which is an upper bound on the number of reachable quantized cluster states for a fixed cluster size B. Not every composition can arise from a normalized histogram of B integer mismatch weights. The statement that the number of possible states 'depends on the quantization resolution rather than the cluster size' should be qualified as an upper-bound statement; for a concrete B, the reachable set depends on B through the constraint Σ c_r = B.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 4] In the comparison of quantization resolutions, B and L are varied simultaneously (B=10,L=8; B=20,L=16; etc.). This couples the two effects and does not isolate the influence of L. For a clean ablation, fix B and sweep L (or vice versa).
  3. [Section III-E] There is a typo in the first sentence: 'For the the current mismatch weight w = ∥δ∥1' should read 'For the current mismatch weight w = ∥δ∥1.'
  4. [Section V] The text says a block is erroneous if the correction is 'logically nontrivial,' but the procedure for identifying logical nontriviality (e.g., basis of logical operators, parity checks) is not described. Please include this detail or cite the standard method used in the baseline implementations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; cluster-level derivation is self-contained and externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The paper's novel contribution is a cluster-based scheduling extension: parallel cluster update rule (Lemma 1), quantized permutation-invariant cluster state, and associated Q-learning update. These are derived from linearity and explicit design choices, not from the target results. Performance is benchmarked against external QBP and QBPGD decoders as well as the prior RL-S baseline, so no fitted constant is relabeled as a prediction. The paper does rely on the authors' own unpublished RL-S work ([25], [26]) for the baseline and for quaternary BP message-update details; this is a self-citation/reproducibility concern, but it is not circular because the central cluster-level claim is independently tested and the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or ansatz to force its conclusion. The headline latency reduction from n to ceil(n/B) scheduling decisions is definitional under the stated ideal parallel cluster-update model; the paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. III that its random VN partitions 'are not designed to guarantee conflict-free hardware implementations' and that 'the latency analysis assumes ideal parallel cluster updates.' That is a clearly disclosed modeling limitation (a correctness risk for real hardware), not a hidden circular step. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The quantized cluster state is an algorithmic state-compression, not a new ontological postulate. The numerical and latency claims rest primarily on hand-chosen design parameters (B, L, T), unstated RL hyperparameters, the sufficiency of the histogram state, and the ideal parallel-update assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • cluster size B = 10, 20, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100 in experiments
    Chosen by hand; the central latency-parallelism tradeoff depends on this parameter, and performance degrades for large B.
  • quantization resolution L = 8, 16, 32, 42 for X-only; 2, 5, 10 for depolarizing
    Chosen by hand; controls the granularity of the quantized cluster state and affects whether clustered RL-S approaches unclustered RL-S performance.
  • maximum iteration budget T = 10, 100, 1000, 10000 (varies by figure)
    Set per experiment; error-rate comparisons are at fixed iteration caps, and the clustered decoder's closeness to RL-S depends on T.
  • RL training hyperparameters = not reported (learning rate alpha, discount gamma, epsilon_0, epsilon_min, number of episodes E_max)
    The Q-learning update in Eq. (13) and exploration schedule depend on these values, but the paper does not report them, leaving the numerical results under-specified.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math CSS stabilizer framework with H_X H_Z^T = 0 over F2
    Standard background for QLDPC codes, used throughout Section II.
  • domain assumption Sum-product BP update rules in Eqs. (1)-(3) are treated as fixed and valid
    The learned component only changes the update order; the message algebra itself is imported from prior BP literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The quantized histogram of local mismatch weights is a sufficient state for cluster-selection decisions
    Motivated by permutation invariance and compactness in Section III-B/C, but no proof is given that this summary retains all decision-relevant information; only numerical evidence is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Tabular Q-learning with epsilon-greedy exploration converges to a useful scheduling policy
    The training procedure assumes that a finite number of episodes yields a policy that generalizes; no convergence or sample-complexity analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Ideal parallel cluster updates: all VNs in a cluster update simultaneously from pre-update messages with no hardware conflicts
    Explicitly stated in Section III: 'the latency analysis assumes ideal parallel cluster updates.' The random VN partitions used are not designed to be conflict-free.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Decode Quantum LDPC Codes via Cluster-Based Sequential Belief Propagation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVS5EZZW

@misc{pith2026260720130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Decode Quantum LDPC Codes via Cluster-Based Sequential Belief Propagation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVS5EZZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20130}
}
read the original abstract

Belief-propagation (BP) decoding for quantum low-density parity-check (QLDPC) codes is attractive due to its low complexity, but its performance is often limited by short cycles, degeneracy, and convergence failures. Recently, reinforcement-learning-based sequential variable-node (VN) scheduling (RL-S) was shown to improve BP decoding by learning state-dependent update orders. However, the VN-by-VN nature of that approach offers limited within-iteration parallelism, since only one VN is updated at a time. In this paper, we propose a cluster-based extension of RL-S for QLDPC codes. The VNs are partitioned into fixed clusters, and at each scheduling step the RL agent selects one cluster to update, after which all VNs in that cluster are updated in parallel using the same pre-update incoming messages. To keep the tabular state space practical for large cluster sizes, we introduce a permutation-invariant cluster state based on a normalized histogram of local mismatch weights, followed by quantization. This representation makes the number of cluster states depend on the quantization resolution rather than the cluster size. We also develop the corresponding cluster-level Markov decision process, reward function, and Q-learning update. Numerical results on representative QLDPC codes show that the proposed clustered learned scheduling preserves most of the error-rate benefit of VN-level learned sequential scheduling while substantially reducing the number of scheduling decisions per BP iteration, thereby providing an attractive latency-parallelism tradeoff.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20130 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Tanner subgraph used in Example 1. The highlighted cluster Ca = {vi1 , . . . , vi5 } is connected to checks c1, . . . , c6 according to the listed neighbor sets. The values below the check nodes are the current residual mismatches δj , and the circles above the variable nodes show the induced local mismatch weights ωik . Then qr(a) is obtained by setting qr(a) = br(a) and adding one to the D indices with the largest… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Block error rate of clustered RL-S decoding for the [[882, 24, 18 ≤ d ≤ 24]] code B1 over the independent Pauli-X channel. Different cluster sizes B are compared under the same maximum iteration budget T = 100. decoder. Thus, the allocated Q-table size is controlled by the quantization resolution and the number of clusters, rather than directly by the number of VNs in each cluster. V. NUMERICAL RESULTS In this secti… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. evaluates our proposed quantized cluster-state repre￾sentation on the code B1. Here, the cluster state is formed by the normalized histogram of local mismatch weights inside the cluster, followed by quantization with resolution L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Block error rate comparison for the [[288, 12, 18]] BB code over the depolarizing channel. The proposed quantized clustered RL-S decoder is compared with QBP, QBPGD, and the unclustered RL-S decoder. The RL-S and clustered RL-S decoders use maximum iteration budget T =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. High-Performance Reinforcement-Learned BP Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes

    cs.IT 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    RL-S2LU extends learned sequential BP by cascading each selected variable-node update to its second-order neighborhood, yielding large empirical gains over BP and BP-OSD-10 on QLDPC codes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,

    P . W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory,” Physical Review A , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. R2493–R2496, 1995

    1995

  2. [2]

    Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,

    A. R. Calderbank and P . W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,” Physical Review A , vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1098–1105, 1996

    1996

  3. [3]

    Error correcting codes in quantum theory,

    A. M. Steane, “Error correcting codes in quantum theory,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 793–797, 1996

    1996

  4. [4]

    Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength,

    J.-P . Tillich and G. Zémor, “Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to the square root of the blocklength,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 1193–1202, 2014

    2014

  5. [5]

    Balanced product quantum codes,

    N. P . Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, “Balanced product quantum codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 6653–6674, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance,

    P . Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Quantum LDPC codes with almost linear minimum distance,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 213–229, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Quantum Tanner codes,

    A. Leverrier and G. Zémor, “Quantum Tanner codes,” in 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , 2022, pp. 872–883

    2022

  8. [8]

    High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory,

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P . Rall, and T. J. Y oder, “High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory,” Nature, vol. 627, no. 8005, pp. 778–782, 2024

    2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    On the iterative decoding of sparse quantum codes,

    D. Poulin and Y . Chung, “On the iterative decoding of sparse quantum codes,” Quantum Information and Computation , vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 987– 1000, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape,

    J. Roffe, D. R. White, S. Burton, and E. Campbell, “Decoding across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscape,” Physical Review Research, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 043423, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Trapping sets of quantum LDPC codes,

    N. Raveendran and B. V asi ´c, “Trapping sets of quantum LDPC codes,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 562, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Exploiting degeneracy in belief propagation decoding of quantum codes,

    K.-Y . Kuo and C.-Y . Lai, “Exploiting degeneracy in belief propagation decoding of quantum codes,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 111, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Degenerate quantum LDPC codes with good finite length performance,

    P . Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Degenerate quantum LDPC codes with good finite length performance,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 585, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Stabilizer inactivation for message- passing decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    J. du Crest, M. Mhalla, and V . Savin, “Stabilizer inactivation for message- passing decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” in 2022 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW) , 2022, pp. 488–493

    2022

  7. [15]

    Check- agnosia based post-processor for message-passing decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    J. du Crest, F. Garcia-Herrero, M. Mhalla, V . Savin, and J. V alls, “Check- agnosia based post-processor for message-passing decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1334, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Localized statistics decoding for quantum low-density parity- check codes,

    T. Hillmann, L. Berent, A. O. Quintavalle, J. Eisert, R. Wille, and J. Roffe, “Localized statistics decoding for quantum low-density parity- check codes,” Nature Communications , vol. 16, no. 1, p. 8214, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Low-complexity syndrome-based linear program- ming decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    S. Javed, S. Colet, F. Garcia-Herrero, Ó. Ruano, J. A. Maestro, B. V asi ´c, and M. F. Flanagan, “Low-complexity syndrome-based linear program- ming decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 7, p. 2100319, 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    Belief propagation decoding of quantum LDPC codes with guided decimation,

    H. Y ao, W. A. Laban, C. Häger, A. G. i Amat, and H. D. Pfister, “Belief propagation decoding of quantum LDPC codes with guided decimation,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2024, pp. 2478–2483

    2024

  11. [19]

    Decimation strategies for belief propagation decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    M. Alinia, D. G. M. Mitchell, H. Y ao, and H. D. Pfister, “Decimation strategies for belief propagation decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” in 2025 13th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC) , 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  12. [20]

    Layered decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    J. du Crest, F. Garcia-Herrero, M. Mhalla, V . Savin, and J. V alls, “Layered decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” in 2023 12th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  13. [21]

    Machine learning message-passing for the scalable decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    A. S. Maan, M. Paler, T. Pathak, K. Y ousaf, E. Peltonen, R. V . Vintan, T. Krajník, D. E. Browne, E. Andersson, and A. Fedorov, “Machine learning message-passing for the scalable decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 11, no. 1, p. 80, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Improved belief propagation is sufficient for real-time decoding of quantum memory,

    T. Müller, T. Alexander, M. E. Beverland, M. Bühler, B. R. Johnson, T. Maurer, and D. V andeth, “Improved belief propagation is sufficient for real-time decoding of quantum memory,” 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Reinforcement learning for sequen- tial decoding of generalized LDPC codes,

    S. Habib and D. G. M. Mitchell, “Reinforcement learning for sequen- tial decoding of generalized LDPC codes,” in 2023 12th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  16. [24]

    Enhancing belief propaga- tion decoding of polar codes: A reinforcement learning approach,

    M. Moradi, S. Habib, and D. G. M. Mitchell, “Enhancing belief propaga- tion decoding of polar codes: A reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1285–1289, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Sequential BP-based decoding of QLDPC codes,

    M. Moradi, S. Habib, V . Nourozi, and D. G. M. Mitchell, “Sequential BP-based decoding of QLDPC codes,” 2026

    2026

  18. [26]

    Learning to decode quantum LDPC codes via belief propagation,

    M. Moradi, V . Nourozi, S. Habib, and D. G. M. Mitchell, “Learning to decode quantum LDPC codes via belief propagation,” 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Learning-based list sequential belief propagation decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    M. Moradi, T. Kim, and R. Chou, “Learning-based list sequential belief propagation decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” manuscript, 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    Learned parallel bit-flipping sequential belief propagation decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    M. Moradi, T. Kim, R. Chou, and D. G. M. Mitchell, “Learned parallel bit-flipping sequential belief propagation decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” 2026, manuscript

    2026

  21. [29]

    Rl-based parallel ldpc decoding with clustered scheduling,

    Y . Ozkan, Y . Y akimenka, and J. Kliewer, “Rl-based parallel ldpc decoding with clustered scheduling,” Entropy, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 215, 2026

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.