Motivated by the need to communicate short control messages in 5G and beyond, this paper carefully designs codes for cyclic redundancy check (CRC)-aided list decoding of tail-biting convolutional codes (TBCCs) and polar codes. Both codes send a 32-bit message using an 11-bit CRC and 512 transmitted bits. We aim to provide a careful, fair comparison of the error performance and decoding complexity of polar and TBCC techniques for a specific case. Specifically, a TBCC is designed to match the rate of a (512, 43) polar code, and optimal 11-bit CRCs for both codes are designed. The paper examines the distance spectra of the polar and TBCC codes, illuminating the different distance structures for the two code types. We consider both adaptive and non-adaptive CRC-aided list decoding schemes. For polar codes, an adaptive decoder must start with a larger list size to avoid an error floor. For rate-32/512 codes with an 11-bit CRC, the optimized CRC-TBCC design achieves a lower total failure rate than the optimized CRC-polar design. Simulations showed that the optimized CRC-TBCC design achieved significantly higher throughput than the optimized CRC-polar design, so that the TBCC solution achieved a lower total failure rate while requiring less computational complexity.
翻译:由于需要在5G及以后传递短控制信息,本文件仔细设计了循环冗余检查(CRC)辅助的周期冗余检查(CRC)和极地代码的解码目录。两种代码都使用11比特的CRC和512比特的传输比特发出32比特的信息。我们的目的是对极地和TBCC技术的错误性能和复杂性进行仔细、公平的比较,以避免特定案例的错误性能和解码。具体地说,TBCC设计出一种符合两种代码的(512,43)极地代码和最佳11比特的CRC的比率。本文审查了极地和TBCC代码的距离光谱,揭示了两种代码类型的不同距离结构。我们考虑的是适应性和非适应性的CRC辅助清单解码计划。对于极地代码,适应性解码必须从更大的列表尺寸开始,以避免一个更低的下限。对于使用11比特的CRC, 优化的CRC-TCC设计总失败率比优化的CRC-C 设计速度要低得多,而最优化的CRC-BCC设计比优化的Simlad-d 最优化的失败率则需要最优化的CRC-stal-deside-deal-deal 。