Recently, it was shown that if multiplicative weights are assigned to the edges of a Tanner graph used in belief propagation decoding, it is possible to use deep learning techniques to find values for the weights which improve the error-correction performance of the decoder. Unfortunately, this approach requires many multiplications, which are generally expensive operations. In this paper, we suggest a more hardware-friendly approach in which offset min-sum decoding is augmented with learnable offset parameters. Our method uses no multiplications and has a parameter count less than half that of the multiplicative algorithm. This both speeds up training and provides a feasible path to hardware architectures. After describing our method, we compare the performance of the two neural decoding algorithms and show that our method achieves error-correction performance within 0.1 dB of the multiplicative approach and as much as 1 dB better than traditional belief propagation for the codes under consideration.
The approach given in @cite_11 is similar to NOMS in that it uses more than just one global offset. The main difference between this approach and NOMS is that the offsets found by @cite_11 do not depend on particular paths through the Tanner graph, and thus in general may have difficulty overcoming the effect of short cycles, especially if the code has only a few different check node degrees. For the BCH codes considered in this work, for example, every check node has the same degree, so the approach in @cite_11 would yield a single @math , thus reverting to OMS. NOMS, on the contrary, has the potential to improve performance even for regular codes. Finally, the genetic algorithm used to learn the offsets in @cite_11 is a random heuristic method, which, unlike gradient-based optimization methods, has been found to perform poorly as the size of the optimization problem increases @cite_5 .
@cite_5 @cite_11
2160960847 2160400221
Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 . A new form of document coupling called co-citation is defined as the frequency with which two documents are cited together. The co-citation frequency of two scientific papers can be determined by comparing lists of citing documents in the Science Citation Index and counting identical entries. Networks of co-cited papers can be generated for specific scientific specialties, and an example is drawn from the literature of particle physics. Co-citation patterns are found to differ significantly from bibliographic coupling patterns, but to agree generally with patterns of direct citation. Clusters of co-cited papers provide a new way to study the specialty structure of science. They may provide a new approach to indexing and to the creation of SDI profiles. A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ...