Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

SOGRAND decoding of LDPC codes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Specializing SOGRAND to single-parity-check codes yields two hardware-friendly check-node updates that match or beat sum-product and normalized min-sum on 5G LDPC codes.

desk verdict Solid, modest engineering paper: two concrete SPC CN updates from SOGRAND that match SPA/NMS on 5G LDPC with small fixed tables; useful for VLSI people, not a foundational shift. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.04045 v1 pith:44UCD237 submitted 2026-07-04 cs.IT math.IT

Ken R. Duffy , Jiewei Feng , Lukas Rapp , Muriel Médard This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT
keywords LDPCcodesSoftInputIterativeDecodingGRANDSOGRANDCheckNodeupdateSingleParity
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

Long error-correcting codes are built by stitching short component codes together and decoding them iteratively with soft-input soft-output updates. For the single-parity-check components that make up LDPC codes, the classical check-node update is Gallager’s sum-product formula (or its normalized min-sum approximation). This paper shows that Soft-Output GRAND, when specialized to those same single-parity-check codes, produces two alternative check-node rules. Both rules work by ranking a short fixed list of candidate noise patterns drawn from the least-reliable bits, computing block-wise posterior probabilities, and then marginalizing to obtain per-bit extrinsic LLRs. On the 5G NR LDPC codes of lengths 256 and 1024, a list of only eight to ten patterns already matches or slightly exceeds the block- and bit-error rates of sum-product and normalized min-sum, while the updates themselves reduce to table look-ups and a handful of parallel probability multiplications that fit comfortably in a few clock cycles of existing GRAND hardware.

What carries the argument

The two SOGRAND check-node formulae (equations 5 and 6): a short list L of ORBGRAND noise patterns of correct parity is scored by channel likelihood; residual probability mass is apportioned according to the per-bit hard decisions; the resulting block posteriors are marginalized to produce each bit’s APP LLR, from which the extrinsic message is obtained by subtraction and damping.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 5G NR LDPC simulations (n=256 rate-1/2 and n=1024 rate-2/3) with L=10 and α=0.9; if either SOGRAND rule produces a clear BLER or BER gap of more than a few tenths of a decibel relative to SPA or normalized min-sum at any operating point of interest, the central performance claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When SOGRAND’s soft-output formula is restricted to single-parity-check codes, the resulting check-node update (either the even-parity version that needs the Gallager parity probability Ψ or the non-even version that simply doubles the list size) yields extrinsic LLRs whose iterative decoding performance on 5G LDPC codes equals or exceeds that of the classical sum-product algorithm and of normalized min-sum, provided the list contains roughly ten noise patterns and a mild global damping factor α ≈ 0.9 is applied.

Load-bearing premise

That a fixed table of only the seven or eight least-reliable bit flips, damped by a single global factor, is enough to keep the quality of the extrinsic messages equal to exact sum-product across the practical SNR range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LDPC decoders can replace the classical check-node arithmetic with a short, parallel table-driven SOGRAND update without loss of error-rate performance.
  • Because the update re-uses existing ORBGRAND pattern generators already fabricated for soft GRAND chips, the same silicon can serve both universal soft decoding and LDPC check-node processing.
  • The even and non-even variants give designers a concrete trade-off: compute the Gallager parity probability once and use L patterns, or skip that probability and double the list size.
  • The same specialization technique can be applied to other short even component codes that appear in product, staircase or OFEC constructions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the residual-mass term in the SOGRAND formulae is replaced by a more accurate estimate of the unqueried probability, the required list size may drop below eight, further simplifying the hardware.
  • Because SOGRAND already produces block-wise soft output, the same check-node engine can be reused without redesign for hybrid decoding of product codes that mix LDPC and other component codes.
  • The method opens a path to joint multi-check-node updates that score a single noise list against several parity checks at once, potentially reducing message-passing iterations.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper specializes Soft-Output GRAND (SOGRAND) to single-parity-check (SPC) component codes and derives two explicit check-node (CN) update rules for iterative LDPC decoding (Eqs. 5 and 6). One rule exploits the even-code property of SPCs (requiring the parity likelihood Ψ of Eq. 3) while the other does not; both produce extrinsic LLRs from a short list of ORBGRAND noise patterns. With list size L ≈ 8–10 and a global damping factor α = 0.9, simulations on two 5G NR LDPC codes (n = 256 rate-1/2 and n = 1024 rate-2/3) over BPSK-AWGN show block- and bit-error rates that match or slightly improve upon Gallager SPA and normalized min-sum (Imax = 50). The authors argue that the updates are hardware-friendly because existing GRAND circuits already evaluate the needed likelihoods and fixed pattern tables in a few clock cycles.

Significance. If the reported performance holds more broadly, the work supplies a genuinely alternative CN philosophy: block-wise SOGRAND posteriors are marginalized rather than computing leave-one-out tanh products or min-sums. The algebraic specialization from the general SOGRAND formula (Eqs. 1/4) to the SPC APP expressions is short and correct, the even/non-even variants are shown to be equivalent, and the empirical match to SPA/NMS with only L ≈ 10 patterns is practically interesting. Hardware friendliness is made plausible by reference to already-fabricated GRAND chips. The free parameters (α, L, fixed pattern table) are ordinary engineering knobs whose modest sensitivity is acknowledged. The contribution is therefore a clean, usable algorithmic alternative rather than a fundamental capacity or complexity breakthrough.

major comments (3)
  1. Section V and Figs. 2–6 evaluate only two 5G NR LDPC codes. While the BLER/BER curves support the claim for these instances, the abstract and introduction present the CN updates as a general alternative to SPA/NMS. At least one additional irregular or higher-rate 5G base-graph code (or a classical regular ensemble) is needed to substantiate that the same small L and fixed ORBGRAND table remain competitive across the practical design space.
  2. The fixed ORBGRAND pattern table (Fig. 1) and the single global damping α = 0.9 are purely empirical. The paper reports that α ∈ [0.8,1] changes performance by only ~0.05 dB (data not shown) and that L ≥ 8 saturates, yet no analysis is given of why the particular 7–8 least-reliable-bit patterns suffice across SNR. A short ablation (different pattern generators, SNR-dependent L, or per-check α) would clarify whether the observed match to SPA is robust or fortuitous for the two tested codes.
  3. Hardware claims (Section IV, final paragraph) rest entirely on citations to prior GRAND ASICs that compute likelihoods and pattern lookups in 1–3 cycles. No gate-count, critical-path, or area comparison against a standard SPA or NMS CN is supplied for the proposed updates themselves. A brief complexity table (operations per CN, memory for the pattern table, estimated latency) would make the “hardware-friendly” assertion quantitative rather than referential.
minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract and Introduction: the phrase “alternative existing Check Node (CN) update” is awkward; “alternative to existing CN updates” is clearer.
  2. Eq. (5) multiplies the residual probability mass by a factor of 2; a one-sentence justification (or a pointer to the non-even SOGRAND derivation) would help readers who have not memorized the earlier paper.
  3. Section V: “data not shown” for the α-sensitivity study should be replaced by a short table or inset, given that α is a free parameter of the algorithm.
  4. Fig. 1 caption and surrounding text: clarify whether the same fixed table is used for every check degree or whether degree-dependent tables are required for irregular 5G graphs.
  5. References: several recent hardware-oriented LDPC CN approximations (e.g., adjusted min-sum variants) are omitted; a brief comparison or citation would situate the work more completely.
  6. Notation: λ^n and N^n are used for both vectors and their components; a consistent bold/vector convention would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Minor self-citation of the SOGRAND soft-output formula from overlapping authors; the specialization to SPC CN updates and the empirical SPA/NMS comparisons are independent and not forced by construction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section III, eqs. (1) and (4); citation [20]]
    "A detailed derivation of SOGRAND's SO formula can be found in [20]. Here, we solely recapitulate the algorithmic result. ... the blockwise soft output is the a posteriori probability that bxn,ql is the transmitted codeword is pXn|Λn(bxn,ql|λn)≈..."

    The soft-output expressions that are later specialized to obtain the CN updates are taken wholesale from a prior paper whose author list overlaps with the present one. While the subsequent algebraic specialization and the empirical comparisons against SPA/NMS are independent, the accuracy premise of the SO formula itself rests on that self-citation rather than a re-derivation or external verification inside this manuscript.

full rationale

The paper takes the block-wise soft-output approximation of SOGRAND (eqs. 1 and 4) from prior work by overlapping authors and algebraically specializes it to single-parity-check codes, yielding the two CN update rules (eqs. 5 and 6). That specialization is a short, self-contained derivation that does not redefine its inputs in terms of its outputs. The free damping parameter alpha is reported to have only minor effect (order 0.05 dB) over a range and is not fitted so as to force the claimed performance; list size L is likewise an ordinary engineering choice validated by simulation. Performance claims rest on direct BLER/BER comparisons against Gallager SPA and normalized min-sum on two 5G NR LDPC codes (Figs. 2-6), which constitute independent external benchmarks. Hardware-friendliness arguments reference already-fabricated GRAND circuits but are secondary and do not underwrite the decoding-performance claim. No equation reduces to its own inputs by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no fitted quantity is relabeled a prediction. The single self-citation is therefore non-load-bearing for the central result, producing only a trivial circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the previously published SOGRAND soft-output approximation, the standard even-code parity identity, a free damping factor alpha, and the empirical sufficiency of a small fixed noise-pattern list. No new physical entities are postulated; the free parameters are the usual engineering knobs of iterative decoding.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (extrinsic damping) = 0.9
    Global scale factor applied to the SOGRAND extrinsic LLR; set to 0.9 after a coarse sweep showing ~0.05 dB sensitivity in [0.8,1]. Directly multiplies the CN output and therefore affects the reported BLER curves.
  • list size L = 8-12
    Number of noise patterns retained for the APP approximation; chosen by simulation so that L=8-10 already saturates performance. Controls both accuracy and hardware cost.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SOGRAND block-wise soft-output formula (eq. 1 / corrected eq. 4) accurately approximates the true a-posteriori codeword probabilities from a short list of noise effects.
    Taken from the authors' prior work [20] and used without re-derivation as the starting point for the SPC specialization.
  • standard math An SPC code is an even-parity code, so only noise patterns whose parity matches the received parity can be codewords.
    Elementary linear-algebra fact used to restrict the query set and to insert the Gallager even-parity probability Psi.
  • ad hoc to paper A fixed ORBGRAND-derived table of the 7-8 least-reliable bits is a sufficiently rich set of candidate noise patterns for practical SNRs.
    Empirical design choice illustrated in Fig. 1; not derived from an optimality criterion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SOGRAND decoding of LDPC codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/44UCD237

@misc{pith2026260704045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SOGRAND decoding of LDPC codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/44UCD237}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04045}
}
read the original abstract

Long forward error correction codes are typically constructed by concatenating shorter component codes that are then decoded through iterative Soft-Input Soft-Output (SISO) of their components. The recently introduced Soft Output Guessing Random Additive Noise Decoding (SOGRAND) has been shown to enable accurate SISO component decoding for a broad range of component codes. Here we establish that by specializing its SISO computation to Single Parity Check codes, SOGRAND offers an alternative existing Check Node (CN) update for decoding Low Density Parity Check codes. Simulation results demonstrate similar or better decoding performance than Gallager's sum-product algorithm and norm-min-sum, while offering two distinct low complexity, hardware friendly CN update algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04045 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. If zero intercept ORBGRAND is used to create [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The LDPC(256,128) rate 1/2 code from 5G NR decoded with SOGRAND, α = 0.9, and a collection of list sizes, L ∈ {4, 6, 8, 10} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. The LDPC(1024,676) rate 2/3 code from 5G NR decoded with SPA, norm-min-sum, and SOGRAND with α = 0.9 and L = 10. the fact that an SPC code is even to perform only L likelihood computations, but with the requirement that Ψ in eq. (3) be calculated. Alternatively, if the even nature of the SPC code is not used, one can circumvent calculating Ψ by making 2L likelihood evaluations, i.e. both the even and odd parity quer… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The LDPC(256,128) rate 1/2 and LDPC(1024,676) rate 2/3 codes from 5G NR decoded with SOGRAND with α = 0.9, L = 10, and each of the even and non-even CN update rules. [4] C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, and P. Thitimajshima, “Near Shannon limit error-correcting coding and decod…

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. Tail-Calibrated Soft-Output GRAND for Finite-Memory Noise-Effect Posteriors

    cs.IT 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tail-calibrated soft-output GRAND decoder for finite-memory noise posteriors is introduced, with proven ML, unbiased missing-list estimation, and correlation-aware gains in simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Channel coding: The road to channel capacity,

    D. J. Costello and G. D. Forney, “Channel coding: The road to channel capacity,”Proc. IEEE, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 1150–1177, 2007

    2007

  2. [2]

    Richardson and R

    T. Richardson and R. Urbanke,Modern coding theory. Cambridge University Press, 2008

    2008

  3. [3]

    T. K. Moon,Error correction coding: mathematical methods and algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, 2020. Fig. 6. The LDPC(256,128) rate1/2and LDPC(1024,676) rate2/3codes from 5G NR decoded with SOGRAND withα= 0.9,L= 10, and each of the even and non-even CN update rules

    2020

  4. [4]

    Near Shannon limit error-correcting coding and decoding: Turbo-codes,

    C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, and P. Thitimajshima, “Near Shannon limit error-correcting coding and decoding: Turbo-codes,” inIEEE ICC, 1993

    1993

  5. [5]

    Low-density parity-check codes,

    R. Gallager, “Low-density parity-check codes,”IRE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 8, pp. 21–28, 1962

    1962

  6. [6]

    Near Shannon limit performance of low density parity check codes,

    D. J. MacKay and R. M. Neal, “Near Shannon limit performance of low density parity check codes,”Electron. Lett., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 457–458, 1997

    1997

  7. [7]

    The capacity of low-density parity- check codes under message-passing decoding,

    T. J. Richardson and R. L. Urbanke, “The capacity of low-density parity- check codes under message-passing decoding,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 599–618, 2001

    2001

  8. [8]

    Efficient encoding of low-density parity-check codes,

    ——, “Efficient encoding of low-density parity-check codes,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 638–656, 2001

    2001

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    D. J. MacKay,Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2003

    2003

  2. [10]

    High-throughput LDPC de- coders,

    M. M. Mansour and N. R. Shanbhag, “High-throughput LDPC de- coders,”IEEE Trans. V ery Large Scale Integr . VLSI Syst., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 976–996, 2003

    2003

  3. [11]

    Design of low-density parity check codes for 5G new radio,

    T. Richardson and S. Kudekar, “Design of low-density parity check codes for 5G new radio,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 28–34, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Near-optimum decoding of product codes: block turbo codes,

    R. Pyndiah, “Near-optimum decoding of product codes: block turbo codes,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1003–1010, 1998

    1998

  5. [13]

    Channel coding toward 6G: Technical overview and outlook,

    M. Rowshan, M. Qiu, Y . Xie, X. Gu, and J. Yuan, “Channel coding toward 6G: Technical overview and outlook,”IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 5, pp. 2585–2685, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Staircase Codes: FEC for 100 Gb/s OTN,

    B. P. Smith, A. Farhood, A. Hunt, F. R. Kschischang, and J. Lodge, “Staircase Codes: FEC for 100 Gb/s OTN,”J. Light. Technol., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 110–117, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    An efficient 10GBASE-T ethernet LDPC decoder design with low error floors,

    Z. Zhang, V . Anantharam, M. J. Wainwright, and B. Nikolic, “An efficient 10GBASE-T ethernet LDPC decoder design with low error floors,”IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 843–855, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    A survey of FPGA-based LDPC decoders,

    P. Hailes, L. Xu, R. G. Maunder, B. M. Al-Hashimi, and L. Hanzo, “A survey of FPGA-based LDPC decoders,”IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1098–1122, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Multi-mode qc-ldpc decoding architecture with novel memory access scheduling for 5g new-radio standard,

    S. Lee, S. Park, B. Jang, and I.-C. Park, “Multi-mode qc-ldpc decoding architecture with novel memory access scheduling for 5g new-radio standard,”IEEE TCAS-I, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2035–2048, 2022

  10. [18]

    Area-efficient QC- LDPC decoding architecture with thermometer code-based sorting and relative quasi-cyclic shifting,

    B. Jang, H. Jang, S. Kim, K. Choi, and I.-C. Park, “Area-efficient QC- LDPC decoding architecture with thermometer code-based sorting and relative quasi-cyclic shifting,”IEEE TCAS-I, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 2897– 2910, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    A generalized adjusted min-sum decoder for 5G LDPC codes: Algorithm and implementation,

    Y . Ren, H. Harb, Y . Shen, A. Balatsoukas-Stimming, and A. Burg, “A generalized adjusted min-sum decoder for 5G LDPC codes: Algorithm and implementation,”IEEE TCAS-I, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 2911–2924, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Soft-output (SO) GRAND and iterative decoding to outperform LDPC codes,

    P. Yuan, M. M ´edard, K. Galligan, and K. R. Duffy, “Soft-output (SO) GRAND and iterative decoding to outperform LDPC codes,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 3386–3399, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Capacity-achieving guessing random additive noise decoding,

    K. R. Duffy, J. Li, and M. Medard, “Capacity-achieving guessing random additive noise decoding,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 4023–4040, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Guessing random additive noise decoding for digital data communication,

    K. R. Duffy and M. M ´edard, “Guessing random additive noise decoding for digital data communication,”F ound. Trends Integr . Circuits Syst., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 105–215, 2026

    2026

  15. [23]

    Soft maximum likelihood decoding using GRAND,

    A. Solomon, K. R. Duffy, and M. M ´edard, “Soft maximum likelihood decoding using GRAND,” inIEEE Int. Commun. Conf., 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Ordered reliability bits guessing random additive noise decoding,

    K. R. Duffy, W. An, and M. Medard, “Ordered reliability bits guessing random additive noise decoding,”IEEE Trans. Signal Proc., vol. 70, pp. 4528 – 4542, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    List-GRAND: A practical way to achieve maximum likelihood decoding,

    S. M. Abbas, M. Jalaleddine, and W. J. Gross, “List-GRAND: A practical way to achieve maximum likelihood decoding,”IEEE Trans. V ery Large Scale Integr . Syst., no. 1, pp. 43–54, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Keep the bursts and ditch the interleavers,

    W. An, M. M ´edard, and K. R. Duffy, “Keep the bursts and ditch the interleavers,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 3655–3667, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Symbol-level GRAND for high- order modulation over block fading channels,

    I. Chatzigeorgiou and F. A. Monteiro, “Symbol-level GRAND for high- order modulation over block fading channels,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 447–451, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Using channel correlation to improve decoding – ORBGRAND-AI,

    K. R. Duffy, M. Grundei, and M. M ´edard, “Using channel correlation to improve decoding – ORBGRAND-AI,” inIEEE Globecom, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Guessing random additive noise decoding of network coded data transmitted over burst error channels,

    I. Chatzigeorgiou and D. Savostyanov, “Guessing random additive noise decoding of network coded data transmitted over burst error channels,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 12 842–12 857, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Improved step-GRAND: low-latency soft-input guessing random additive noise decoding,

    S. M. Abbas, M. Jalaleddine, C.-Y . Tsui, and W. J. Gross, “Improved step-GRAND: low-latency soft-input guessing random additive noise decoding,”IEEE Trans. V ery Large Scale Integr . (VLSI) Syst., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1028–1041, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Segmented GRAND: complexity reduction through sub-pattern combination,

    M. Rowshan and J. Yuan, “Segmented GRAND: complexity reduction through sub-pattern combination,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 5607–5620, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Multi-code multi-rate universal maximum likelihood decoder using GRAND,

    A. Riaz, V . Bansal, A. Solomon, W. An, Q. Liu, K. Galligan, K. R. Duffy, M. Medard, and R. T. Yazicigil, “Multi-code multi-rate universal maximum likelihood decoder using GRAND,” inIEEE ESSCIRC, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A GRANDAB decoder with 8.48 Gbps worst-case throughput in 65nm CMOS,

    L. D. Blanc, V . Herrmann, Y . Ren, C. M ¨uller, A. T. Kristensen, A. Levisse, Y . Shen, and A. Burg, “A GRANDAB decoder with 8.48 Gbps worst-case throughput in 65nm CMOS,” inIEEE ESSERC, Sep. 2024, pp. 685–688

    2024

  26. [34]

    A sub-0.8-pJ/bit universal soft- detection decoder using ORBGRAND,

    A. Riaz, A. Yasar, F. Ercan, W. An, J. Ngo, K. Galligan, M. M ´edard, K. R. Duffy, and R. T. Yazicigil, “A sub-0.8-pJ/bit universal soft- detection decoder using ORBGRAND,”IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 2645–2659, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Low-latency modulation- and correlation-adaptive ORBGRAND-AI decoder,

    E. Kizilates, A. Riaz, A. Bali, M. Grundei, M. M ´edard, K. R. Duffy, and R. T. Yazicigil, “Low-latency modulation- and correlation-adaptive ORBGRAND-AI decoder,” inIEEE ESSERC, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    High-Throughput and Energy-Efficient VLSI Architecture for Ordered Reliability Bits GRAND,

    S. M. Abbas, T. Tonnellier, F. Ercan, M. Jalaleddine, and W. J. Gross, “High-Throughput and Energy-Efficient VLSI Architecture for Ordered Reliability Bits GRAND,”IEEE Trans. on VLSI Sys., vol. 30, no. 6, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    A fixed latency ORBGRAND decoder architecture with LUT-aided error-pattern scheduling,

    C. Condo, “A fixed latency ORBGRAND decoder architecture with LUT-aided error-pattern scheduling,”IEEE Trans. Circuits Sys. I: Reg- ular Papers, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2203–2211, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    An efficient hard-detection grand decoder for systematic linear block codes,

    S.-I. Chu, S.-A. Ke, S.-J. Liu, and Y .-W. Lin, “An efficient hard-detection grand decoder for systematic linear block codes,”IEEE Trans. V ery Large Scale Integr . Syst., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1852–1864, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Efficient ORBGRAND implementation with parallel noise sequence generation,

    C. Ji, X. You, C. Zhang, and C. Studer, “Efficient ORBGRAND implementation with parallel noise sequence generation,”IEEE Trans. V ery Large Scale Integr . (VLSI) Syst., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 435–448, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Exponential error bounds for erasure, list, and decision feedback schemes,

    G. Forney, “Exponential error bounds for erasure, list, and decision feedback schemes,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 206–220, 1968

    1968

  33. [41]

    Guessing what, noise or codeword?

    X. Ma, “Guessing what, noise or codeword?”IEEE ITW, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Soft-output guessing codeword decoding,

    K. R. Duffy, P. Yuan, J. Griffin, and M. M ´edard, “Soft-output guessing codeword decoding,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 328–332, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Soft-output successive can- cellation list decoding,

    P. Yuan, K. R. Duffy, and M. M ´edard, “Soft-output successive can- cellation list decoding,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 1007–1017, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Soft-output from covered space decoding of product codes,

    T. Janz, S. Oberm ¨uller, A. Zunker, and S. Ten Brink, “Soft-output from covered space decoding of product codes,” inISTC, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Soft output threshold-guided CRC decoding with SOGRAND in 40nm CMOS,

    E. Kizilates, A. Riaz, A. Bali, J. Feng, M. M ´edard, K. R. Duffy, and R. T. Yazicigil, “Soft output threshold-guided CRC decoding with SOGRAND in 40nm CMOS,” inIEEE CICC, 2026

    2026

  38. [46]

    Leveraging code struc- ture to improve soft output for GRAND, GCD, OSD, and SCL,

    J. Feng, K. R. Duffy, and M. M ´edard, “Leveraging code struc- ture to improve soft output for GRAND, GCD, OSD, and SCL,” arXiv:2503.16677, 2025

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.