Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Joint Error Correction and Fading Channel Estimation Enhancement Leveraging GRAND

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ORBGRAND's posterior likelihood can choose among neighboring fading estimates, reclaiming several dB of block-error-rate loss from imperfect channel estimation.

desk verdict A clever, plausible receiver-side trick for coping with channel estimation errors, with real but narrow simulation evidence; the selection heuristic is not proven but the paper is worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14756 v1 pith:LYJN5OOI submitted 2025-06-17 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Charles Wiame , Ken R. Duffy , Muriel Médard This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT MSC 94A4094B35
keywords channelestimationerrorORBGRANDguessingrandomadditivenoisedecodingfadingpilot-basedblockrateCA-PolarcodesCRC
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

This paper asks whether a receiver that already has a noisy pilot-based estimate of a fading channel can decode more reliably without getting a better estimate. Its answer is yes: instead of decoding only with the pilot estimate, the receiver runs ORBGRAND, a soft-input decoder that generates candidate noise sequences in reliability order, on several nearby channel candidates in parallel and keeps the codeword whose ORBGRAND posterior likelihood is highest. In simulations with [128,112] CRC and CA-Polar codes under Rice fading, this candidate-testing approach gives several dB of block-error-rate gain over decoding that ignores channel estimation error, approaching a genie-aided benchmark that knows the transmitted codeword. A refined version, which accounts for residual estimation error inside each candidate's Voronoi cell when forming LLRs, adds roughly another 2 dB in the tested CRC case. The practical stake is that pilots could be shortened, raising the data rate, without sacrificing error rate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ORBGRAND posterior likelihood, $P(\vec Z = \vec z) = \prod_{l:z_l=0}(1-B_l) \prod_{l:z_l=1} B_l$ with $B_l = e^{-|\lambda_l|}/(1+e^{-|\lambda_l|})$, computed from the LLR vector produced under each channel candidate. It acts as a model comparator: among the parallel decode attempts, the candidate whose associated guessed noise sequence has the largest posterior likelihood is trusted. Around it, the ML, ZF, and MMSE LLR approximations translate each candidate into soft inputs, and Method 2's additional machinery is the Voronoi-cell-truncated Gaussian integration of residual CEE inside the LLR computation, following the imperfect-CSI LLR approach.

What would settle it

Take a simulated block with known transmitted codeword and known true fading coefficient, run Algorithm 1, and compare the candidate it selects with the one whose decoded word has the fewest bit errors. If, at $\sigma_E^2 = 0.1$, the argmax-posterior rule selects the best candidate no more often than the pilot-only estimate would, or if the reported BLER gain disappears when $\sigma_E$ is set larger than the candidate grid spacing, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ORBGRAND's posterior likelihood formula can be repurposed as a selection rule over channel estimates. Given a pilot-based estimate $\hat h$, the receiver forms $M$ candidates $\hat h^{(m)} = \hat h + \Delta_C^{(m)}$ placed on a grid scaled by the known CEE standard deviation $\sigma_E$, computes LLRs for each candidate with an ML, ZF, or MMSE detector, decodes each candidate's LLR vector with ORBGRAND, and selects the codeword/candidate pair with the largest posterior probability $P(m)$ from Eq. (8), optionally weighted by the Gaussian density of the CEE. The paper reports that this rule recovers most of the loss caused by channel estimation error: BLER gains over 5 dB relative to ignoring CEE in the 15-20 dB SNR range for [128,112] CRC and CA-Polar codes at $\sigma_E^2 = 0.01$, approaching genie-aided candidate selection. Method 2 replaces each candidate's LLRs by likelihoods integrated over the residual CEE inside the candidate's Voronoi cell, following imperfect-CSI LLR treatment, and is reported to add about 2 dB over Method 1 at $\sigma_E^2 = 0.1$ for a [128,112] CRC code.

Load-bearing premise

The method's selection step assumes that the confidence score ORBGRAND assigns to a decoded word is still a fair way to compare decodes made under different, partly wrong channel guesses. No proof is given that picking the highest score finds the best codeword; if the score is miscalibrated for guesses far from the true channel, the gains rest on an unproven heuristic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the settings simulated, Method 1 gives block-error-rate gains over 5 dB relative to ignoring channel estimation error for [128,112] CRC and CA-Polar codes, approaching the genie-aided candidate-selection benchmark.
  • The procedure is defined for ML, ZF, and MMSE LLR computations, so the candidate-selection idea is not tied to a single detector type.
  • Because ORBGRAND is highly parallelizable, the M parallel decode attempts add manageable computational overhead in hardware-oriented implementations.
  • Method 2, which integrates residual estimation error over each candidate's Voronoi cell when forming LLRs, adds roughly 2 dB beyond Method 1 in the tested CRC configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the posterior-likelihood selection is well calibrated, the same rule could be iterated: center a finer candidate grid on the winning estimate and re-decode, a refinement the paper does not test.
  • The method's data-rate benefit should be compared against simply increasing pilot length by the equivalent number of pilot symbols; the paper demonstrates lower BLER at a fixed CEE but does not run that end-to-end rate comparison.
  • For time-varying channels, the winning candidate from one block could seed the candidate set of the next block, a natural online-tracking extension of the paper's stated future direction.
  • The candidate-placement rule assumes the receiver knows $\sigma_E^2$ and that the CEE is Gaussian; a stress test with mismatched $\sigma_E^2$ or non-Gaussian CEE would show how fragile the selection score is.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two GRAND-based decoding methods to mitigate channel estimation errors (CEE) in flat-fading channels. Method 1 (Algorithm 1) tests multiple candidate channel estimates in the complex plane around the pilot-based estimate, computes LLRs for each candidate using ML, ZF, or MMSE detectors, runs ORBGRAND on each set of LLRs, and selects the candidate/codeword with the largest ORBGRAND posterior likelihood from Eq. (8). Method 2 refines the LLR computation by integrating over the residual CEE within each candidate's Voronoi cell, using the approach of [21]. The paper reports BLER simulations for [128,112] CRC and CA-Polar codes, showing gains of several dB over a baseline that ignores CEE and performance close to a genie-aided upper bound. The authors conclude that receivers could maintain error rates with shorter pilot sequences by exploiting ORBGRAND's parallelizability.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the paper offers a novel and practically interesting trade-off: it trades extra computation, which GRAND can parallelize well, for a reduction in required pilot length or estimation accuracy. The algorithm is clearly stated in pseudocode, and the simulation settings are partly specified, which forms a reasonable starting point for reproduction. However, the central model-selection heuristic is not theoretically justified, and the simulation evidence is limited to a small number of configurations without statistical support. The contribution is therefore promising but not yet fully supported in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A, Algorithm 1 and Eq. (8)] The selection rule m* = argmax_m P(m) is the load-bearing step of the paper, but P(m) is computed from LLRs lambda^(m) that are only correctly calibrated when the true channel equals the candidate h^(m). When the true channel differs, the LLRs are miscalibrated, and Eq. (8) does not contain the model likelihood P(y | h^(m), c) or a prior over h^(m); it is merely the probability of the guessed noise sequence under one assumed channel. The paper provides no derivation showing that comparing these values across different mismatched candidates selects the most probable codeword. The heuristic reasoning in Section III-A ('candidates farther from the true fading value result in larger CEEs') does not supply the missing normalization. Because every BLER curve in Figs. 2-4 is produced by this rule, the central claim rests on an unproven assumption. Please either derive (8)-based selection as a proper MAP/ML model comparison, or provide supporting analysis and empirical checks (e.g., comparing against a criterion that includes a model prior and per-candidate likelihood, or against CRC-verified candidates) to demonstrate that the heuristic does not distort the results.
  2. [Section IV, Method 2 / Eq. (10)] The integrals in Eq. (10) and the claimed closed-form expressions in terms of the error function are asserted without derivation. The Voronoi cell boundaries for the nine-candidate grid, the domain of integration in the complex plane, and the exact truncated Gaussian density f(Delta_h_E^(m)) are not specified. Without these details, the Fig. 4 results cannot be reproduced or checked. Please provide the integration limits for the candidate grid, the derivation of the closed forms, and the explicit form of the truncated Gaussian distribution used.
  3. [Section IV, baseline comparison] The only baseline in Figs. 2-4 is a receiver that ignores CEE and uses the pilot-based estimate in the LLR computation. CEE-aware LLR computation already exists, e.g., the method of [21] referenced in Section II. Without a comparison to at least one such baseline, the claimed gains of 'several dBs' demonstrate an advantage over a deliberately naive receiver but not over existing state-of-the-art practice. Please add a CEE-aware LLR decoding baseline for the same codes and parameters to substantiate the central claim.
  4. [Section IV, simulation details] The simulation evidence is narrow and incomplete: only two parameter configurations are reported (sigma_E^2 = 0.01 with MMSE and 16-QAM for Method 1; sigma_E^2 = 0.1 with ML and QPSK for Method 2), no code is provided, no confidence intervals are given, and the number of Monte Carlo trials is not stated. The mechanisms for generating Rice fading, the CEE h_E, and the pilot-based estimate are not described in enough detail to allow replication. Please provide these details and, ideally, additional configurations to separate the effects of the code, detector, constellation, and sigma_E^2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A, Algorithm 1] The notation P(m) is overloaded: in Algorithm 1 it denotes the value computed from Eq. (8), but the text alternates between calling it 'posterior probability', 'posterior likelihood', and 'weight'. It should be made precise that Eq. (8) gives the probability of the guessed noise sequence given the candidate-specific LLRs, not the posterior probability of the codeword.
  2. [Remark 1] The independence assumption P(z^(m), Delta_C^(m)) = P(z^(m)) P(Delta_C^(m)) used for the weighted variant is stated without justification. Since this weighting is presented as an optional improvement, either a justification or a sensitivity analysis of the final BLER with respect to this assumption should be included.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 4] The parameter values for Fig. 4 (sigma_E^2 = 0.1, ML detector, QPSK) appear only in the text, not in the figure caption. Include them in the caption for readability.
  4. [Section II-B, Eq. (4)] The zero-forcing expression is correct but could be cleaner: the equalized output is y_ZF = x + (h_E / h_hat) x_i + n_i / h_hat; the current notation is understandable but slightly confusing because of the repeated index i in the text description.
  5. [General] The text contains some typographical issues, including 'V orono¨ı' with a misplaced space, 'algrithm' in Remark 1, and 'the the' style slips. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multi-candidate selection procedure is an independent heuristic evaluated against genie-aided and CEE-ignoring baselines.

full rationale

The paper's claimed BLER gains are obtained from Monte Carlo simulation comparing receiver strategies that ignore CEE, apply the proposed candidate-selection Methods 1 and 2, and use a genie-aided upper bound. The selection rule in Algorithm 1 uses the ORBGRAND posterior expression (8)-(9), which is taken from the externally published derivation in [25]; it is not fitted to the BLER curves and is not defined in terms of the target codeword. The channel-candidate offsets in (11) are fixed from the CEE variance, not optimized against the simulation outcomes. The authors' self-citations are to prior GRAND/ORBGRAND papers that establish the decoder and the posterior formula; those results have independent derivations and are not used to assert a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative methods. The skeptical concern that Eq. (8) may be miscalibrated when the channel candidate differs from the true channel is a correctness or heuristic question, not a circularity: it does not make the output equal to the input by construction. Because the evaluation is self-contained against external benchmarks and the central contribution is the multi-candidate selection procedure rather than a re-derivation of its inputs, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method builds on standard channel and noise models plus the ORBGRAND posterior formula. The main extra assumptions are the candidate-selection heuristic, the truncated-Gaussian residual CEE model, and the independence assumption in Remark 1. Free parameters are limited to the hand-chosen candidate geometry and optional weighting, none fitted to the target BLER curves.

free parameters (3)
  • Candidate spacing delta = sigma_E/sqrt(2)
    Hand-chosen spacing of the M channel candidates around the pilot estimate, used in Eq. (11) and Fig. 4; not optimized or derived.
  • Number of candidates M = 5 (Method 1), 9 (Method 2)
    M is set to 5 in Eq. (11) and 9 in Fig. 4; the BLER gain depends on this choice.
  • Optional posterior weighting by CEE pdf = P(m) * f_hE(delta_C^(m))
    Introduced ad hoc in Remark 1 as an alternative selection score; assumes independence of the noise sequence and candidate offset without derivation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat-fading AWGN channel with Rice/Rayleigh fading, unit average energy, and Gaussian channel estimation error h_E with variance sigma_E^2.
    System model in Section II-A; all simulations assume this model.
  • standard math ORBGRAND posterior likelihood formula P(z)=prod_{l:z_l=0}(1-B_l) prod_{l:z_l=1}B_l with B_l=e^{-|lambda_l|}/(1+e^{-|lambda_l|}).
    Taken from [25], Eqs. (8)-(9) in Section II-C; used as the selection metric.
  • ad hoc to paper The candidate with highest P(m) is the most probable correct codeword even when LLRs are computed under mismatched channel candidates.
    Algorithm 1's selection step m*=argmax_m P(m); no proof is provided that Eq. (8) remains consistent across candidates.
  • domain assumption For Method 2, the true channel lies in the Voronoi cell of each tested candidate, and the residual CEE is a Gaussian truncated to that cell.
    Section III-B, Eq. (10) integrates over the Voronoi cell boundaries.
  • ad hoc to paper The decoded noise sequence and the candidate offset are independent, used in Remark 1's weighting.
    Remark 1 states P(z, delta)=P(z)P(delta) as a hypothesis to justify re-weighting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Error Correction and Fading Channel Estimation Enhancement Leveraging GRAND." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYJN5OOI

@misc{pith2026250614756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Error Correction and Fading Channel Estimation Enhancement Leveraging GRAND},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYJN5OOI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14756}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel method for error correction in the presence of fading channel estimation errors (CEE). When such errors are significant, considerable performance losses can be observed if the wireless transceiver is not adapted. Instead of refining the estimate by increasing the pilot sequence length or improving the estimation algorithm, we propose two new approaches based on Guessing Random Additive Noise Decoding (GRAND) decoders. The first method involves testing multiple candidates for the channel estimate located in the complex neighborhood around the original pilot-based estimate. All these candidates are employed in parallel to compute log-likelihood ratios (LLR). These LLRs are used as soft input to Ordered Reliability Bits GRAND (ORBGRAND). Posterior likelihood formulas associated with ORBGRAND are then computed to determine which channel candidate leads to the most probable codeword. The second method is a refined version of the first approach accounting for the presence of residual CEE in the LLR computation. The performance of these two techniques is evaluated for [128,112] 5G NR CA-Polar and CRC codes. For the considered settings, block error rate (BLER) gains of several dBs are observed compared to cases where CEE is ignored.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14756 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the fading channel along with nine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of Method 1 for a [128,112] CRC code. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of Method 1 for a [128,112] CA-Polar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance of Method 2 for a [128,112] CRC code. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

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. Closed-Loop Bayesian Bandit Encoder with GRAND Receiver for a Bursty Interference Channel

    cs.IT 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In simulation, a receiver that learns bursty interference makes non-interleaved transmission preferable to interleaved, reversing the preference once the learned decoder is active.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [21]

    The LLR metric for q-ary LDPC codes with MPSK modulation over Rayleigh channels with im- perfect CSI,

    ——, “The LLR metric for q-ary LDPC codes with MPSK modulation over Rayleigh channels with im- perfect CSI,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 1793–1799, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    A. J. Goldsmith, Wireless Communications. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [2]

    Pilot-assisted wireless transmissions: general model, design criteria, and signal processing,

    L. Tong, B. Sadler, and M. Dong, “Pilot-assisted wireless transmissions: general model, design criteria, and signal processing,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 12–25, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    A. F. Molisch, Wireless Communications. Wiley, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [4]

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

    A. Riaz, V . Bansal, A. Solomon, W. An, Q. Liu, K. Galli- gan, K. R. Duffy, M. Medard, and R. T. Yazicigil, “Multi- code multi-rate universal maximum likelihood decoder using GRAND,” in IEEE ESSCIRC 2021 , pp. 239–246

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    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. V ery Large Scale Integr . (VLSI) Syst. , pp. 1–13, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    A universal maximum likelihood GRAND decoder in 40nm CMOS,

    A. Riaz, M. Medard, K. R. Duffy, and R. T. Yazicigil, “A universal maximum likelihood GRAND decoder in 40nm CMOS,” in COMSNETS 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    R. W. J. Heath, Introduction to Wireless Digital Com- munication: A Signal Processing Perspective . Pearson, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    MAP-based channel estimation for MIMO–OFDM over fast rayleigh fading channels,

    J.-G. Kim and J.-T. Lim, “MAP-based channel estimation for MIMO–OFDM over fast rayleigh fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology , vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1963–1968, 2008

    1963

  2. [9]

    Power of deep learning for channel estimation and signal detection in OFDM systems,

    H. Ye, G. Y . Li, and B.-H. Juang, “Power of deep learning for channel estimation and signal detection in OFDM systems,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 114–117, 2018

    2018

  3. [10]

    Blind channel estimation for MIMO-OFDM systems,

    C. Shin, R. W. Heath, and E. J. Powers, “Blind channel estimation for MIMO-OFDM systems,” IEEE Transac- tions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 670– 685, 2007

    2007

  4. [11]

    An overview of massive mimo: Benefits and challenges,

    L. Lu, G. Y . Li, A. L. Swindlehurst, A. Ashikhmin, and R. Zhang, “An overview of massive mimo: Benefits and challenges,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 742–758, 2014

    2014

  5. [12]

    Making cell-free mas- sive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and cen- tralized implementation,

    E. Bj ¨ornson and L. Sanguinetti, “Making cell-free mas- sive MIMO competitive with MMSE processing and cen- tralized implementation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77–90, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    How much training is needed in multiple-antenna wireless links?

    B. Hassibi and B. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in multiple-antenna wireless links?” IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory , vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 951– 963, 2003

    2003

  7. [14]

    Fading channels: how per- fect need

    A. Lapidoth and S. Shamai, “Fading channels: how per- fect need ”perfect side information” be?” in Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Information Theory and Communica- tions Workshop (Cat. No. 99EX253) , 1999, pp. 36–38

    1999

  8. [15]

    Multiple-antenna signal- ing over fading channels with estimated channel state information: Capacity analysis,

    S. Furrer and D. Dahlhaus, “Multiple-antenna signal- ing over fading channels with estimated channel state information: Capacity analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 2028–2043, 2007

    2007

  9. [16]

    Outage be- havior of discrete memoryless channels under channel estimation errors,

    P. Piantanida, G. Matz, and P. Duhamel, “Outage be- havior of discrete memoryless channels under channel estimation errors,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 4221–4239, 2009

    2009

  10. [17]

    Joint channel estimation and coding over channels with memory using polar codes,

    N. Ghaddar, Y .-H. Kim, L. B. Milstein, L. Ma, and B. K. Yi, “Joint channel estimation and coding over channels with memory using polar codes,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 6575–6589, 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    Joint channel estimation and decoding for polar coded SCMA system over fading channels,

    J. Jiao, K. Liang, B. Feng, Y . Wang, S. Wu, and Q. Zhang, “Joint channel estimation and decoding for polar coded SCMA system over fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Net- working, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 210–221, 2021

    2021

  12. [19]

    Modeling fading channel-estimation errors in pilot-symbol-assisted sys- tems, with application to turbo codes,

    B. Mielczarek and A. Svensson, “Modeling fading channel-estimation errors in pilot-symbol-assisted sys- tems, with application to turbo codes,” IEEE Transac- tions on Communications , vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 1822– 1832, 2005

    2005

  13. [20]

    Soft-decision-aided channel es- timation over the flat-fading channel, and an application to iterative decoding using an example LTE turbo code,

    H. Yuan and P.-Y . Kam, “Soft-decision-aided channel es- timation over the flat-fading channel, and an application to iterative decoding using an example LTE turbo code,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 6027–6040, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Capacity-achieving guessing random additive noise decoding,

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

    2019

  15. [23]

    Keep the bursts and ditch the interleavers,

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

    2022

  16. [24]

    Soft maxi- mum likelihood decoding using GRAND,

    A. Solomon, K. R. Duffy, and M. M ´edard, “Soft maxi- mum likelihood decoding using GRAND,” in IEEE ICC 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ordered reliability bits guessing random additive noise decoding,

    K. R. Duffy, W. An, and M. M ´edard, “Ordered reliability bits guessing random additive noise decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 70, pp. 4528– 4542, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    ORBGRAND is almost capacity-achieving,

    M. Liu, Y . Wei, Z. Chen, and W. Zhang, “ORBGRAND is almost capacity-achieving,” IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory , vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2830–2840, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    GRAND-EDGE: A univer- sal, jamming-resilient algorithm with error-and-erasure decoding,

    F. Ercan, K. Galligan, D. Starobinski, M. M ´edard, K. R. Duffy, and R. T. Yazicigil, “GRAND-EDGE: A univer- sal, jamming-resilient algorithm with error-and-erasure decoding,” in IEEE ICC 2023 , pp. 4501–4507

    2023

  20. [28]

    GRAND for fading channels using pseudo-soft information,

    H. Sarieddeen, M. M ´edard, and K. R. Duffy, “GRAND for fading channels using pseudo-soft information,” in IEEE GLOBECOM 2022 , pp. 3502–3507

    2022

  21. [29]

    On the information loss of the Max-Log approximation in BICM systems,

    M. Ivanov, C. H ¨ager, F. Br ¨annstr¨om, A. Graell i Amat, A. Alvarado, and E. Agrell, “On the information loss of the Max-Log approximation in BICM systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3011–3025, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Large MIMO detection schemes based on channel puncturing: Performance and complexity analysis,

    H. Sarieddeen, M. M. Mansour, and A. Chehab, “Large MIMO detection schemes based on channel puncturing: Performance and complexity analysis,” IEEE Transac- tions on Communications , vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 2421–2436, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    CRC codes as error correction codes,

    W. An, M. M ´edard, and K. R. Duffy, “CRC codes as error correction codes,” in ICC 2021 , pp. 1–6

    2021

  24. [32]

    5G NR CA-Polar maximum likelihood decoding by GRAND,

    K. R. Duffy, A. Solomon, K. M. Konwar, and M. M´edard, “5G NR CA-Polar maximum likelihood decoding by GRAND,” in CISS 2020 , pp. 1–5

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.