Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Decoder for Error-Correcting Codes

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid decoder that alternates Mamba layers, an efficient state-space sequence model, with Transformer attention layers, masks both with the code's parity-check structure, and supervises every layer, outperforming Transformer-only and…

desk verdict Promising hybrid decoder with real empirical gains, but the defining f(H) mask equations are dimensionally invalid and the central mechanism is not reproducible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17834 v1 pith:OIVQCWJ7 submitted 2025-05-23 cs.IT cs.AIcs.LGmath.IT

Shy-el Cohen , Yoni Choukroun , Eliya Nachmani This is my paper
classification cs.ITcs.AIcs.LGmath.IT
keywords learneddecodingerror-correctingcodesMambastate-spacemodelTransformerattentionparity-checkmaskingprogressivelayer-wiselossBCHandPolarLDPC
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

The paper tries to establish that a decoder alternating Mamba layers, an efficient state-space sequence model, with Transformer attention layers can beat both a Transformer-only decoder and a standard Mamba decoder for binary linear block codes. The proposed design, called ECCM, restricts the Mamba layers' state updates with a mask built from the code's parity-check matrix, and adds a progressive loss that supervises the output of every layer. The reported experiments show consistent gains across BCH, Polar, and MacKay codes, up to an 18 percent relative improvement in $-\ln(\mathrm{BER})$ on some BCH and Polar codes, roughly comparable results on LDPC codes, and lower measured inference latency than the compared Transformer decoders. If the claim holds, learned decoding becomes simultaneously more accurate and faster, which matters for real-time communication and storage systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mask $f(H) = [H; I_{n-k}]$, a 0/1 matrix built from the parity-check matrix $H$ and an identity block; applied inside each Mamba block to the discretized state-space matrices, it is intended to make a position's state update depend only on positions that share a parity check. The Transformer blocks use the earlier $g(H)$ mask from ECCT, which restricts attention to pairs lying on a common parity-check line, giving the hybrid a global but code-structured receptive field. The third mechanism is a progressive layer-wise loss: each layer's output is projected to an error estimate, the binary cross-entropy with the true error vector is summed over layers, and inference stops early once the syndrome of the current estimate matches the received syndrome. Together these parts are meant to let the model combine Mamba's linear-cost sequential processing with Transformer's global context while keeping the code structure explicit at every depth.

What would settle it

Inspect the forward-pass tensor shapes for BCH(63,45), where $n-k=18$ and $L=81$: Eq. 13 requires $f(H)[l,d]$ for $l$ up to 81 even though $f(H)$ is declared to have only 18 rows; if no transposition or padding rescues the formula, then re-running the Table 2 ablation with the mask corrected, expected to reproduce $-\ln(\mathrm{BER})$ values 7.01/10.12/14.26 for the full model and 6.86/9.88/13.76 with the $g(H)$ mask, would settle whether the mask is responsible for the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a hybrid decoder is better than either of its ingredients: interleaving Mamba blocks and Transformer blocks, with a parity-check-derived mask applied inside each Mamba block and a binary cross-entropy loss summed over every layer, yields lower bit error rates than the ECCT family, the accelerated HPSA variant, and CrossMPT on most tested codes. The reported measurements show ECCM surpassing CrossMPT by a double-digit relative margin in $-\ln(\mathrm{BER})$ on BCH(63,45), and improving on Polar(128,86) by about 7 percent at the lowest tested SNR, while trading small differences on LDPC codes and doing so at per-codeword inference times roughly two to four times faster in the measured runs. The paper attributes these gains jointly to the hybrid layout, the new $f(H)$ mask, and the layer-wise loss, with ablations on BCH(63,45) showing that removing any one of the three reduces performance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $f(H)$ mask is applied to the Mamba state updates exactly as the equations intend; the indexing in Eq. 13 does not match the mask's declared dimensions, so the parity-check restriction that the reported gains depend on is not established from the text alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the tested BCH and Polar codes, ECCM's $-\ln(\mathrm{BER})$ exceeds the best previous neural decoder by up to 18 percent.
  • On LDPC(121,60), ECCM trails CrossMPT by about 0.39 at 5 dB and 0.55 at 6 dB while running faster, and the paper notes that combining ECCM with CrossMPT may close that gap.
  • The early-stopping rule ties computation to channel quality: at 6 dB the average inference time drops to about 55 percent of the no-early-stopping time on LDPC(121,60) and Polar(128,96), since later layers are skipped.
  • The ablations attribute each gain to a separate design choice, so the three components, hybrid layout, $f(H)$ mask, and multi-layer loss, each earn their place.
  • The method carries over to any linear block code with a known parity-check matrix, since both masks are constructed directly from $H$.
  • The syndrome-based early-stopping rule means that the same trained model adapts its latency to channel quality without retraining.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test longer codes; because the Mamba path has linear cost in sequence length, the speed advantage over attention-only decoders should widen as block length grows beyond $n=128$, which is a testable scaling prediction.
  • If the apparent dimension mismatch in Eq. 13 is real, the credit assigned to the $f(H)$ mask is unverified; a corrected re-run of the BCH(63,45) ablation would either confirm the masking mechanism or redistribute the gain to the hybrid layout and the layer-wise loss.
  • The syndrome-based early stopping is a general compute-adaptive idea; it could be ported to belief-propagation-style neural decoders or diffusion decoders to give them the same latency flexibility, something the paper does not explore.
  • The design principle, structured sparsity in the sequential path and structured attention in the global path, could generalize beyond channel decoding to any sequence task with known constraint structure, though the paper does not claim this.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ECCM, a hybrid decoder for binary linear block codes that alternates Mamba and Transformer layers. It introduces a parity-check-derived mask f(H) intended to restrict Mamba state updates to parity-check-line interactions, and a progressive layer-wise BCE loss that supervises intermediate outputs. Experiments on BCH, Polar, LDPC, and MacKay codes compare against BP, ARBP, ECCT, AECCT, and CrossMPT, reporting gains in negative log-BER and in inference speed, with an ablation on BCH(63,45).

Significance. If the architecture and masking mechanism were implemented as described and the results held with proper statistical support, the work would offer a useful efficiency-accuracy trade-off for neural decoding. The systematic multi-code evaluation, early-stopping speed measurements, and inclusion of MacKay codes are strengths. However, the current significance is limited by the undefined f(H) mask procedure, the absence of the claimed Mamba-only baseline, and the lack of code or error bars. The paper does not ship code or machine-checked proofs, so reproducibility rests entirely on the written specification, which is currently incomplete.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.0.1, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The code-aware mask f(H) is defined in Eq. (4) as [H; I_{n-k}], so f(H) has (n-k) rows and 2n-k columns. Equation (13) indexes f(H)[l,d] with l in [1,L] and d in [1,D], where L=2n-k and D=128, and Eq. (14) indexes f(H)[l,s] with s in [1,S]. These indices exceed the dimensions of f(H) whenever l>n-k, d>2n-k, or s>2n-k. The condition d < (n-k) in Eq. (13) does not fix the problem because the first index l still ranges to L. As written, the mask cannot be evaluated, so the central mechanism and the ablation in Table 2 are not reproducible. The authors must specify the intended orientation (e.g., f(H)^T), define how the D and S axes align with the parity-check structure, and provide the exact indexing, preferably with released code.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6, Table 1] The abstract and conclusion claim that ECCM "significantly outperforms ... standard Mamba models," but no Mamba-only baseline appears in Table 1 or in the ablation of Table 2; the only non-hybrid variant in Table 2 is Transformer-only. A decoder with only Mamba layers, with and without the proposed mask, must be evaluated before this claim can be made.
  3. [Section 6, Tables 1-2] All reported results are point estimates. No error bars, number of random seeds, or statistical significance tests are provided, so statements such as "significant improvement" and "over 18%" are not substantiated. The paper should report variance across at least several training runs for the proposed method and ideally for baselines, and should release code to allow independent verification.
  4. [4.0.1, Eq. (15)] Even after repairing the indexing, the mask is applied only to B_i^M and C_i^M, not to the state-transition matrix A-bar in the recurrence h_l[d,s] = A-bar[l,d,s] h_{l-1}[d,s] + B_i^M[l,d,s] u_i_conv[l,d]. Because A-bar is unmasked, information from earlier positions propagates through the state regardless of the B mask. The paper's claim that the f(H) mask "ensures that interactions only happens along the parity check lines" (Section 4) is therefore not entailed by the displayed equations; the authors should specify how the state-transition path is restricted or soften the claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption reads "EECM architecture" but the model is called ECCM throughout the paper.
  2. [Eq. (22)] "hattention heads" should read "h attention heads," and the reshaping notation should specify the tensor permutation explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (30)] Equation (30) indexes y_in[l] for the estimated codeword, but y_in has length L=2n-k while the codeword estimate should have length n; the indexing should clarify which components of y_in are used.
  4. [Eq. (15)] The state h_l is written as h_l[d,s] while A-bar includes an explicit sequence index l, so the state should be denoted h[l,d,s] or the notation made consistent to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Section 5] The sentence "We use the zero-codeword in the training process ... by simply changing to random codewords on model evaluation" is confusing and should be rewritten to state explicitly that training uses the zero codeword and evaluation uses random codewords.
  6. [Section 7.3] The text says "Examining the attention maps Fig 5," but the attention maps are presented as Table 5; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  7. [Section 7.2] The complexity expression in Section 7.2 has an unmatched parenthesis and should be rewritten with balanced parentheses and consistent notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ECCM's reported gains are empirical benchmark results and do not reduce to the model's own definitions or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: ECCM outperforms prior decoders on BCH, Polar, LDPC, and MacKay codes, with results benchmarked against external baselines and measured in -ln(BER). The derivation chain is constructive rather than circular: the model combines a Mamba backbone with Transformer layers, applies a code-derived mask f(H), and adds a progressive layer-wise loss. None of these components is defined in terms of the reported error rates, and the ablation study isolates each contribution against alternate choices such as g(H), single-loss training, and transformer-only layouts. The paper does borrow notation, the g(H) mask, and the HPSA mechanism from prior work, including work by some of the same authors (ECCT, AECCT), but these borrowings are design choices and comparison points, not results that presuppose the claimed outcome. The apparent f(H) index mismatch in Eqs. 13-14 is a reproducibility/correctness concern, not circularity: a malformed mask does not make the measured BER equal to an input by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical pattern is merely relabeled. The score therefore reflects only the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing; the central empirical content is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method relies on the standard AWGN decoding setup, the syndrome-based input representation, and the new f(H) mask. The mask's correctness is questionable due to dimensional inconsistencies in the equations. Training hyperparameters are conventional and not fitted to the result.

free parameters (1)
  • Model hyperparameters = D=128, S=128, h=8, Nblocks=8
    Chosen by hand; performance depends on them but they are conventional values, not fit to a target result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AWGN channel with BPSK and binary linear block codes
    Problem setup used throughout; defines the noise model and code families.
  • domain assumption Syndrome plus magnitude input is a sufficient representation for decoding
    Borrowed from prior work [3]; the method's success depends on this feature being informative.
  • ad hoc to paper The f(H) mask as written in Eq. 13 correctly implements parity-check line interactions in the SSM
    Introduced by the authors; the implementation has a dimension mismatch and is not verified independently.
  • domain assumption Training on the zero codeword generalizes to random codewords
    The authors state they verify this by evaluating on random codewords, but it is a modeling choice that could fail for some codes.
invented entities (1)
  • f(H) mask
    purpose: Restrict Mamba SSM state updates to bits sharing a parity-check line
    A new matrix introduced to inject code structure into the SSM; its benefit is only shown through the paper's own experiments, with no external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Decoder for Error-Correcting Codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OIVQCWJ7

@misc{pith2026250517834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Decoder for Error-Correcting Codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OIVQCWJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17834}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel deep learning method for decoding error correction codes based on the Mamba architecture, enhanced with Transformer layers. Our approach proposes a hybrid decoder that leverages Mamba's efficient sequential modeling while maintaining the global context capabilities of Transformers. To further improve performance, we design a novel layer-wise masking strategy applied to each Mamba layer, allowing selective attention to relevant code features at different depths. Additionally, we introduce a progressive layer-wise loss, supervising the network at intermediate stages and promoting robust feature extraction throughout the decoding process. Comprehensive experiments across a range of linear codes demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms Transformer-only decoders and standard Mamba models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. EECM architecture The ECCM model is composed from Nlayers layers, the layers are alternating between mamba layers and attention layers, starting with a mamba layer. The layers li where i ∈ 1, 3, ... are Mamba layers and the layers li where i ∈ 2, 4, ... are attention blocks. The input to the li layer is denoted y i−1 , with y 0 = yin ⊙ Wemb (1) where Wi emb ∈ R L×D, where D is the model hidden dimension, L = 2n − k,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. BER-SNR performance of ECCM versus baselines, on BCH and POLAR codes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Real-time decoding of quantum error correction codes using high-performance computing

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An HPC-to-quantum-control interconnect achieves 2.944 µs round-trip latency and CPU-based real-time surface-code decoding up to distance 19 at about 1 µs per round.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E. Arikan. Channel polarization: A method for constructing capacity-achieving codes for symmetric binary-input memoryless channels.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 55(7):3051–3073, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. Layer normalization, 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Deep learning for decoding of linear codes-a syndrome-based approach

    Amir Bennatan, Yoni Choukroun, and Pavel Kisilev. Deep learning for decoding of linear codes-a syndrome-based approach. In2018 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 1595–1599. IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    On a class of error correcting binary group codes.Information and control, 3(1):68–79, 1960

    Raj Chandra Bose and Dwijendra K Ray-Chaudhuri. On a class of error correcting binary group codes.Information and control, 3(1):68–79, 1960

    work page 1960

  5. [5]

    Pruning and quantizing neural belief propagation decoders.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 39(7):1957–1966, 2020

    Andreas Buchberger, Christian Häger, Henry D Pfister, Laurent Schmalen, and Alexandre Graell i Amat. Pruning and quantizing neural belief propagation decoders.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 39(7):1957–1966, 2020

    work page 1957

  6. [6]

    Scaling deep learning-based decoding of polar codes via partitioning

    Sebastian Cammerer, Tobias Gruber, Jakob Hoydis, and Stephan Ten Brink. Scaling deep learning-based decoding of polar codes via partitioning. InGLOBECOM 2017-2017 IEEE global communications conference, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Denoising diffusion error correction codes, 2022

    Yoni Choukroun and Lior Wolf. Denoising diffusion error correction codes, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Error correction code transformer, 2022

    Yoni Choukroun and Lior Wolf. Error correction code transformer, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Deep quantum error correction

    Yoni Choukroun and Lior Wolf. Deep quantum error correction. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 64–72, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A foundation model for error correction codes

    Yoni Choukroun and Lior Wolf. A foundation model for error correction codes. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Learning linear block error correction codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04050, 2024

    Yoni Choukroun and Lior Wolf. Learning linear block error correction codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04050, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Vincent Poor, and Shuguang Cui

    Jincheng Dai, Kailin Tan, Zhongwei Si, Kai Niu, Mingzhe Chen, H. Vincent Poor, and Shuguang Cui. Learning to decode protograph ldpc codes.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communi- cations, 39(7):1983–1999, 2021

    1983

  5. [13]

    Learning to decode protograph ldpc codes.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communi- cations, 39(7):1983–1999, 2021

    Jincheng Dai, Kailin Tan, Zhongwei Si, Kai Niu, Mingzhe Chen, H Vincent Poor, and Shuguang Cui. Learning to decode protograph ldpc codes.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communi- cations, 39(7):1983–1999, 2021

    1983

  6. [14]

    Transformers are ssms: Generalized models and efficient algorithms through structured state space duality.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.21060, 2024

    Tri Dao and Albert Gu. Transformers are ssms: Generalized models and efficient algorithms through structured state space duality.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.21060, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Low-density parity-check codes.IRE Transactions on information theory, 8(1):21–28, 2003

    Robert Gallager. Low-density parity-check codes.IRE Transactions on information theory, 8(1):21–28, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    On deep learning- based channel decoding

    Tobias Gruber, Sebastian Cammerer, Jakob Hoydis, and Stephan Ten Brink. On deep learning- based channel decoding. In2017 51st annual conference on information sciences and systems (CISS), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hippo: Recurrent memory with optimal polynomial projections.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1474–1487, 2020

    Albert Gu, Tri Dao, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. Hippo: Recurrent memory with optimal polynomial projections.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1474–1487, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00396, 2021

    Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher Ré. Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00396, 2021. 10

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Combining recurrent, convolutional, and continuous-time models with linear state space layers

    Albert Gu, Isys Johnson, Karan Goel, Khaled Saab, Tri Dao, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. Combining recurrent, convolutional, and continuous-time models with linear state space layers. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:572–585, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Database of channel codes and ml simulation results

    Michael Helmling and Stefan Scholl. Database of channel codes and ml simulation results. www.uni-kl.de/channel-codes, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Gaussian error linear units (gelus), 2023

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. Gaussian error linear units (gelus), 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Communication algorithms via deep learning, 2018

    Hyeji Kim, Yihan Jiang, Ranvir Rana, Sreeram Kannan, Sewoong Oh, and Pramod Viswanath. Communication algorithms via deep learning, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Neural min- sum decoding for generalized ldpc codes.IEEE Communications Letters, 26(12):2841–2845, 2022

    Hee-Youl Kwak, Jae-Won Kim, Yongjune Kim, Sang-Hyo Kim, and Jong-Seon No. Neural min- sum decoding for generalized ldpc codes.IEEE Communications Letters, 26(12):2841–2845, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Boosting learning for ldpc codes to improve the error-floor performance.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:22115–22131, 2023

    Hee-Youl Kwak, Dae-Young Yun, Yongjune Kim, Sang-Hyo Kim, and Jong-Seon No. Boosting learning for ldpc codes to improve the error-floor performance.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:22115–22131, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Accelerating error correction code transformers, 2025

    Matan Levy, Yoni Choukroun, and Lior Wolf. Accelerating error correction code transformers, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts, 2017

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Sgdr: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Loren Lugosch and Warren J. Gross. Neural offset min-sum decoding. In2017 IEEE Interna- tional Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, June 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Learning to decode linear codes using deep learning

    Eliya Nachmani, Yair Be’ery, and David Burshtein. Learning to decode linear codes using deep learning. In2016 54th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pages 341–346. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Deep learning methods for improved decoding of linear codes.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 12(1):119–131, 2018

    Eliya Nachmani, Elad Marciano, Loren Lugosch, Warren J Gross, David Burshtein, and Yair Be’ery. Deep learning methods for improved decoding of linear codes.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 12(1):119–131, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Autoregressive belief propagation for decoding block codes

    Eliya Nachmani and Lior Wolf. Autoregressive belief propagation for decoding block codes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11780, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    How to mask in error correction code transformer: Systematic and double masking

    Seong-Joon Park, Hee-Youl Kwak, Sang-Hyo Kim, Sunghwan Kim, Yongjune Kim, and Jong- Seon No. How to mask in error correction code transformer: Systematic and double masking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08128, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Crossmpt: Cross-attention message-passing transformer for error correcting codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01033, 2024

    Seong-Joon Park, Hee-Youl Kwak, Sang-Hyo Kim, Yongjune Kim, and Jong-Seon No. Crossmpt: Cross-attention message-passing transformer for error correcting codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01033, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    White-box error cor- rection code transformer

    Ziyan Zheng, Chin Wa Lau, Nian Guo, Xiang Shi, and Shao-Lun Huang. White-box error cor- rection code transformer. InThe Second Conference on Parsimony and Learning (Proceedings Track). 11

Pith tools

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