A Comparison of Channel Coding Schemes for 5G
Short Message Transmission
Onurcan İşcan, Diego Lentner, Wen Xu
Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
European Research Center, Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munich, Germany
Email: {onurcan.iscan, diego.lentner, wen.dr.xu}@huawei.com
Abstract—Different coding schemes (Turbo, Polar, binary and
non-binary LDPC and tail-biting convolutional codes) which can
be potentially used in the next generation mobile communication
systems for the short message length regime (message length
𝑘 < 512) are discussed. Their error correction performances are
compared with finite length bounds and the complexities of the
corresponding decoders are evaluated in terms of number of basic
operations. It is shown that significant performance improvement
can be obtained in the short message length regime by replacing
the LTE Turbo code with other modern coding schemes, however,
at a cost of increased decoder complexity.
I. I NTRODUCTION
In communication systems, there exists a delay between the
generation of the message at the source and the reconstruction
of that message at the receiver. Depending on the application,
the delay can have a critical importance. For example, a
delay in orders of seconds might be disturbing for a voice
call, whereas for downloading a file from a server, delays
of several seconds are mostly tolerable. The fifth generation
mobile communication systems (5G) will support a multitude
of services where a low latency is required, such as machine
type communication (MTC) and tactile internet. Design of
the physical layer components becomes critical for supporting
these highly challenging requirements.
Channel coding is an important part of the physical layer
and plays a crucial role in latency and reliability. In gen-
eral, channel encoders and decoders work block-wise, i.e.,
in order the encoder or the decoder to work, the whole
sequence has to be available at the input, which inherently
causes a delay. One way to reduce this delay is to divide
the messages into smaller parts and encode them separately.
However, the choice of the channel code becomes critical
as the error correction performance degrades with decreased
message lengths. Moreover, for short message length channel
coding, many existing design and analysis tools (such as EXIT
and Density Evolution analysis) become less accurate, as they
mostly rely on asymptotic results. Also, Shannon’s channel
coding theorem becomes a not-suitable metric to evaluate the
performance, since it assumes infinite block lengths (hence
an infinite delay) and a vanishing error probability, which is
mostly not of practical interest.
In this work, we consider channel coding schemes that have
the potential to be used in the 5G for short message communi-
cations. In particular, we consider convolutional codes, Turbo
codes, binary and non-binary LDPC codes and Polar codes,
978-1-5090-2482-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
and compare their error correction performances, as well as
their decoding complexity. The paper is structured as follows:
In Section II, we briefly introduce the channel coding schemes
considered in this work, and discuss their decoding complexity.
In Section III, we compare the block error rate performance
on the AWGN channel, together with theoretical bounds. We
also compare the decoding complexity of the discussed codes.
Section IV presents the discussions and concludes the work.
II. C HANNEL C ODES
We briefly introduce the considered channel coding schemes
and show their decoding complexity. As the decoder com-
plexity is highly related to the used hardware, we will only
consider the number of basic operations (such as additions and
multiplications) and assume a naive implementation without
considering the highly optimized decoder structures.
We use 𝑘 to denote the message length, 𝑛 to codeword
length, and 𝐼 to the number of decoder iterations.
A. Convolutional Codes
Convolutional codes are error correction codes that are
widely adopted to many standards due to their many advan-
tages, like low-complexity encoding, possibility for simple
rate-adaptation by puncturing, hardware-friendly decoding al-
gorithms, etc. In contrast to many modern coding schemes,
their bit-error performance does not improve with increasing
message length and hence they are mostly not suitable for
transmitting long messages. However, they still show compa-
rable performance for short message lengths with maximum-
likelihood (ML) decoding.
A convolutional code can be defined by the parameters 𝐾,
𝑁 and 𝑚, which denote the input length, output length and the
number of memory elements, respectively. The convolutional
encoder can be defined with a generator polynomial, that
is mostly given in octal form. Convolutional codes can be
decoded by using the Viterbi algorithm that estimates the
maximum likelihood sequence using the 𝑆 = 2𝑚 state trellis
representation of the code.
The convolutional codes used in LTE standard to trans-
mit control information are tail-biting convolutional codes
(TBCC). TBCCs do not require a termination which may
cause a significant rate loss for short lengths. In this work,
we will consider only TBCC with 𝐾 = 1. In contrast to the
terminated convolutional codes, TBCC can start and end at any
state which is unknown to the decoder. A common approach
to solve this problem is to use circular decoding by extending
the decoding trellis by a decoding depth 𝑡 [1], which can be
chosen as an integer multiple of the constraint length. The
number of basic operations for a TBCC decoder is given in
Table I.
B. Turbo Codes
Turbo codes are powerful error correction codes invented
in the 1990s that are built by parallel concatenating two
convolutional codes, connected via an interleaver, and decoded
iteratively by using two soft-in-soft-out (SISO) decoders that
exchange extrinsic information during each iteration. Their
favorable properties such as low complexity encoders, suit-
ability to simple rate adaptation, and low complexity iterative
decoding schemes made them the channel coding schemes for
the 3G and 4G mobile communication standards. Besides, their
close-to-capacity error correction performance makes them a
very good choice for many applications.
The iterative decoders of Turbo codes rely on exchanging
extrinsic information between two constituent decoders that
work well with long messages. Therefore, the performance
of Turbo codes especially for long codewords can be close
to the theoretical limits. Although the iterative algorithm
loses its effectiveness with decreased message lengths, their
performance for short lengths is still comparable with other
modern coding schemes.
The computationally most challenging part of the Turbo
decoder can be regarded as the max∗ (𝑥, 𝑦) = max(𝑥, 𝑦) +
𝑓𝑐 (𝑥, 𝑦) function in the BCJR algorithm, where 𝑓𝑐 (𝑥, 𝑦) is
a non-linear correction function. To reduce the complexity,
many different methods have been proposed. In this work, we
consider a BCJR decoder with scaled-max-log-MAP decoding
[2] with scaling factor 0.75, which gives a good compromise
between complexity and performance. With this method, one
neglects the correction function 𝑓𝑐 (𝑥, 𝑦) and scales the ex-
trinsic L-values at the input of each decoding iteration by the
scaling factor to compensate the loss due to the approximation.
The number of different operations of a Turbo decoder by
using the scaled-max-log-MAP BCJR algorithm with two
convolutional codes can be seen in Table I.
C. LDPC Codes
LDPC codes were first introduced by R. Gallager in the
early 1960s [3] as a class of sparse linear block codes
that are able to approach the channel capacity (in the long
codeword length regime). They were considered impractical
at that time and were neglected for about 30 years. Soon after
the introduction of Turbo codes in 1990s, LDPC codes were
rediscovered [4], [5] and it is shown that a similar performance
to Turbo codes can be obtained [6]. Nowadays, LDPC codes
have been adopted by several standards such as WiMAX,
DVB-S2, etc.
A binary LDPC code can be defined by a parity check
matrix 𝐻 of size (𝑛 − 𝑘) × 𝑛. The sparsity of the parity
check matrix allows a low complexity decoder using a message
passing algorithm. We use 𝑑¯𝑣 and 𝑑¯𝑐 to denote the average
variable node degree and the average check node degree,
respectively.
LDPC codes are decoded by deploying belief propagation
on a bipartite graph given by their parity check matrix.
Since the check node operation involves multiple non-linear
functions, one typically relies on sub-optimal approximations
like the min-sum decoder. In this work, we use the scaled
min-sum decoder from [7] with the constant scaling factor 0.8.
Similar to the scaled-max-log-MAP decoder for Turbo codes,
the scaled-min-sum decoder can reduce the approximation
error due to min-sum decoding by scaling the outgoing check
node messages by a constant factor.
Non-binary LDPC codes can be regarded as an extension
of the binary LDPC codes, where the parity check matrix is
not binary and has the size 𝑀𝑞 × 𝑁𝑞 , where 𝑁𝑞 = 𝑛/𝑝 and
𝑀𝑞 = (𝑛 − 𝑘)/𝑝 if defined over the Galois field GF(2𝑝 ).
The degrees of the variable nodes and the check nodes are
described as 𝑑𝑣 and 𝑑𝑐 .
Non-binary LDPC codes can be decoded using a message
passing decoder, however with increased complexity. In [8],
it was shown that LDPC codes over non-binary Galois fields
can perform better than their binary counterparts, especially
in the short message length regime. Thus, non-binary LDPC
codes have recently attracted an increasing amount of research
efforts. In this work, we will also consider short LDPC codes
defined over higher order Galois fields decoded with a message
passing decoder. The number of different operations of a non-
binary message passing decoder (working on the probability
domain [9]) can be seen in Table I.
D. Polar Codes
Polar codes are a new class of channel codes introduced by
Arıkan in 2009 [10]. They have attracted great interest because
they can provably achieve the symmetric capacity of binary-
input discrete memoryless channels under low complexity
successive cancellation (SC) decoding. Polar codes rely on
the phenomenon called channel polarization which converts
the transmission channel into virtual bit channels of different
capacities. As the polarization level grows to infinity, the input
channels are transformed into bit channels which are either
completely noiseless or completely noisy under SC decoding.
The fraction of completely noiseless channels approaches the
symmetric capacity of the underlying channel [10]. Polar
encoding is done by assigning input bits to the noiseless
bit channels, and by freezing all other bits to known values.
Extensive research has been done on optimizing polar codes
using different techniques [11], [12], [13].
Although the asymptotic performance of Polar codes is
optimal, the finite length performance under SC decoding is
not comparable with other modern codes like Turbo and LDPC
codes. However, by employing successive cancellation list
(SCL) decoding and CRC-aided SCL decoding [14], [15] with
list size 𝐿 and CRC-size 𝑧, the performance can be improved
significantly.
 TABLE I
D ECODING C OMPLEXITY FOR C HANNEL C ODES IN T ERMS OF BASIC O PERATIONS
Channel Code Additions / Subtractions
TBCC (𝑘 + 2𝑡)𝑆(2𝑁 + 2)
(2𝐼 − 1)
Turbo [(𝑘 + 𝑚)(2𝑆)(2 + 𝑁 )
+𝑘(4𝑆 + 1)] + 4(𝐼 − 1)𝑘
LDPC 𝐼𝑛𝑑¯2 𝑣
NB-LDPC GF(𝑞 = 2𝑝 ) 𝐼 [𝑁𝑞 𝑑𝑣 (𝑞 − 1) + 𝑀𝑞 𝑑𝑐 𝑞𝑝]
Polar + CRC 𝐿𝑛/2 log 𝑛 + 𝐿(𝑘 + 𝑛)
In this work, we consider Polar codes concatenated with
a CRC code, which are decoded with a SCL decoder and
the CRC is used to select the correct codeword from the list
of codewords at the output of the decoder. The number of
different operations for the CRC-aided SCL decoder can be
found in Table I.
III. E RROR C ORRECTION P ERFORMANCE AND
C OMPUTATIONAL C OMPLEXITY E VALUATION
In this section, we evaluate the performances of different
coding schemes for short message lengths. In order to simplify
the evaluation, we set the code rate to 𝑅 = 1/2 and evaluate
the block error rate (BLER) performance of different codes
with message length 𝑘 ≤ 512 on an AWGN channel with
BPSK modulation by means of Monte Carlo simulation at
different SNR levels, where the simulation is stopped after at
least 100 block errors.
Since the codes investigated here are of short length, Shan-
non’s capacity is not a suitable theoretical bound, because it
relies on infinite length codewords. Instead, we compare our
results with the recently developed finite length performance
bounds of Polyanskiy et al [16], where tight bounds on the
block error rate performance depending on the message length
are given. Specifically, we use the Gaussian approximation of
the bounds (also given in [16]) for BPSK modulated AWGN
channel. The details of the studied codes are as follows:
Convolutional Codes: We use two different tail-biting con-
volutional codes. TBCC 1 has memory 𝑚 = 6 and has the
generators 133 and 171, both in octal as in the LTE standard.
TBCC 2 has memory 𝑚 = 10 and has the generators 4672
and 7542 in octal representation. Both TBCC 1 and TBCC 2
are decoded with a decoding depth 𝑡 = 6 ⋅ (𝑚 + 1).
Turbo Codes: We use the Turbo codes from the LTE
standard with two identical constituent convolutional codes
with the feedforward and feedback generators 15 and 13 in
octal, respectively. We puncture the code to obtain the code-
rate 𝑅 = 1/2 according to the rate matching method specified
in the LTE standard [17] and decode with 10 iterations of
scaled-max-log-map decoding with scaling factor 0.75.
Multiplications Divisions XOR
- - -
2(𝐼 − 1)𝑘 - -
𝐼(𝑛 − 𝑘)(2𝑑¯𝑐 + 3) - -
𝐼 [𝑁𝑞 𝑑𝑣 (𝑑𝑣 − 1)𝑞
+3𝑀𝑞 (𝑑𝑐 − 2)𝑞] 𝐼𝑁𝑞 𝑑𝑣 𝑞 -
+𝑁𝑞 𝑑𝑣 𝑞
3𝐿𝑛 log 𝑛
𝐿𝑛 log 𝑛 - +𝐿(𝑘 + 𝑛) + 2𝐿𝑘 log 2𝐿
+(𝑘 + 𝑧)𝐿
LDPC Codes: We use protograph based AR3A codes [18]
which are lifted by using progressive edge growth algorithm to
obtain the desired lengths. We decode with a message passing
decoder using scaled min-sum algorithm where the outgoing
messages from each check node are scaled by the factor 0.8.
Note that the protograph contains punctured variable nodes
and hence decoding occurs over a larger parity check matrix,
which is also considered during the calculation of the decoder
complexity.
Non-Binary LDPC Codes: We use regular Non-binary
LDPC codes in GF(256) with variable node degree 2 and check
node degree 4, where the non-binary coefficients of the parity
check matrix is selected randomly from the set of optimized
coefficients in [8]. We decode with a message passing decoder
in probability domain [9] with 100 iterations.
Polar Codes: We use Polar+CRC codes where the set of
frozen bits are obtained numerically by using density evolution
[11]. CRC of length 8 is used for 𝑘 < 128 bits and CRC of
length 16 is used for 𝑘 ≥ 128 bits. We decode with a SCL
decoder with 𝐿 = 32 and 𝐿 = 1024.
A. Error Correction Performance
Fig. 1 to 4 show the block error rate (BLER) performance
of the studied codes for message lengths 𝑘 = 64, 128, 256 and
512, together with the finite length bounds. One can observe
that except for the TBCC 1, all the other coding schemes
outperform LTE Turbo codes and LDPC codes in terms of
BLER performance for all lengths. TBCC 2 outperforms LTE
Turbo code for lengths 𝑘 ≤ 128, and Polar codes with 𝐿 =
1024 and NB-LDPC codes perform close to the finite length
bounds.
Fig. 5 shows the required 𝐸𝑏 /𝑁0 to achieve a target BLER
of 0.001 for different choices of message lengths and coding
schemes. One observes that performance improvement of the
modern codes compared to LTE Turbo code reduces as the
message length increases. One can conclude that especially for
very short message lengths (𝑘 ≤ 128), significant improvement
can be obtained by replacing the LTE Turbo code by other
modern codes.
 100 100

10−1 10−1

10−2 10−2
BLER

BLER
TBCC 1 TBCC 1
TBCC 2 TBCC 2
10−3 LTE Turbo 10−3 LTE Turbo
Polar+CRC 𝐿 = 32 Polar+CRC 𝐿 = 32
Polar+CRC 𝐿 = 1024 Polar+CRC 𝐿 = 1024
10−4 LDPC 10−4 LDPC
NB-LDPC GF(256) NB-LDPC GF(256)
Polyanskiy Approx. Polyanskiy Approx.
10−5 10−5
−2 0 2 4 −2 0 2 4
𝐸𝑏 /𝑁0 [dB] 𝐸𝑏 /𝑁0 [dB]

Fig. 1. Block error rate for different channel codes of rate 𝑅 = 1/2 and Fig. 3. Block error rate for different channel codes of rate 𝑅 = 1/2 and with
with 𝑘 = 64 on AWGN channel with BPSK modulation. message length 𝑘 = 256 bits on AWGN channel with BPSK modulation.

100 100

10−1 10−1

10−2 10−2
BLER

BLER

TBCC 1 TBCC 1
TBCC 2 TBCC 2
10−3 LTE Turbo 10−3 LTE Turbo
Polar+CRC 𝐿 = 32 Polar+CRC 𝐿=32
Polar+CRC 𝐿 = 1024 Polar+CRC 𝐿=1024
10−4 LDPC 10−4 LDPC
NB-LDPC GF(256) NB-LDPC GF(256)
Polyanskiy Approx. Polyanskiy Approx.
10−5 10−5
−2 0 2 4 −2 0 2 4
𝐸𝑏 /𝑁0 [dB] 𝐸𝑏 /𝑁0 [dB]

Fig. 2. Block error rate for different channel codes of rate 𝑅 = 1/2 and with Fig. 4. Block error rate for different channel codes of rate 𝑅 = 1/2 and with
message length 𝑘 = 128 bits on AWGN channel with BPSK modulation. message length 𝑘 = 512 bits on AWGN channel with BPSK modulation.

B. Complexity Comparison terms of memory requirements or any parallelization aspects.

The decoder complexity for different classes of codes de-
pends on many factors, such as the used hardware technol-
ogy and implementation details. Moreover, if implemented in
hardware optimizations can be done individually for each of
the decoding methods, which would make a fair comparison
difficult. Note that lots of work has been done in reducing
the decoder complexity of the discussed codes. In this work
we assume a naive implementation of the decoders and use
the number of basic operations (additions, subtractions, mul-
tiplications, divisions and binary additions) as our complexity
metric, as given in Table I. We do not consider complexity in
Except for division, all other basic operations can be real-
ized within one cycle, and therefore they can be summed up
to give a rough complexity figure of merit (FOM). For a small
number of divisions, this operation can usually be replaced by
look-up tables and multiplications. For this reason, we also
sum up the divisions and include them into the complexity
FOM.
Fig. 6 shows the number of basic operations for different de-
coders and message lengths. One can observe that NB-LDPC
codes in GF(256) and Polar+CRC codes with 𝐿 = 1024 show
the highest decoder complexity, with significant performance
 BPSK Constr. Cap.
5 Poly. Apr. for BPSK
TBCC 1
TBCC 2
𝐸𝑏 /𝑁0 [dB] @ BLER = 0.001
4 LTE Turbo
Polar+CRC 𝐿=32
Polar+CRC 𝐿=1024
LDPC
3
NB-LDPC GF(256)
2 TBCC 2
1 Polar+CRC 𝐿 = 1024
0 102
0 100 200 300 400
Message Length 𝑘 [bits]
Fig. 5. Required 𝐸𝑏 /𝑁0 to achieve a target BLER with channel codes of rate
𝑅 = 1/2 on AWGN channel with BPSK modulation for different message
lengths 𝑘 ≤ 512, together with Shannon’s BPSK constrained capacity, and
the Gaussian approximation of Polynaskiy’s finite length bound [16].
gains in terms of BLER, whereas LTE Turbo codes, LDPC
codes, and Polar+CRC with 𝐿 = 32 show similar decoding
complexity. The complexity of the tail-biting convolutional
codes scales with the number of states. The complexity of
TBCC 1 with 𝑚 = 6 is lower than other candidates, whereas
the TBCC 2 with 𝑚 = 10 has complexity higher than the LTE
Turbo code.
IV. D ISCUSSIONS AND C ONCLUSION
According to our simulation results, one can make the
following interpretations:
∙ LTE Turbo codes and LDPC codes show a similar error-
correction performance at comparable decoder complex-
ities. Across all considered message lengths, both codes
have a gap of 1 ∼ 2.5dB to the finite length bounds which
can be especially important for short message lengths.
By using other modern channel coding schemes such
as NB-LDPC codes over higher order Galois fields or
Polar+CRC codes with SCL decoding, one can reduce
this gap and improve the error correction performance
by up to 1dB. However, this performance improvement
would come at a cost of increased decoder complexity.
∙ Tail-biting convolutional codes with medium size mem-
ory elements perform well for very short message lengths
(such as 64 bits), and have decoders with lower complex-
ity. However, their error correction performance is not
well suited for longer messages. For very short message
lengths, one can obtain further improvement by utilizing
codes with higher memory such that the performance
becomes comparable to other modern channel codes. The
complexity can still be kept lower than Polar codes and
108
107
Number of Operations
106
105
TBCC 1
104 LTE Turbo
Polar+CRC 𝐿 = 32
103
LDPC
NB-LDPC GF(256)
500 100 200 300 400 500
Message Length 𝑘 [bits]
Fig. 6. Decoder complexity in terms of number of basic operations for
different message lengths.
NB-LDPC codes. Therefore, TBCC can also be consid-
ered as a good alternative for the very short messages.
∙ Polar+CRC codes with list decoding performs especially
well with large list sizes, which usually also have a high
decoding complexity. One advantage of the list decoding
is that the receiver can adjust the list size according to its
computational power, which makes SCL flexible in terms
of decoding complexity.
∙ NB-LDPC codes also show promising performance.
However, similar to Polar codes with large list sizes, their
decoding complexity is very high.
Note that the decoding performance of the discussed codes
mainly depend on two aspects: code properties and decoder
properties. As one increases the list size of a Polar decoder,
one obtains a close-to-ML decoder. Therefore for very large
list sizes, code properties (such as the minimum distance)
have an important role. Similarly, NB-LDPC decoders process
block of bits jointly (instead of bitwise like the binary LDPC
codes). As the field order grows, more bits are processed
jointly, which improves the decoding performance.
The relatively poor performance of LTE Turbo codes and
binary LDPC codes in the short message length regime is
partly due to the suboptimal iterative decoding method. By
decoding the Turbo or LDPC code with an ML decoder,
one can also improve the performance, at a cost of higher
computational complexity. Some simulation results on ML
decoding of Turbo codes and LPDC codes can be found in
[19], [20].
To sum up, the short message length channel coding per-
formance of the next generation systems can be significantly
improved by using better codes (e.g. with better distance prop-
erties), or more importantly by allowing higher computational
complexity at the receivers. How to enhance existing codes to
have better code properties (e.g. minimum distance) and how
to lower the decoding complexities of modern codes remain
as interesting future work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has partly been performed in the framework
of the Horizon 2020 project FANTASTIC-5G (ICT-671660)
receiving funds from the European Union. The authors would
like to acknowledge the contributions of their colleagues in the
project, although the views expressed in this work are those
of the authors and do not necessarily represent the project.
The authors also thank Giuliano Garrammone for his help on
designing NB-LDPC codes.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Sung, “Minimum decoding trellis lengths for tail-biting convolutional
codes,” Elect. Let., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 643–645, 2000.
[2] J. Vogt and A. Finger, “Improving the max-log-MAP turbo decoder,”
Elect. Let., vol. 36, no. 23, p. 1, 2000.
[3] R. Gallager, “Low-density parity-check codes,” IRE Trans. on Inf.
Theory, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 21–28, 1962.
[4] D. J. MacKay and R. M. Neal, “Near shannon limit performance of low
density parity check codes,” Elect. Let., vol. 32, no. 18, pp. 1645–1646,
1996.
[5] D. J. MacKay, “Good error-correcting codes based on very sparse
matrices,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 399–431, 1999.
[6] T. J. Richardson, M. A. Shokrollahi, and R. L. Urbanke, “Design of
capacity-approaching irregular low-density parity-check codes,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 619–637, 2001.
[7] J. Chen, A. Dholakia, E. Eleftheriou, M. P. C. Fossorier, and X.-Y. Hu,
“Reduced-complexity decoding of LDPC codes,” IEEE Tran. on Comm.,
vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1288–1299, August 2005.
[8] C. Poulliat, M. Fossorier, and D. Declercq, “Design of regular (2, 𝑑𝑐 )-
LDPC codes over GF(q) using their binary images,” IEEE Trans. on
Comm., vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 1626–1635, 2008.
[9] L. Costantini, B. Matuz, G. Liva, E. Paolini, and M. Chiani, “Non-binary
protograph low-density parity-check codes for space communications,”
Int. Journal of Sat. Commu. and Net., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 43–51, 2012.
[10] E. Arikan, “Channel polarization: A method for constructing capacity-
achieving codes for symmetric binary-input memoryless channels,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 3051–3073, July 2009.
[11] R. Mori and T. Tanaka, “Performance and construction of polar codes
on symmetric binary-input memoryless channels,” in Proceedings of the
2009 IEEE Int. Symp. on Inf. Theory (ISIT), June 2009, pp. 1496–1500.
[12] P. Trifonov, “Efficient design and decoding of polar codes,” IEEE Trans.
on Comm., vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3221–3227, November 2012.
[13] I. Tal and A. Vardy, “How to construct polar codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6562–6582, October 2013.
[14] ——, “List decoding of polar codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 61,
no. 5, pp. 2213–2226, May 2015.
[15] A. Balatsoukas-Stimming, M. B. Parizi, and A. Burg, “LLR-based
successive cancellation list decoding of polar codes,” IEEE Trans. on
Sig. Proc., vol. 63, no. 19, pp. 5165–5179, October 2015.
[16] Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdú, “Channel coding rate in the
finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 5, pp.
2307–2359, 2010.
[17] T. ETSI, “136 212 LTE; Evolved universal terrestrial radio access (E-
UTRA); Multiplexing and channel coding,” 2013.
[18] D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, and C. Jones, “Low-rate LDPC codes with
simple protograph structure,” in Proceedings. Int. Symp. on Inf. Theory,
2005. ISIT 2005. IEEE, 2005, pp. 1622–1626.
[19] M. Helmling and S. Scholl, “Database of channel codes and ML simula-
tion results,” University of Kaiserslautern URL: www.uni-kl.de/channel-
codes, 2016.
[20] S. Scholl, F. Kienle, M. Helmling, and S. Ruzika, “ML vs. BP decoding
of binary and non-binary LDPC codes,” in 7th Int. Symp. on Turbo
Codes and It. Inf. Proc. (ISTC), August 2012, pp. 71–75.