Mitigating Clipping Effects on Error Floors under
Belief Propagation Decoding of Polar Codes
Ahmed Elkelesh, Sebastian Cammerer, Moustafa Ebada and Stephan ten Brink

arXiv:1711.05572v3 [] 28 Nov 2017

Institute of Telecommunications, Pfaffenwaldring 47, University of Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
{elkelesh,cammerer,ebada,tenbrink}@inue.uni-stuttgart.de
Abstract—In this work, we show that polar belief propagation
(BP) decoding exhibits an error floor behavior which is caused
by clipping of the log-likelihood ratios (LLR). The error floor
becomes more pronounced for clipping to smaller LLR-values.
We introduce a single-value measure quantifying a “relative error
floor”, showing, by exhaustive simulations for different lengths,
that the error floor is mainly caused by inadequate clipping
values. We propose four modifications to the conventional BP
decoding algorithm to mitigate this error floor behavior, demonstrating that the error floor is a decoder property, and not a
code property. The results agree with the fact that polar codes
are theoretically proven to not suffer from error floors. Finally,
we show that another cause of error floors can be an improper
selection of frozen bit positions.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Polar codes were introduced by Erdal Arıkan [1] as a new
family of error-correcting codes that provably achieve the
symmetric capacity of any symmetric Binary Input Discrete
Memoryless Channel (BI-DMC) under successive cancellation
(SC) decoding. However, the sub-optimal performance of finite
length polar codes under SC decoding has raised the need for
more advanced, and probably more complex decoding algorithms. Polar codes were shown to outperform state-of-the-art
coding schemes when decoded under successive cancellation
list (SCL) decoding [2]. However, the high complexity under
SCL decoding and its inherently serial decoding algorithm can
be seen as one main drawback of polar codes when compared
to low density parity check (LDPC) codes. As an alternative,
an iterative algorithm based on the idea of message passing
over the encoding graph has been proposed [3] and intensively
studied in different regimes. Although belief propagation (BP)
decoding of polar codes is outperformed by state-of-the-art
SCL decoding in terms of bit error rate (BER) performance,
improving its performance is an active area of research
[4][5][6] due to the high potential of parallel implementations
[7][8], which makes it practical for high-speed applications,
and the possibility of soft-in/soft-out decoding, i.e., for joint
detection and decoding.
Strongly connected with iterative decoding schemes comes
the study of the so-called error floor regime of iterative
decoding, as many recent communication applications and
storage systems require a rather low BER. The error floor
analysis is a well-established area of research extensively
explored for different iterative coding schemes such as turbo
This work has been supported by DFG, Germany, under grant BR 3205/5-1.

codes and LDPC codes. For the case of turbo codes, the
low-weight codewords have been pointed out to dominate the
error floor behavior of the code [9]. One of several ways
to increase the minimum distance of the code, i.e., avoid
most of the low-weight codewords, is to concatenate the
code with an outer error-correcting code such as a high-rate
Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) code or a Bose-ChaudhuriHocquenghem (BCH) code. For the case of a Binary Erasure
Channel (BEC) with erasure probability , the error floor
performance of an LDPC code is completely dominated by the
(small) stopping sets in the Tanner graph of the code [10]. For
the additive white Gaussian noise channel (AWGNC), a more
general term of the stopping sets is denoted by trapping sets
(or near codewords) in [11]. The iterative decoding algorithm
gets stuck in such error patterns that are inherent to the code
structure, no matter how good the channel quality becomes. It
is worth mentioning that in some LDPC code constructions,
the error floor is caused mainly due to low minimum distance.
Although the log-likelihood ratios (LLR) range is theoretically unbounded, in practice it has to be clipped to avoid
numerical instability of the boxplus function [12] and due to
hardware constraints (i.e., higher complexity due to the need
of wider bit widths to represent the messages). The effect of
LLR-clipping on the error floor behavior has been extensively
studied for LDPC codes, [13][14][15]. In [13], the effect of
LLR-clipping on the error floor is studied and proved to be
a dominant effect in case of AWGNC. In [14], the upper
bound on the error probability was proved to be arbitrarily
small as the value of the LLR-clipping LLRmax grows large
enough, and hence lowering the saturation level of the LLRs.
The same conclusion was pointed out in [15], where the tradeoff between the numerical stability and the LLR-clipping was
discussed.
For the family of polar codes, in [16] it is analytically
shown that the size of the minimal stopping
sets of BP
√
decoding of polar codes scales with O( N ) which reflects
a desirable error floor performance. They provide simulationbased observations of the absence of an error floor down to
BERs of 10−9 and 10−12 for AWGNC and BEC, respectively.
Besides that, the authors in [17] proved the absence of error
floors for polar codes by considering the scaling of the error
probability Pe with the Bhattacharyya parameter Z(W ).
However, several results in some recent work indicate the
existence of error floors for polar codes under BP decoding,
e.g., [18, Fig. 4][19, Fig. 5][20, Fig. 5][21, Fig. 6][7, Fig.

5]. The objective of this work is to help resolve the issue of
error floor existence in iterative polar decoding and discuss the
reasons why such behavior might exist or not. Furthermore,
BP decoding of polar codes heavily relies on the usage of
the boxplus function, which motivated this work, to better
understand the effect of LLR-clipping with respect to error
floor performance of polar codes. Note that, one BP decoding
iteration for polar codes is based on a possibly large number of
successive boxplus operations, potentially leading to clipping
issues at much lower number of iterations, particularly when
compared to one BP decoding iteration for LDPC codes.

Two types of messages are involved, left to right messages
(R-messages) and right to left messages (L-messages). The
R-messages at stage 1 represents the a priori information
available to the decoder. The R-messages at stage 1 are either
0 or ∞1 for non-frozen and frozen bits, respectively:
Ri,1 =

(

∞ (or LLRmax ) i ∈ Ā
0
otherwise.

(2)

The L-messages at stage n+1 carries the LLR channel output
Lch,i :

II. P OLAR CODES AND ITERATIVE DECODING
A. Polar Codes
Polar codes introduced by Arıkan in [1] are the first type
of channel codes that are theoretically proven to achieve the
channel capacity under a low complexity SC decoding for
infinite code lengths. They are based on the theoretical concept
of channel polarization, in which N identical channels are
combined based on a 2 × 2 kernel to produce N synthesized
channels showing a polarization behavior.
Channel polarization means that the synthesized channels
converge towards either a pure noiseless channel or a pure
noisy channel. This polarization effect becomes more obvious
when the number of channels to be combined N approaches
infinity. Based on this concept, uncoded information bits are
transmitted over the noiseless channels and a known sequence
of frozen bits are transmitted over the noisy channels. Afterwards comes the polar code construction, which is the phase
of selecting the set of k synthesized bit channels upon which
uncoded information bits are transmitted. The output of this
phase is usually denoted as the information set A. Throughout
this paper (except random A in the last section), we use
the polar code construction based on Arıkan’s Bhattacharyya
bounds [1] of bit channels designed at Es/N0 = 0 dB. Finally,
the polar encoding is based on the kernel used, which is the
basic building block of the encoder. The generator matrix of
polar codes of block size N = 2n is given by


1 0
GN = F⊗n ,
F=
(1)
1 1
where F⊗n denotes the nth Kronecker power of F. The
codewords can be now obtained by x = uGN , where u
contains k information bits and N − k frozen bits.
The performance of polar codes in the finite length regime
depends mainly on the type of decoder used. There are two
main polar decoding algorithms, the SC decoding (and its
variants, e.g., SCL) and the BP decoding.
B. Belief Propagation Decoding
Belief propagation decoding of polar codes was introduced
in [3] to enhance the BER performance of finite length polar
codes. The algorithm is based on Gallager’s BP decoding for
LDPC codes, which is a message passing algorithm in which
the information bits are retrieved through iterations.

Li,n+1 = Lch,i .

(3)

The L- and R-messages iteratively propagate through the
polar factor graph as shown in Fig. 1. The polar factor graph
consists of log2 (N ) · N2 processing element (PE)s. A single
PE is shown in Fig. 2. The L- and R-messages are updated
in each PE as follows:
Rout,1 = f (Rin,1 , Lin,2 + Rin,2 )
Rout,2 = f (Rin,1 , Lin,1 ) + Rin,2
Lout,1 = f (Lin,1 , Lin,2 + Rin,2 )
Lout,2 = f (Rin,1 , Lin,1 ) + Lin,2
where f (L1 , L2 ) = L1  L2 is commonly referred to as
boxplus operator [12]. For numerical stability the boxplus
function can be reformulated as
1 + ex+y
ex + ey
= sign(x) · sign(y) · min(|x|, |y|)




+ ln 1 + e−|x+y| − ln 1 + e−|x−y| . (4)

f (x, y) = x  y = ln

Neglecting the two ln-terms in equation (4) leads to the
min-approximation. This approximation avoids the (potentially
unstable) division, i.e., provides better numerical properties
than the original boxplus function, without performance degradation, and thus is more suitable for decoder implementations.
The conventional BP decoder terminates when a pre-defined
maximum number of iterations is reached. However, early
stopping conditions can be used to speed up the decoding
process [22]. Finally, a hard decision is applied to recover the
information bits (in the vector u) and the transmitted codeword
x as follows:
1
· (sign (Li,1 + Ri,1 ) + 1)
2
1
x̂i = · (sign (Li,n+1 + Ri,n+1 ) + 1) .
2

ûi =

1 One could assign the maximum LLR-clipping value (LLR
max ) to the
frozen positions.

L-messages propagation

BER

10−1
10−5
10−9

Lfrozen

GPU-based BP (32-bit)
CPU-based BP (64-bit)
GPU-based SCL32 (32-bit)

Lch

1

2

3
4
Eb /N0 [dB]

5

6

Fig. 3: BER performance of an N = 4096, R = 0.5 polar
code, under BP decoding with clipping value LLRmax = 20
for 32-bit and 64-bit numerical precision, and under SCL
decoding with list size L = 32.
R-messages propagation

Fig. 1: N = 8 polar code factor graph.

100

PE

10−2
Rout,1

Lout,1

Lin,1

Rin,2

Rout,2

Lout,2

Lin,2

10−4
BER

Rin,1

LLRmax = 16
LLRmax = 20

−6

10

LLRmax = 24
LLRmax = 40
LLRmax = 48

10−8

LLRmax = 100

increasing

LLRmax = 1000

Fig. 2: Processing Element.

10−10

Throughout this work, the graphical processing unit (GPU)based environment of [8] is used for the error rate simulations.
As the GPU system is optimized for 32-bit precision (float),
all simulations are performed with 32-bit operations. Fig. 3
also shows 64-bit precision results (double) in order to verify
that the behavior is, basically, the same. In the remaining part
of the paper we restrict ourself to 32-bit precision. Fig. 4
shows the BER performance while using various clipping
values. Additionally, Fig. 5 provides the corresponding block
error rate (BLER). Obviously, the error floor vanishes when
increasing the clipping value.
As it is, in general, difficult to quantify the error floor,
we propose a single-value measure of the relative error floor
similar to [23], denoted as normalized error (NE)
Ns
1 X
BERLLRmax (ρs )
.
Ns s=1 BERLLRmax,ref (ρs )

min-LLRmax = 100

1

III. O BSERVATIONS

NE(LLRmax ) =

min-LLRmax = 20

(5)

The NE evaluates the BER at several signal-to-noise-ratio
(SNR) points and relates them to a reference curve. In our case
the reference curve uses a clipping of LLRmax,ref = 100. Let ρs
denote the SNR (measured as Eb /N0 ), and let BERLLRmax (ρs )
be the BER achieved at ρs for a clipping with LLRmax .
Obviously, for NE = 1, the error floor achieves the same
behavior as the reference curve. In the sequel, we compute

2

LLRmax

3
Eb /N0 [dB]

4

5

Fig. 4: BER performance of an N = 4096, R = 0.5
polar code under boxplus-based BP decoding and under minapproximation-based BP decoding with different clipping values LLRmax .

the NE over Ns = 10 different SNR points from 0.5 dB to
4.5 dB with 5 · 108 codewords for each SNR point.

For the NE evaluation, we use the same information set
A and the same parameters in each simulation; thus, the BER
only differs in the error floor region as it can be seen in Fig. 4.

We observe in Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 that the NE decreases with
LLRmax . The NE for different block lengths is also depicted
in Fig. 7. The NE increases with N , as the error floor becomes
more obvious for long polar codes.
We observe that only a few BP iterations may be needed to
fall into a trapping set, such that the bounded LLR-clipping
value is reached by the growing LLR-messages. Thus, increasing the maximum number of iterations does not help [13],
which means that other, modified BP decoding algorithms will
be needed to solve this issue.

7
NE

100
10−2

5

NE(N )

3

BLER

1
103

10−4

LLRmax = 16

N

LLRmax = 20
LLRmax = 24

Fig. 7: NE evaluation for different N of a R = 0.5 polar code
under BP decoding with clipping values LLRmax = 20 and
LLRmax,ref = 100.

LLRmax = 40

10−6

increasing

LLRmax = 48
LLRmax = 100

LLRmax

LLRmax = 1000
min-LLRmax = 20

10−8

min-LLRmax = 100

1

2

3
Eb /N0 [dB]

4

5

Fig. 5: BLER performance of an N = 4096, R = 0.5
polar code under boxplus-based BP decoding and under minapproximation-based BP decoding with different clipping values LLRmax .

NE

20

NE(LLRmax )

10
1
16

104

24

40
LLRmax

60

100

Fig. 6: NE evaluation of an N = 4096, R = 0.5 polar code
under BP decoding with different clipping values LLRmax and
LLRmax,ref = 100.
IV. E RROR FLOOR CAUSED BY LLR- VALUE CLIPPING
To gain further insight into error floor effects, different
decoder modifications mitigating error floors are investigated.
The fact that different algorithms can overcome the error floor
let us conclude that the information itself is not destroyed,
i.e., the observed error floor is a decoder property and not
a code property (as it might happen for a weak distance
spectrum), similar to [11]. This can also be seen in Fig. 3,
as the SCL decoder shows no error floor behavior (and also
the BP decoder for higher LLR-clipping values tends to show
no error floor), i.e., the code itself can be decoded without
error floor.
In the following, we propose four different modifications
to the conventional BP decoding algorithm to overcome the
error floor caused by small LLR-clipping values, yet, at the
expense of higher decoding complexity. The idea is to try to
achieve the same performance as a BP decoder with a very
high LLRmax (e.g., 100) using a modified BP decoder with
a low LLRmax (e.g., 20), to keep implementation complexity
small. Thus, in the following, we propose some algorithms to
be combined with the BP decoder with a low LLRmax .

Test sets were collected at Eb /N0 = 5 dB. The test sets,
in this context, are the scenarios in which the BP decoder
converges to the correct codeword using a high LLRmax =
100, while it fails to converge using a low LLRmax = 20.
The success rate for each algorithm modification is shown in
Tab. I.
A. Guessing Algorithm
In the high Eb /N0 (low BER) region, if the BP decoder
fails to converge, it is observed that there are usually very
few number of bits in error due to short cycles. Knowing the
correct value of one (up to three) of these bits helps the BP
decoder to converge and escape this small-sized trapping set.
In scenarios that did not converge, the presence of oscillating LLR-signs of some bits was observed. Thus, the idea is
to guess the sign of one of these oscillating bits and, then, to
assign the maximum LLR-value (i.e., LLRmax or −LLRmax )
and continue the BP decoding as proposed in [24] for LDPC
codes, and in [16] for polar codes. This may help to push the
decoder to convergence (i.e., “belief pushing”), and, if not,
the guess for the chosen bit is reversed, or apply the same
guessing algorithm to another bit, and so on.
B. Adding Virtual Noise
As guessing either requires a genie-aided decoding or
results in a complexity overhead due to multiple guesses, we
investigate a more practical approach.
When the BP decoder fails to converge, random virtual
noise can be added to the input from the channel, as in [25],
according to Fig. 8, i.e.,
ỹ = y + nv ,

nv ∼ N (0, σv2 )

In most of the investigated cases in Tab. I, the decoder then can
successfully decode ỹ, although the effective channel becomes
worse.
C. Modified Boxplus function
Scale the boxplus function output by α (i.e., 0 < α < 1)
[22]. This helps in the low BER region as it prevents LLRs
from running into saturation during the decoding iterations and
thus, mitigates the error floor.

100

Reference Curve
Caused by low LLR-clipping

added
∆
Eb /N0 [dB]

TABLE I: Success rate of the different algorithms.
A
B
C
D

increasing
m

10−4
reference R = 0.5

10−6

Fig. 8: Visualization of maximum noise power to be added by
algorithm B (Add Virtual Noise).

Algorithm
Guessing algorithm (1 , 2 , 3 bits)
Add Virtual Noise σv2 = 0.36
Modified Boxplus function α = 0.9375
Multi-trellis BP decoder

10−2
BER

BER

Noise to be

Success rate τ
0.9585 , 0.9852 , 0.9911
0.9925
0.8889
1

D. Multi-trellis BP decoder
When the BP decoder that is based on the conventional
factor graph fails to converge, a different realization (representation) of the polar factor graph can be used, following
the basic concept in [26]. This algorithm helps the overall
decoder in avoiding, or, escaping to fall into a trapping set
(i.e., due to the different loops in the different realizations of
the factor graph). However, we may require a higher number
of iterations, i.e., the decoding complexity slightly increases.
V. OTHER REASONS FOR ERROR FLOORS
Although it is theoretically proven that polar codes do not
suffer from error floors [17], the specific decoder itself can
show such a behavior. In general, avoiding loops and short
cycles in iterative decoding is crucial. In order to illustrate
such effect, Fig. 9 shows the BER with m randomly selected,
additional frozen bit positions. Starting with an information
set A (R = 0.5), no error floor can be seen. However, with
the new information set Am (Rm = R·NN−m = R − m
N < R),
which is the same as A but with extra m frozen known bits,
an error floor appears. Obviously, the maximum a posteriori
(MAP) performance of Am must be better than that of A, as
we effectively only remove 2m possible codewords. All other
codewords are the same2 . As a result of this example, one can
not state that polar codes under iterative decoding do not show
an error floor. However, when carefully designed (i.e., code
construction), properly implemented and when an appropriate
decoder is used, then the error floor indeed vanishes.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, the effect of the LLR-clipping on error floors
of polar codes is studied. Increasing the LLR-clipping values
leads to an error floor-free BP decoder. For implementation
2 We do not state that randomly selecting extra frozen positions is a
good approach for improving the code performance. However, the MAP
performance can never degrade by such an extension.

1

2

3
Eb /N0 [dB]

4

5

Fig. 9: BER performance of an N = 4096 polar code under
BP decoding with LLR-clipping value LLRmax = 100 for
additional frozen bits (10 ≤ m ≤ 48), starting from a rate R =
0.5 code.
simplicity, low LLR-clipping values are favorable; thus we
proposed four different modifications to the BP decoding
algorithm that can overcome error floors while keeping LLRclipping values small. Thus, the observed error floor is shown
to be a decoder property and not a code property. Further, we
identified that, besides clipping, improper polar code construction is yet another reason for error floors in BP decoding as
it can result in unfavorable loops in the decoding graph.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Arıkan, “Channel polarization: A method for constructing capacityachieving codes for symmetric binary-input memoryless channels,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 3051–3073, July
2009.
[2] I. Tal and A. Vardy, “List decoding of polar codes,” IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2213–2226, May 2015.
[3] E. Arıkan, “Polar codes: A pipelined implementation,” Proc. 4th ISBC,
pp. 11–14, 2009.
[4] M. Qin, J. Guo, A. Bhatia, A. G. i Fabregas, and P. Siegel, “Polar code
constructions based on LLR evolution,” IEEE Communications Letters,
vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2017.
[5] A. Elkelesh, M. Ebada, S. Cammerer, and S. ten Brink, “Improving
belief propagation decoding of polar codes using scattered EXIT charts,”
in IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Sept 2016, pp. 91–95.
[6] ——, “Flexible length polar codes through graph based augmentation,”
in IEEE International ITG Conference on Systems, Communications and
Coding (SCC), Feb 2017.
[7] S. Sun and Z. Zhang, “Architecture and optimization of high-throughput
belief propagation decoding of polar codes,” in IEEE International
Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), May 2016, pp. 165–168.
[8] S. Cammerer, B. Leible, M. Stahl, J. Hoydis, and S. ten Brink,
“Combining belief propagation and successive cancellation list decoding
of polar codes on a GPU platform,” in 42th Int. Conf. on Acoustics,
Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2017.
[9] L. C. Perez, J. Seghers, and D. J. Costello, “A distance spectrum interpretation of turbo codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1698–1709, Nov 1996.
[10] C. Di, D. Proietti, I. E. Telatar, T. J. Richardson, and R. L. Urbanke,
“Finite-length analysis of low-density parity-check codes on the binary
erasure channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 48,
no. 6, pp. 1570–1579, Jun 2002.
[11] T. Richardson, “Error-floors of LDPC codes,” in Proceedings of the 41st
Annual Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, 2003,
pp. 1426–1435.

[12] J. Hagenauer, E. Offer, and L. Papke, “Iterative decoding of binary block
and convolutional codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 429–445, Mar 1996.
[13] S. Zhang and C. Schlegel, “Controlling the error floor in LDPC
decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 61, no. 9, pp.
3566–3575, September 2013.
[14] B. K. Butler and P. H. Siegel, “Error floor approximation for LDPC
codes in the AWGN channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 7416–7441, Dec 2014.
[15] S. Kudekar, T. Richardson, and A. Iyengar, “The effect of saturation
on belief propagation decoding of LDPC codes,” in IEEE International
Symposium on Information Theory, June 2014, pp. 2604–2608.
[16] A. Eslami and H. Pishro-Nik, “On bit error rate performance of
polar codes in finite regime,” in 48th Annual Allerton Conference on
Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), Sept 2010, pp.
188–194.
[17] M. Mondelli, S. H. Hassani, and R. L. Urbanke, “Unified scaling of
polar codes: Error exponent, scaling exponent, moderate deviations, and
error floors,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 12,
pp. 6698–6712, Dec 2016.
[18] J. Lin, J. Sha, L. Li, C. Xiong, Z. Yan, and Z. Wang, “A high
throughput belief propagation decoder architecture for polar codes,” in
IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), May
2016, pp. 153–156.
[19] J. Lin, C. Xiong, and Z. Yan, “Reduced complexity belief propagation
decoders for polar codes,” in IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing
Systems (SiPS), Oct 2015, pp. 1–6.
[20] B. K. R. L. and N. Chandrachoodan, “A GPU implementation of belief
propagation decoder for polar codes,” in Conference Record of the
Forty Sixth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers
(ASILOMAR), Nov 2012, pp. 1272–1276.
[21] A. Balatsoukas-Stimming, P. Giard, and A. Burg, “Comparison of polar
decoders with existing low-density parity-check and turbo decoders,”
in IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, March
2017.
[22] B. Yuan and K. K. Parhi, “Early stopping criteria for energy-efficient
low-latency belief-propagation polar code decoders,” IEEE Transactions
on Signal Processing, vol. 62, no. 24, pp. 6496–6506, Dec 2014.
[23] T. Gruber, S. Cammerer, J. Hoydis, and S. ten Brink, “On deep learningbased channel decoding,” in Proc. of CISS, March 2017.
[24] H. Pishro-Nik and F. Fekri, “On decoding of low-density parity-check
codes over the binary erasure channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 439–454, March 2004.
[25] D. Declercq, C. Winstead, B. Vasic, F. Ghaffari, P. Ivanis, and E. Boutillon, “Noise-aided gradient descent bit-flipping decoders approaching
maximum likelihood decoding,” in 9th International Symposium on
Turbo Codes and Iterative Information Processing (ISTC), Sept 2016,
pp. 300–304.
[26] N. Hussami, S. B. Korada, and R. Urbanke, “Performance of polar codes
for channel and source coding,” in IEEE International Symposium on
Information Theory, June 2009, pp. 1488–1492.

