. 2020 Nov 13;11:5774. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19201-1

Table 3.

Performance comparison of different code types.

Code type	Cyclic	Simplex	Golay	GO-code
^aCodeword switching time	0	(N_u − 1)t_cs	3t_cs	0
^bData storage (number of points)	N_h	N_uN_h	4N_h	N_h
^bDecoding complexity	O(2N_hlog₂N_u)	$O (N_{u}^{2} N_{h})$	O(4N_hlog₂N_h)	O(2N_hlog₂N_h)
Robustness to baseline fluctuations	×	√	√	√
Tolerence to signal-dependent noises	×	√	√	√
Tolerance to non-uniform code envelop	×	×	×	√
Arbitrary F_E required by a given system	×	×	×	√

^at_cs is the time taken by the hardware to switch a code sequence to another when using a code type containing multiple coding sequences.

^bHere, N_r = N_h + N_c − 1 ≈N_h (since N_h ≫ N_c for a long sensing range) is assumed for Simplex, Golay and GO-code for the sake of simplicity and a more intuitive comparison.