Huawei invented most of 5G technology and could tailor the 5G standards to their implementations. Which is also why they were first to market with carrier equipment [1] and had the first CPU with an on-chip 5G modem [2].
Of course (2) is not a perfect measure of accuracy, since it does not quantify how far wrong an output is, e.g. if 111111111111 is the correct output, then both
111111111110 and 829382934783 count as equally faulty. The main advantage of (2) is that it is natural, easy to understand, and easy to measure and compare. We have to start somewhere. I imagine that, in the future, it can be refined (e.g. taking the Hamming distance between desire and actual output). I expect that more refined quantification emerges in response to the community better understanding exactly what is hard in the synthesis of programs.
Feel free to submit something! A simple submission is probably just a few lines of code.
Quantification can be done by measuring in at least two dimensions: (1) the size of the synthesised code, and (2) how precisely the generated code matches the input (which means roughly: on what fraction of input do the two programs give different output). We have set up a challenge that seeks to entice the community to look into this problem domain more. And we've simplified the assumptions, so as to make it more tractable:
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-break...
[2] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/Kirin_990