On the construction, dimensionality, and decoding of linear block code trellises
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In principle, the coding gain of a digital communications system can be improved through the use of longer error control codes and soft-decision maximum-likelihood (ML) decoding. Unfortunately, the implementation of such techniques is limited by the computational requirements of the decoder. In this thesis, we consider several aspects of trellis-based ML, and 'near-ML', soft-decision decoding of general linear block codes. ML decoding is feasible for reasonably compact trellises using the Viterbi algorithm. For general linear block codes we present simple methods for trellis construction that are based on the methods of Wolf and Massey. It is confirmed that the trellises so constructed are minimal, and an improvement of Muder's lower bound on the maximum trellis dimension is found. It is shown that when equivalent codes are constructed by permutations of the symbol positions that the resulting trellis dimensions are fixed near either end, while in the central portion of the trellis the dimensions vary between Wolf's upper bound on the maximum dimension and a new lower bound on the minimum dimension. This lower bound and the improved bound on the maximum trellis dimension are exact for maximum distance separable codes. These bounds indicate that only codes (and their duals) that have a smallest minimum distance min (dmin, d⊥min) significantly less than the corresponding Singleton bound can possibly have a compact trellis. For trellises that are impractically large for decoding by the Viterbi algorithm, we consider near-ML decoding using partial searches of a code trellis or tree. Despite the fact that this approach is suboptimal in terms of the probability of error, it has the potential for an improved trade-off between coding gain and computational effort. The decoding problem faced by a partial trellis search is described in an alternative manner to Massey's variable-length code model. As part of this approach, we specialize Massey's use of 'random-tails' in order to exploit a priori knowledge of the code and information-symbol distribution used. As a result there are some minor changes to the usual metric, but only in atypical situations -- such as the use of unequal a priori information-symbol probabilities, non-linear codes, and non-symmetric, non-binary discrete memory less channels. We introduce a simple and efficient (linear time) method for the selection of the best metrics from among a number of contenders in a breadth-first search. This method can provide a sorted set of survivor metrics during M algorithm decoding of binary linear block codes using only M comparisons in the worst case. The application of the method to the decoding of convolutional codes is also discussed. We present a method for soft-decision decoding of general linear block codes that we refer to as Reconfigurable Trellis (RT) Decoding. RT decoding carries out a partial search on a different and more easily searched trellis (or tree) for the code. The trellis used for decoding is dependent upon the reliability of the received data, so that it is determined 'on-the-fly'. Only a portion of the reconfigured trellis needs to be constructed, as guided by the partial search. While RT decoding requires some computational overhead prior to beginning each search, the search effort itself can be very significantly reduced, so that overall an improvement can be achieved in the trade-off between coding gain and computational effort. With respect to the performance analysis of suboptimal soft-decision decoding schemes, we extend the uniform error property of ML decoding of linear codes on a binary-input symmetric-output memory less channel to include the more general case of partial trellis searches. For RT-M decoding of general linear block codes the uniform error property is used together with a novel channel model and a very simple search technique to estimate the increase in the probability of error over that of ML decoding. This approach can yield accurate results while avoiding the complexity of considering numerous soft-decision output values, and without requiring detailed knowledge of the code structure.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».