Efficient Algorithm for Finding Dominant Trapping Sets of LDPC Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an efficient algorithm for finding the dominant trapping sets of a low-density parity-check (LDPC) code. The algorithm can be used to estimate the error floor of LDPC codes or as a tool to design LDPC codes with low error floors. For regular codes, the algorithm is initiated with a set of short cycles as the input. For irregular codes, in addition to short cycles, variable nodes with low degree and cycles with low approximate cycle extrinsic message degree (ACE) are also used as the initial inputs. The initial inputs are then expanded recursively to dominant trapping sets of increasing size. At the core of the algorithm lies the analysis of the graphical structure of dominant trapping sets and the relationship of such structures to short cycles, low-degree variable nodes, and cycles with low ACE. The algorithm is universal in the sense that it can be used for an arbitrary graph and that it can be tailored to find a variety of graphical objects, such as absorbing sets and Zyablov-Pinsker trapping sets, known to dominate the performance of LDPC codes in the error floor region over different channels and for different iterative decoding algorithms. Simulation results on several LDPC codes demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed algorithm. In particular, the algorithm is significantly faster than the existing search algorithms for dominant trapping sets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".