Error Rate Estimation of Finite-Length Low-Density Parity-Check Codes on Binary Symmetric Channels Using Cycle Enumeration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes decoded by hard-decision iterative decoding algorithms can be accurately estimated if the weight J and the number |Ej| of the smallest error patterns that cannot be corrected by the decoder are known. To obtain J and |Ej|, one would need to perform the direct enumeration of error patterns with weight i les J. The complexity of enumeration increases exponentially with J, essentially as nJ, where n is the code block length. In this paper, we approximate J and |Ej| by enumerating and testing the error patterns that are subsets of short cycles in the code's Tanner graph. This reduces the computational complexity by several orders of magnitude compared to direct enumeration, making it possible to estimate the error rates for almost any practical LDPC code. To obtain the error rate estimates, we propose an algorithm that progressively improves the estimates as larger cycles are enumerated. Through a number of examples, we demonstrate that the proposed method can accurately estimate both the bit error rate (BER) and the frame error rate (FER) of regular and irregular LDPC codes decoded by a variety of hard-decision iterative decoding algorithms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".