MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019352729 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2015.2418260

Multiple-Votes Parallel Symbol-Flipping Decoding Algorithm for Non-Binary LDPC Codes

2015· article· en· W2019352729 on OpenAlexafffund
Nhat-Quang Nhan, Telex M. N. Ngatched, Octavia A. Dobre, Philippe Rostaing, Karine Amis, Emanuel Rădoi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersUniversité Européenne de BretagneResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and LabradorCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeDecoding methodsAlgorithmComputer scienceBinary numberParity-check matrixCode (set theory)Berlekamp–Welch algorithmSequential decodingError detection and correctionMathematicsBlock codeArithmeticError floor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel decoding algorithm for non-binary low density parity check (NB-LDPC) codes is proposed. The algorithm builds on the recently designed parallel symbol-flipping decoding (PSFD) algorithm and combines a technique of error estimation and a method of multiple voting levels from each unsatisfied check-sum to the corresponding variable nodes. Simulations results, performed on a number of NB-LDPC codes of various lengths and column weights constructed using several methods, show that the new algorithm not only avoids using code-dependent voting threshold but also improves the error rate performance of the PSFD algorithm, particularly for low column weight parity-check matrices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207