Variable LLR Scaling in Min-Sum Decoding for Irregular LDPC Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Min-sum decoding is a low-complexity alternative to the so-called belief propagation and consists in simplification of the nonlinear operation on the log likelihood ratios (LLRs) in the check nodes. The resulting suboptimality may be tempered via appropriate scaling of the LLRs, e.g., the fixed optimal scaling in the normalized min-sum algorithm, and variable scaling algorithms gradually appearing in the literature. However, up to now, none of the papers studied variable scaling both as per iteration and as per different check node degree, due to the prohibitive complexity of multioptimization over space of too many parameters. In this paper, we propose a generalized mutual information (GMI) of LLRs as the criterion to search for the scaling factors for different check node degrees in every iteration in a 1-D thus low-complexity manner. This approach is first analyzed via density evolution, and in addition can be extended to practical LLRs based formulas via Monte Carlo tools to cope with the mismatch issue. Bit error rate simulation results on two low-density parity-check codes show that our proposed GMI metrics have a noticeable gain over the variable scaling schemes that appeared in the literature.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".