MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081481775 · doi:10.1109/ismvl.2013.35

Lowering Error Floors in Stochastic Decoding of LDPC Codes Based on Wire-Delay Dependent Asynchronous Updating

2013· article· en· W2081481775 on OpenAlexaff
Naoya Onizawa, Warren J. Gross, Takahiro Hanyu, Vincent Gaudet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyUniversity of Tokyo
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationDecoding methodsComputer scienceLow-density parity-check codeComputationAlgorithmStochastic computingThroughputNode (physics)Lock (firearm)CMOSParallel computingElectronic engineeringWirelessComputer networkTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stochastic decoding provides ultra-low-complexity hardware for high-throughput parallel low-density parity-check (LDPC) decoders. Asynchronous stochastic decoding was pro- posed to demonstrate the possibility of low power dissipation and high throughput in stochastic decoders, but decoding might stop before convergence due to "lock-up", causing error floors. In this paper, we introduce wire-delay dependent asynchronous stochastic decoding to reduce the error floors. Instead of assigning the same delay to all computation nodes in the previous work, different computation delay is assigned to each computation node depending on its wire length. The variation of update timing increases switching activities to decrease the possibility of the "lock-up", lowering the error floors. BER performance using a regular (1024, 512) (3, 6) LDPC code is simulated based on our timing model that has computation and wire delays estimated under ASPLA 90nm CMOS technology. It is demonstrated that the proposed asynchronous decoder achieves an up to 0.25-dB gain compared with that of the synchronous and the conventional asynchronous decoders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207