Performance analysis of iterative decoding algorithms with memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density evolution is often used to determine the performance of an ensemble of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes under iterative message-passing algorithms. Conventional density evolution techniques over memoryless channels are based on the independence assumption amongst all the processed messages in variable and check nodes. This assumption is valid for many algorithms such as standard belief propagation (BP) and min-sum (MS) algorithms. However, there are other important iterative algorithms such as successive relaxation (SR) versions of BP and MS, and differential decoding with binary message passing (DD-BMP) algorithm of Mobini et. al., for which this assumption is not valid. The dependence created among messages for these algorithms is due to the introduction of memory in the iterative algorithm. In this work, we propose a model for iterative decoding algorithms with memory which covers SR and DD-BMP algorithms as special cases. Based on this model, we derive a Bayesian network for iterative algorithms with memory over memoryless channels and use this representation to analyze the algorithms using density evolution. The density evolution technique is developed based on truncating the memory of the decoding process and approximating it with a finite order Markov process, and can be implemented efficiently. As an example, we apply our technique to analyze the performance of DD-BMP on regular LDPC code ensembles, and make a number of interesting observations with regard to the performance/complexity trade off of DD-BMP in comparison with BP and MS 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".