Performance of Belief Propagation for Decoding LDPC Codes in the Presence of Channel Estimation Error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the performance of the belief propagation (BP) algorithm for decoding low-density parity-check codes over the additive white Gaussian noise channel when there is an incorrect estimate of the channel signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (referred to as "SNR mismatch") at the decoder. At the extremes for over- and underestimation of SNR, the performance of BP tends to that of min-sum algorithm and the channel bit-error rate, respectively. Our results for regular codes indicate that the sensitivity to mismatch increases by increasing the variable-node degree and by decreasing the check-node degree. The effect of variable-node degree, however, appears to be more profound, such that at a given rate, the codes with the smallest variable and check degrees are more robust against SNR mismatch. For irregular codes, by comparing the thresholds of a few ensembles, we demonstrate that the ensemble which performs better in the absence of mismatch can perform worse in the presence of it. To obtain our asymptotic results, we propose a computationally efficient method based on the Gaussian approximation of density evolution in the presence of SNR mismatch. We also show that the asymptotic results are consistent with simulation results for codes with finite block lengths
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".