MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111789128 · doi:10.1109/isit.2002.1023726

Designing irregular LPDC codes using EXIT charts based on message error rate

2003· article· en· W2111789128 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Ardakani, Frank R. Kschischang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeComputer scienceAdditive white Gaussian noiseAlgorithmTurbo codeDecoding methodsInformation transferGaussianWord error rateRange (aeronautics)Theoretical computer scienceChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsSpeech recognitionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new analysis of irregular low density parity check (LDPC) codes on AWGN channels based on modified extrinsic information transfer (EXIT) charts is presented. We modify EXIT charts to track the message error rate transfer characteristics of the constituent codes. Previous analyses, which make a Gaussian assumption for all messages passed, are inaccurate at low SNRs. We more accurately track the message error rate transfer by making a Gaussian approximation only for messages sent from variable nodes, with statistics of messages from check nodes computed by simulation. This makes the analysis more accurate, particularly for low rate codes where, at low SNR, the messages from check nodes are far from Gaussian. The new analysis simplifies understanding of the irregular codes to the level of regular case, leading to a simple approach to the design of irregular codes. We have used this method to design irregular LDPC codes that perform close to the Shannon limit over a wider range of rates and variable degrees as compared to previous work. The same method can be used for many other codes defined on graphs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207