Systematic design of low-density parity-check code ensembles for binary erasure channels
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a systematic method to design irregular low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes for binary erasure channels (BEC). Compared to the existing methods, which are based on the application of asymptotic analysis tools such as density evolution or Extrinsic Information Transfer (EXIT) charts in an optimization process, the proposed method is much simpler and faster. Through a number of examples, we demonstrate that the codes designed by the proposed method perform very closely to the best codes designed by optimization. An important property of the proposed designs is the flexibility to select the number of constituent variable node degrees P. The proposed designs include existing systematic designs as a special case with P = N - 1, where N is the maximum variable node degree. Compared to the existing systematic designs, for a given rate and a given ¿ > 0, the designed ensembles can have a threshold in ¿-neighborhood of the capacity upper bound with smaller values of P and N. They can also achieve the capacity of the BEC as N, and correspondingly P and the maximum check node degree tend to infinity.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it