MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114074598 · doi:10.1109/tit.2010.2048448

On the Dynamics of the Error Floor Behavior in (Regular) LDPC Codes

2010· article· en· W2114074598 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Schlegel, Shuai Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeAlgorithmDecoding methodsBit error rateCode (set theory)Computer scienceTurbo codeConcatenated error correction codeIterative methodTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsBlock codeCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is shown that dominant trapping sets of regular low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes, so-called absorption sets, undergo a two-phased dynamic behavior in the iterative message-passing decoding algorithm. Using a linear dynamic model for the iteration behavior of these sets, it is shown that they undergo an initial geometric growth phase which stabilizes in a final bit-flipping behavior where the algorithm reaches a fixed point. This analysis is shown to lead to very accurate numerical calculations of the error floor bit error rates down to error rates that are inaccessible by simulation. The topology of the dominant absorption sets of an example code, the IEEE 802.3an (2048,1723) regular LDPC code, are identified and tabulated using topological relationships in combination with search 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations75
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207