MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115825742 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2006.869865

Reliability-based coded modulation with low-density parity-check codes

2006· article· en· W2115825742 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeDemodulationDecoding methodsAlgorithmRaptor codeComputer scienceCoding (social sciences)Turbo codeModulation (music)Bit error rateError detection and correctionElectronic engineeringMathematicsStatisticsTelecommunicationsError floorEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this letter, we consider the interleaver design in bit-interleaved coded modulation (BICM) with low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes. The design paradigm is to provide more coding protection through iterative decoding to bits that are less protected by modulation (and are thus less reliable at the output of the demodulator). The design is carried out by an ad hoc search algorithm over the column permutations of the parity-check matrix. Our simulations show that the proposed reliability-based coded modulation scheme can improve the error-rate performance of conventional BICM schemes based on regular LDPC codes by a few tenths of a decibel, with no added complexity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · 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