MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119604283 · doi:10.1109/tit.2013.2251395

On the Girth of Quasi-Cyclic Protograph LDPC Codes

2013· article· en· W2119604283 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 Information Theory · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirth (graph theory)Low-density parity-check codeMathematicsTanner graphCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsDiscrete mathematicsOdd graphBase (topology)Degree (music)GraphDecoding methodsChordal graphAlgorithm1-planar graphError floor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the relationships between the girth of the Tanner graph of a quasi-cyclic (QC) protograph low-density parity-check (LDPC) code, the lifting degree, and the size and the structure of the base graph. As a result, for a given base graph, we derive a lower bound on the lifting degree as a necessary condition for the lifted graph to have a certain girth. This also provides an upper bound on the girth of the family of graphs lifted from a given base graph with a given lifting degree. The upper bounds derived here, which are applicable to both regular and irregular base graphs with no parallel edges, are in some cases more general and in some other cases tighter than the existing bounds. The results presented in this work can be used to design cyclic liftings with relatively small degree and relatively large girth. As an example, we present new QC protograph LDPC code constructions with girth 8 using fully connected base graphs. These constructions provide upper bounds on the lifting degree required for achieving girth 8 using fully connected base 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.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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