On the Girth of Quasi-Cyclic Protograph LDPC Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".