MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132193819 · doi:10.1109/isplc.2006.247486

LDPC Coding for Non-Uniform Power-Line Channels

2006· article· en· W2132193819 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Ardakani, Ali Sanaei

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeComputer scienceCoding (social sciences)Line codeChannel capacityDecoding methodsElectronic engineeringAlgorithmTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)MathematicsBandwidth (computing)EngineeringBasebandStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irregular low-density parity-check coding is studied for frequency selective channels and discreet multi-tone (DMT) systems that are used for power-line channels. To let a long block-length code with a practical buffer delay, we protect all the symbols that are transmitted in a DMT symbol with one code. The main challenge, therefore, is the varying signal to noise ratio in different frequency tones, which normally necessitates using different codes for different frequency tones (according to their signal to noise ratios). We show that if this non-uniformity is considered in the code design process, low-density parity-check codes that approach the capacity of such frequency selective channels can he found. Compared to codes that are designed for uniform channels, our codes have a significantly smaller gap from the capacity. As an extreme case, we focus on systems that - for reducing signalling and detection complexity - use only one non-binary modulation in all frequency tones. Therefore, the soft information at the receiver experiences a dramatic non-uniform quality from bit to bit. Surprisingly, even in this case, very close-to-capacity performance can be obtained

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207