Lowering the error floor of LDPC codes using cyclic liftings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyclic liftings are proposed to lower the error floor of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes. The liftings are designed to eliminate dominant trapping sets of the base code by removing the short cycles which form the trapping sets. We derive a necessary and sufficient condition for the cyclic permutations assigned to the edges of a cycle c of length ℓ(c) in the base graph such that the inverse image of c in the lifted graph consists of only cycles of length strictly larger than ℓ(c). The proposed method is universal in the sense that it can be applied to any LDPC code over any channel and for any iterative decoding algorithm. It also preserves important properties of the base code such as degree distributions. The proposed method is applied to both structured and random codes over the binary symmetric channel (BSC). The error floor improves consistently by increasing the lifting degree, and the results show significant improvements in the error floor compared to the base code, a random code of the same degree distribution and block length, and a random lifting of the same degree. Similar improvements are also observed when the codes designed for the BSC are applied to the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it