Bilayer Low-Density Parity-Check Codes for Decode-and-Forward in Relay Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an efficient implementation of binning for decode-and-forward (DF) in relay channels using low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes. Bilayer LDPC codes are devised to approach the theoretically promised rate of the DF relaying strategy by incorporating relay-generated parity bits in specially designed bilayer graphical code structures. While conventional LDPC codes are sensitively tuned to operate efficiently at a certain channel parameter, the proposed bilayer LDPC codes are capable of working at two different channel parameters and two different rates: that at the relay and at the destination. To analyze the performance of bilayer LDPC codes, bilayer density evolution is devised as an extension of the standard density evolution algorithm. Based on bilayer density evolution, a design methodology is developed for the bilayer codes in which the degree distribution is iteratively improved using linear programming. Further, in order to approach to the theoretical DF rate for a wide range of channel parameters, this paper proposes two different forms of bilayer codes: the bilayer-expurgated and bilayer-lengthened codes. It is demonstrated that the rate of a properly designed bilayer LDPC code can closely approach the theoretical DF limit. Finally, it is shown that a generalized version of the proposed bilayer code construction is applicable to relay networks with multiple relays.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".