MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145949855 · doi:10.1109/icc.2011.5962811

Near Optimum Majority-Logic Based Decoding of Low-Density Parity-Check Codes

2011· article· en· W2145949855 on OpenAlexaff
Telex M. N. Ngatched, Attahiru Sule Alfa, Jun Cai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeDecoding methodsParity-check matrixAlgorithmBelief propagationBerlekamp–Welch algorithmList decodingComputer scienceSequential decodingComputationReliability (semiconductor)Parity bitBlock codeMeasure (data warehouse)Computational complexity theoryMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceConcatenated error correction codeError floor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reliability-based iterative majority-logic decoding algorithm for regular low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes was recently proposed by Huang et al. In this paper we present an improved version of that algorithm by introducing a different reliability measure for each check-sum of the parity-check matrix, and taking it into account in the computation of the extrinsic information that is used to update the reliability measure of each received bit in each iteration. Some simulations results are given, which show that the new algorithm, while requiring very little additional computational complexity, not only achieves a considerable error performance gain over the standard one, but also, importantly, outperforms the iterative decoding based on belief propagation (IDBP), especially for short and medium block length finite-geometry (FG) LDPC codes.

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)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207