MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150279634 · doi:10.1109/isit.2004.1365299

On the dynamics of continuous -time analog iterative decoding

2004· article· en· W2150279634 on OpenAlexaff
Saied Hemati, Amir H. Banihashemi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsSuccessive over-relaxationAsynchronous communicationRelaxation (psychology)AlgorithmComputer scienceIterative methodBelief propagationMathematicsMathematical optimizationLocal convergenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iterative decoding with flooding schedule can be formulated as a fixed-point problem solved iteratively by successive substitution (88) method. In this work, we model continuous-time analog (asynchronous) iterative decoding by a first-order differential equation, and show that it can be approximated as the application of the well-known successive over relaxation (SOR) method for solving the fixed-point problem. Simulation results for belief propagation (sum-product) and min-sum algorithms confirm that SOR, which is in general superior to the simpler 88 method, can considerably improve the performance of iterative decoding for short codes. The improvement in performance increases with the maximum number of iterations and by reducing the step size in SOR, and the asymptotic result, corresponding to infinite maximum number of iterations and infinitesimal step size represents the performance of continuous-time analog iterative decoding. This means that under ideal circumstances continuous-time analog decoders can outperform their discrete-time digital counterparts by a large margin. Moreover, the results obtained by the proposed model are surprisingly close to the results of circuit simulation of a min-sum analog decoder presented in [S. Hemati et al., 2003]. Our work also suggests a general framework for improving iterative decoding algorithms on graphs with cycles, even for synchronous digital implementations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207