Comments on successive relaxation for decoding of LDPC codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of successive relaxation (SR) to the fixed-point problem associated with the iterative decoding of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes was proposed by Hemati et al.. The simulation results presented by Hemati et al. for the SR version of belief propagation (BP) in the likelihood ratio (LR) domain and that of min-sum (MS) in the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) domain are based on the assumption of all-zero codeword transmission. This assumption however results in erroneous error rates when SR is applied in the LR domain. Here, we correct the simulation results reported by Hemati et al. for SR-BP in the LR domain. Furthermore, we investigate the performance of SR-BP and SR-MS in the LLR and LR domains, respectively. The results for a binary input additive white Gaussian noise (BIAWGN) channel show that for both BP and MS, the application of SR in the two domains of LR and LLR results in different error correcting performance. In particular, for the tested codes, it is shown that among the four algorithms, SR-MS-LLR has the best performance. It outperforms standard MS and BP by up to about 0.6 dB and 0.3 dB, respectively, offering an attractive solution in terms of performance/complexity tradeoff.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".