Error rate estimation of low-density parity-check codes on binary symmetric channels using cycle enumeration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes decoded by hard-decision iterative decoding algorithms can be accurately estimated if the weight J and the number |EJ| of the smallest error patterns that cannot be corrected by the decoder are known. To obtain J and |EJ|, one would need to perform the direct enumeration of error patterns with weight i les J. The complexity of enumeration increases exponentially with J, essentially as nJ, where n is the code block length. This limits the application of direct enumeration to codes with small n and J. In this letter, we approximate J and |EJ| by enumerating and testing the error patterns that are subsets of short cycles in the code's Tanner graph. This reduces the computational complexity by several orders of magnitude compared to direct enumeration, making it possible to estimate the error rates for almost any practical LDPC code. To obtain the error rate estimates, we propose an algorithm that progressively improves the estimates as larger cycles are enumerated. Through a number of examples, we demonstrate that the proposed method can accurately estimate both the bit error rate (BER) and the frame error rate (FER) of regular and irregular LDPC codes decoded by a variety of hard-decision iterative decoding algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".