MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156765092 · doi:10.1109/spawc.2003.1318929

Good LDPC codes over GF(q) for bandwidth efficient transmission

2003· article· en· W2156765092 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangming Li, M. Reza Soleymani, J. Lodge, Paul Guinand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre CanadaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeColumn (typography)Additive white Gaussian noiseParity-check matrixMathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)AlgorithmBandwidth (computing)Code (set theory)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationChannel (broadcasting)Decoding methodsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we combine irregular LDPC codes over GF(q) and q-ary modulations for bandwidth efficient transmission over AWGN channel and consider the optimization of the codes. To find a good LDPC code over GF(q), based on the previous work by Davey (1998, 1999), one may choose a row profile and minimize a nonlinear objective function subject to a series of linear constraints about the column profile of the parity check matrix. One major drawback of this method is that an important parameter, the average column (row) weight, does not participate in the optimization since the average column weight is determined as soon as a row profile is given We relax Davey's constraints of fixed row profile, using instead all the constraints about the row profile, the column profile and the average column weight and introduce the complex method to solve this nonlinear programming problem. This ensures that the average column weight of the parity-check matrix participates in the optimization.

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)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207