MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159333237 · doi:10.1109/icc.2009.5198625

A Low Complexity Iterative Technique for Soft Decision Decoding of Reed-Solomon Codes

2009· article· en· W2159333237 on OpenAlexaff
Farnaz Shayegh, M. Reza Soleymani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsBelief propagationBerlekamp–Welch algorithmList decodingSequential decodingParity-check matrixAlgorithmComputer scienceFactor graphLow-density parity-check codeTanner graphLinear codeBinary numberBlock codeConcatenated error correction codeTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new iterative soft decision decoding method for Reed-Solomon (RS) codes is proposed. This method is based on bit level belief propagation (BP) decoding. In order to make BP decoding effective for RS codes, we use an extended binary parity check matrix with a lower density and reduced number of 4-cycles compared to the original binary parity check matrix of the code. In our proposed method, we take advantage of the cyclic structure of RS codes. Based on this property, we can apply the belief propagation algorithm on any cyclically shifted version of the received symbols with the same binary parity check matrix. For each shifted version of received symbols, the geometry of the factor graph will change and deterministic errors can be avoided. Our method results in considerable performance improvement of RS codes compared to hard decision decoding. The performance is also superior to some popular soft decision decoding methods.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207