MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170949687 · doi:10.1109/allerton.2010.5706885

Relaxed half-stochastic decoding of LDPC codes over GF(q)

2010· article· en· W2170949687 on OpenAlexaff
Gabi Sarkis, Saied Hemati, Shie Mannor, Warren J. Gross

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsComputer scienceLow-density parity-check codeCode wordComputational complexity theoryAlgorithmSequential decodingList decodingBinary numberBlock codeTheoretical computer scienceConcatenated error correction codeMathematicsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The error-correcting performance of non-binary LDPC codes has been shown to be better than most codes currently used for a variety of applications. However, due to the very high complexity of decoding these codes, they are not ubiquitously used. Moreover, an SPA decoder is so prohibitively complex, that a fully parallel implementation is not feasible even with simplified algorithms. In this paper we present a new algorithm which approaches the low complexity of stochastic decoding with the high performance of SPA decoding by combining elements from both algorithms and applying successive relaxation. We study its performance using a number of codes and show that it matches that of the SPA. We also analyze its complexity compared to the SPA and conclude that it has lower per iteration complexity and can have comparable average complexity per codeword. Due to the lower per iteration complexity, RHS has the potential of being implemented as a parallel, or partially parallel, decoder that is faster than a feasible SPA decoder.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207