MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172112304 · doi:10.1109/cwit.2011.5872112

A new approach for FEC decoding based on the BP algorithm in LTE and WiMAX systems

2011· article· en· W2172112304 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Refaey, Sébastien Roy, Paul Fortier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSerial concatenated convolutional codesTurbo codeAlgorithmSequential decodingLow-density parity-check codeConvolutional codeList decodingDecoding methodsConcatenated error correction codeWiMAXBelief propagationBCJR algorithmTheoretical computer scienceComputer engineeringWirelessBlock codeTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many wireless communication systems such as IS-54, enhanced data rates for the GSM evolution (EDGE), worldwide interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX) and long term evolution (LTE) have adopted low-density parity-check (LDPC), tail-biting convolutional, and turbo codes as the forward error correcting codes (FEC) scheme for data and overhead channels. Therefore, many efficient algorithms have been proposed for decoding these codes. However, the different decoding approaches for these two families of codes usually lead to different hardware architectures. Since these codes work side by side in these new wireless systems, it is a good idea to introduce a universal decoder to handle these two families of codes. The present work exploits the parity-check matrix (H) representation of tail-biting convolutional and turbo codes, thus enabling decoding via a unified belief propagation (BP) algorithm. Indeed, the BP algorithm provides a highly effective general methodology for devising low-complexity iterative decoding algorithms for all convolutional code classes as well as turbo codes. While a small performance loss is observed when decoding turbo codes with BP instead of MAP, this is offset by the lower complexity of the BP algorithm and the inherent advantage of a unified decoding architecture.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207