A Comparison of Rateless Codes at Short Block Lengths
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raptor codes and rate-compatible low-density parity-check (RC-LDPC) codes have drawn much attention in recent years as they can approach channel capacity without requiring channel information at the transmitter. Raptor codes have been shown to uniformly approach the binary-input AWGN channel capacity, especially at low SNR's, whereas RC-LDPC codes have the potential to provide higher throughput than Raptor codes at high SNR's. In this paper, we use different message word sizes to compare the throughput of three rateless codes, namely, Raptor codes, rate-compatible irregular repeat-accumulate (RC-IRA) codes, and the rate-compatible quasi-cyclic LDPC (RC/QC-LDPC) codes proposed in the 3GPP2 and 802.20 standards. The comparison is focused on short message word lengths under 16-symbol quadrature amplitude modulation (16-QAM). The simulation results in the AWGN channel show that RC-IRA and RC/QC-LDPC codes outperform Raptor codes at high SNR's. Under frequency flat Rayleigh fading channels, RC-IRA codes outperform RC/QC-LDPC codes at high SNR's and perform slightly worse at low SNR's. We also show that for short block lengths, the throughput of RC-IRA codes is not particularly sensitive to the mother code rate, the belief propagation (BP) algorithm scheduling, the existence of parallel edges during check node combining, and the symbol degree distribution (for fixed average left degree).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it