MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514571107 · doi:10.1109/isit.2016.7541754

Minimal characterization and provably efficient exhaustive search algorithm for elementary trapping sets of variable-regular LDPC codes

2016· article· en· W2514571107 on OpenAlexaff
Yoones Hashemi, Amir H. Banihashemi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)AlgorithmLow-density parity-check codeComputer scienceCode (set theory)MathematicsDiscrete mathematicsDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a new characterization and an efficient exhaustive search algorithm for elementary trapping sets (ETS) of variable-regular low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes. Recently, Karimi and Banihashemi proposed a characterization of ETSs, which was based on viewing an ETS as a layered superset (LSS) of a short cycle in the code's Tanner graph. Compared to the LSS-based characterization, which is based on a single LSS expansion technique, the new characterization involves two additional expansion techniques. The introduction of the new techniques mitigates two problems that LSS-based characterization/search suffers from: (1) exhaustiveness: not every ETS structure is an LSS of a cycle, (2) search efficiency: LSS-based search algorithm often requires the enumeration of cycles with length much larger than the girth of the graph, where the multiplicity of such cycles increases rapidly with their length. We prove that using the three expansion techniques, any ETS structure can be obtained starting from a simple cycle, no matter how large the size of the structure a or the number of its unsatisfied check nodes b are, i.e., the characterization is exhaustive. We also demonstrate that for the proposed characterization to exhaustively cover all the ETS structures within the (a, b) classes with a ≤ a <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">max</sub> , b ≤ b <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">max</sub> , for any value of a <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">max</sub> and b <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">max</sub> , the maximum length of the required cycles is minimal. The proposed characterization corresponds to a provably efficient search algorithm, significantly more efficient than the LSS-based search.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207