MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531628009 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2016.2617335

Symmetrical Constructions for Regular Girth-8 QC-LDPC Codes

2016· article· en· W2531628009 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Tasdighi, Amir H. Banihashemi, Mohammad‐Reza Sadeghi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersHuawei Technologies
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeMathematicsCirculant matrixBlock codeGirth (graph theory)Permutation matrixPermutation (music)Discrete mathematicsCombinatoricsTurbo codeRaptor codeConcatenated error correction codeLinear codeAlgorithmDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose new constructions for regular girth-8 quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check (QC-LDPC) codes based on circulant permutation matrices (CPM). The constructions assume symmetries in the structure of the parity-check matrix and employ a greedy exhaustive search algorithm to find the permutation shifts of the CPMs. As a result of symmetries, the new codes have a more compact representation compared with their counterparts. In majority of cases, also, they achieve the girth 8 at a shorter block length for the same degree distribution (code rate). Deterministic (explicit) constructions are also presented to expand the proposed parity-check matrices to larger block lengths and higher rates. The proposed long high-rate codes are often substantially shorter than regular girth-8 QC-LDPC codes of similar rate in the literature. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed symmetric codes have competitive performance in comparison with similar existing QC-LDPC codes that lack symmetry.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.302
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations63
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207