MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619905542 · doi:10.1109/lcomm.2017.2707553

Lower Bounds on the Size of Smallest Elementary and Non-Elementary Trapping Sets in Variable-Regular LDPC Codes

2017· article· en· W2619905542 on OpenAlexafffund
Yoones Hashemi, Amir H. Banihashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHuawei Technologies
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeElementary proofMathematicsElementary functionComputer scienceDecoding methodsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trapping sets are known to be the main cause for the error floor of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes. They are often classified by their size a and the number of unsatisfied check nodes b in their subgraph. Trapping sets can be partitioned into two categories of elementary and non-elementary, where the first category are those whose subgraph only contains degree-1 and degree-2 check nodes. Empirical results have shown that often the most harmful trapping sets are elementary. In this letter, we derive a lower bound on the size of the smallest non-elementary trapping sets for a given b in variable-regular LDPC codes. The derived lower bound demonstrates that the size of the smallest possible non-elementary trapping set is, in general, larger than that of an elementary trapping set with the same b value. This provides a theoretical justification as to why non-elementary trapping sets are often not among the most harmful trapping sets.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications LettersSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207