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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.034
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