MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893800824 · doi:10.1109/icee.2018.8472553

Low Decoding Complexity of LDPC Codes Over the Binary Erasure Channel

2018· article· en· W2893800824 on OpenAlexaff
Sareh Majidi Ivari, M. Reza Soleymani, Yousef R. Shayan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecoding methodsLow-density parity-check codeBinary erasure channelErasureBelief propagationAlgorithmComputer scienceSequential decodingBinary numberSet (abstract data type)List decodingChannel (broadcasting)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsConcatenated error correction codeBlock codeArithmeticChannel capacityTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a new low complexity decoding algorithm outperforming existing schemes. When the Belief Propagation fails and cannot solve all the erased bits, the guessing algorithm makes assumptions on a set of erased bits. However, in our new algorithm instead of guessing the values of a set of message bits, the decoder selects a set of check nodes and makes assumption on bits connected to them. The number of possibilities is reduced by half because the field is binary resulting in lower decoding complexity. The proposed decoding algorithm is applied to two regular half rate LDPC codes with lengths of 1000 and 2000. The theoretical belief propagation (BP) threshold for these two codes is 0.429. It is shown that the actual BP threshold is improved using the new algorithm. Setting the number of possibilities to two, we achieve a threshold of 0.43 which is higher than the BP theoretical.

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)0.008
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207