MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911385876 · doi:10.1109/istc.2018.8625273

Computing the Asymptotic Expected Multiplicity of Leafless Elementary Trapping Sets (LETSs) in Random Irregular LDPC Code Ensembles

2018· article· en· W2911385876 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Dehghan, Amir H. Banihashemi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeMultiplicity (mathematics)MathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsDecoding methodsAlgorithmGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leafless elementary trapping sets (LETSs) are known to be among the most harmful substructures of Tanner graphs of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes in the error floor region. It is well-known that in the asymptotic regime of infinite block length, the only LETS structures that have finite non-zero average multiplicity are those that contain a single (simple) cycle. The average multiplicity of all the other LETSs, whose structures contain more than one cycle, tends to zero asymptotically. The asymptotic average multiplicity of LETS structures with a single cycle for variable-regular LDPC codes has already been derived by the authors in a previous work. In this paper, we compute the asymptotic average multiplicity of such structures for irregular LDPC code ensembles. The derivation involves counting the average number of cycles of a specific length with a specific combination of variable node degrees. We demonstrate that the asymptotic results, derived in this paper, match well with the LETS multiplicities of finite-length LDPC codes chosen randomly from the ensemble, even for rather short block lengths.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207