MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950033884 · doi:10.1109/tit.2019.2923198

Asymptotic Average Multiplicity of Structures Within Different Categories of Trapping Sets, Absorbing Sets, and Stopping Sets in Random Regular and Irregular LDPC Code Ensembles

2019· preprint· en· W2950033884 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Dehghan, Amir H. Banihashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeMathematicsMultiplicity (mathematics)Tanner graphCode (set theory)InfinityBlock (permutation group theory)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsTrappingDecoding methodsAlgorithmError floorSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes in the error floor region is closely related to some substructures of the code's Tanner graph, collectively referred to as trapping sets (TSs). In this paper, we study the asymptotic average number of different types of trapping sets such as elementary TSs (ETS), leafless ETSs (LETS), absorbing sets (ABS), elementary ABSs (EABS), and stopping sets (SS), in random variable-regular and irregular LDPC code ensembles. We demonstrate that, regardless of the type of the TS, as the code's length tends to infinity, the average number of a given structure tends to infinity, to a positive constant, or to zero, if the structure contains no cycle, only one cycle, or more than one cycle, respectively. For the case where the structure contains a single cycle, we derive the asymptotic expected multiplicity of the structure by counting the average number of its constituent cycles and all the possible ways that the structure can be constructed from the cycle. This, in general, involves computing the expected number of cycles of a certain length with a certain given combination of node degrees, or computing the expected number of cycles of a certain length expanded to the desired structure by the connection of trees to its nodes. The asymptotic results obtained in this work, which are independent of the block length and only depend on the code's degree distributions, are shown to be accurate even for finite-length codes.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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