Construction of QC LDPC Codes With Low Error Floor by Efficient Systematic Search and Elimination of Trapping Sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a systematic design of protograph-based quasi-cyclic (QC) low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes with low error floor. We first characterize the trapping sets of such codes and demonstrate, using edge coloring techniques, that the QC structure of the code eliminates some of the trapping set structures that can exist in a code with the same degree distribution and girth but lacking the QC structure. Based on this characterization, our design aims at eliminating a targeted collection of trapping sets. Considering the parent/child relationship between the trapping sets in the collection, we search for and eliminate those trapping sets that are in the collection but are not a child of any other trapping set in the collection. An efficient layered algorithm is designed for the search of these targeted trapping sets. Compared to the existing codes in the literature, the designed codes are superior in the sense that they are free of the same collection of trapping sets while having a smaller block length, or a larger collection of trapping sets while having the same block length. In addition, the efficiency of the search algorithm makes it possible to design codes with larger degrees which are free of trapping sets within larger ranges compared to the state-of-the-art.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".