Error Floor Estimation of LDPC Decoders — A Code Independent Approach to Measuring the Harmfulness of Trapping Sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linear state-space model is a well-known code-independent method to estimate the contribution of a trapping set (TS) structure to the error floor of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes. In this paper, we provide an in-depth analysis of this method by incorporating a more accurate model for the incoming messages to the TS structure that takes into account the randomness and the correlation among such messages. Based on this analysis, we demonstrate that both randomness and correlation result in the over-estimation of the failure probability of the TS. We then propose an alternate code-independent technique for the error floor estimation of iterative LDPC decoders that can accurately estimate the contribution of different TS structures in the error floor. Compared to the linear state-space model, the proposed method is not only more accurate, but also more general, in that, it is applicable to any saturating iterative message-passing decoder, symmetrically quantized or unquantized, over any memoryless binary-input output-symmetric channel. The proposed technique can be viewed as the local application of importance sampling (IS) to the message-passing algorithm over the subgraph induced by the TS in the code's Tanner graph. In the message-passing process, to account for the effect of the rest of the Tanner graph, density evolution along with a simple correlation model is used to generate the messages coming into the TS from the rest of the Tanner graph. Extensive simulations demonstrate that the proposed technique can accurately estimate the error floor of LDPC codes over both additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel and binary symmetric channel (BSC), for a variety of iterative decoding algorithms and quantization schemes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".