MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hardware Implementation of Fixed-Point Decoder for Low-Density Lattice Codes

2020· article· en· W3167322117 on OpenAlexaff
Rachna Srivastava, Vincent Gaudet, Patrick Mitran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceField-programmable gate arrayFloating pointAdditive white Gaussian noiseThroughputClock rateDecoding methodsParallel computingLattice phase equaliserAlgorithmComputer hardwareChipWhite noise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a fixed-point arithmetic low-density lattice code (LDLC) decoder is designed and implemented on an FPGA where Gaussian mixture messages that are exchanged during the iterative decoding process are approximated to a single Gaussian. Numerical simulations are performed to find the minimum number of bits required for the fixed-point decoder implementation to attain a frame-error-rate (FER) performance similar to a floating-point LDLC decoder implemented in C. This is found to be 12 integer bits, 8 fractional bits and a sign bit. Efficient methods are used to numerically approximate the required non-linear functions such as division and exponentiation. A two-node serial LDLC decoder implemented on an Arria 10 FPGA is presented as a hardware proof-of-concept that attains a throughput of 440 Ksymbols/sec at high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). This throughput is obtained at clock frequency of 125MHz and for a block length of 1000. The throughput is further improved with a partially-parallel architecture that achieves a throughput of 5.75 Msymbols/sec at high SNR.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207