MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trade-Based LDPC Codes

2022· preprint· en· W3182847896 on OpenAlexafffund
Farzane Amirzade, Daniel Panario, Mohammad‐Reza Sadeghi

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeParity-check matrixMathematicsGirth (graph theory)Tanner graphMatrix (chemical analysis)Parity (physics)Invariant (physics)ExponentDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsAlgorithmDecoding methodsError floor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LDPC codes based on multi-edge protographs potentially have larger minimum distances compared to their counterparts, single-edge protographs. However, considering different features of their Tanner graph, such as short cycles, girth and other graphical structures, is harder than for Tanner graphs from single-edge protographs. Here, we provide a novel approach to construct the parity-check matrix of an LDPC code which is based on trades obtained from block designs. We employ our method to construct multi-edge quasi-cyclic (QC) LDPC codes.We use those trade-based matrices to define base matrices of multi-edge protographs. The construction of exponent matrices corresponding to these base matrices has less complexity than the ones proposed in the literature. We prove that these base matrices result in QC-LDPC codes with smaller lower bounds on the lifting degree than existing ones.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207