High Speed Low Error Floor Hardware Implementation and Fast and Accurate Error Floor Estimation of LDPC Decoders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores hardware implementation of low error floor and high speed low-density parity-check (LDPC) decoders.At first, a novel partially-parallel implementation of a protograph-based quasi-cyclic (QC) LDPC decoder, using a new column-layered message-passing schedule is presented.A new design for serial-input check nodes and switch networks, results in lower hardware complexity while having a higher throughput and comparable latency in comparison with all existing partiallyparallel architectures.Thereafter, we introduce a multi-step scheme for the input quantization of message-passing decoders for LDPC codes.The scheme is based on successive requantization and re-decoding of the input blocks that cause the decoder to be trapped in a trapping set, until the decoding is successful or a maximum number of requantization/re-decodings is reached.The proposed scheme, which is applicable to both regular and irregular codes, lowers the error floor significantly at the cost of small increase in complexity, memory and latency.Furthermore, to facilitate the process of code design and performance evaluation in the error floor region, we design a fast and accurate technique to estimate the error floor of variable-regular LDPC codes under quantized iterative decoding algorithms.This technique, which is based on enumerating the dominant elementary trapping sets of the code, provides significant improvement over existing methods in terms of speed and accuracy.Finally, we examine the harmfulness of trapping sets of variable-regular LDPC codes for soft-decision iterative decoding algorithms.We show that, other than the size of a trapping set, the number of unsatisfied check nodes and the trapping set's topological properties, the position of its subgraph in the Tanner graph of the code can also have an effect on its harmfulness.We also examine dominant trapping sets iii of the quantized min-sum (MS) decoding algorithm and two of its variants (offset-MS and MS with successive relaxation (SR)), for both regular and irregular LDPC codes.We show that the distribution of dominant trapping sets of these algorithms is similar for regular codes and different for irregular codes.Based on these results, we evaluate the error floor performance of a decoder, consisting of MS, offset-MS and SR-MS decoding algorithms working in parallel.First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Amir H. Banihashemi for leading and encouraging me during my research.When I started as his M.A.Sc.student nine years ago, my dream was to acquire a set of skills.Amir helped me to achieve them with invaluable advice and excellent guidance.I would also like to thank M. Samy Hosny, the CEO of SiloconPro Inc. for supporting my research and providing me with his professional experience.I can not express my appreciation to my wonderful wife
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".