Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the error floor of quasi-cyclic (QC) low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes decoded by the sum-product algorithm (SPA) with row layered message-passing scheduling. For this, we develop a linear state-space model of trapping sets (TSs) which incorporates the layered nature of scheduling. We demonstrate that the contribution of each TS to the error floor is not only a function of the topology of the TS, but also depends on the row layers in which different check nodes of the TS are located. This information, referred to as TS layer profile (TSLP), plays an important role in the harmfulness of a TS. As a result, the harmfulness of a TS in particular, and the error floor of the code in general, can significantly change by changing the order in which the information of different layers, corresponding to different row blocks of the parity-check matrix, is updated. We also study the problem of finding a layer ordering that minimizes the error floor, and obtain row layered decoders with error floor significantly lower than that of their flooding counterparts. As part of our analysis, we make connections between the parameters of the state-space model for a row layered schedule and those of the flooding schedule. Simulation results are presented to show the accuracy of analytical error floor estimates.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".