MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413359259 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2025.3600568

Performance Analysis and Enhancement of P-LDPC Codes for Lossy Compression of Binary Sources

2025· article· en· W4413359259 on OpenAlexaff
Sanya Liu, Xinfeng Wu, Yi Fang, Jun Chen, Chen Chen, Lin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLow-density parity-check codeLossy compressionElectronic engineeringComputer scienceBinary numberCompression (physics)Decoding methodsAlgorithmMaterials scienceMathematicsEngineeringArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the duality between source coding and channel coding, high-performance channel codes are often adopted for addressing source coding problems. In this paper, we investigate the design and analysis of protograph low-density parity-check (P-LDPC) codes in lossy source coding systems. First, we propose a novel lossy source coding architecture based on P-LDPC codes, and empirically verify that although high-performance channel codes perform exceptionally well in their intended domain, they are not inherently optimal for lossy compression. To facilitate analysis, we introduce the lossy compression protograph extrinsic information transfer (LC-PEXIT) algorithm, which aids in evaluating the rate-distortion (RD) performance of P-LDPC codes. Additionally, the LC-PEXIT algorithm allows for the prediction of key parameters, such as the prior coefficient <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">P</i> and the reinforcement rate <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">R</i>, both of which critically influence system performance. We further propose a design algorithm for lossy P-LDPC codes and provide two sets of design examples. Experimental results show strong alignment between the predicted and actual values of <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">P</i> and <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">R</i>f, with the designed P-LDPC codes exhibiting superior RD performance compared to classical P-LDPC and state-of-the-art ultra-sparse LDPC (US-LDPC) codes. In particular, the designed P-LDPC codes over benchmark codes increases the system coding efficiency of up to approximate 70% and achieves a performance gain of 1.69 ~ 3.26 dB, making it highly effective for lossy compression applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CommunicationsSame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207