TY - GEN
T1 - Average min-sum decoding of LDPC codes
AU - Axvig, Nathan
AU - Dreher, Deanna
AU - Morrison, Katherine
AU - Psota, Eric
AU - Pérez, Lance C.
AU - Walker, Judy L.
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - Simulations have shown that the outputs of min-sum (MS) decoding generally behave in one of two ways: either the output vector eventually stabilizes at a codeword or it eventually cycles through a finite set of vectors that may include both code-words and non-codewords. The latter behavior has significantly contributed to the difficulty in studying the performance of this decoder. To overcome this problem, a new decoder, average min-sum (AMS), is proposed; this decoder outputs the average of the MS output vectors over a finite set of iterations. Simulations comparing MS, AMS, linear programming (LP) decoding, and maximum likelihood (ML) decoding are presented, illustrating the relative performances of each of these decoders. In general, MS and AMS have comparable word error rates; however, in the simulation of a code with large block length, AMS has a significantly lower bit error rate. Finally, AMS pseudocodewords are introduced and their relationship to graph cover and LP pseudocodewords is explored, with particular focus on the AMS pseudocodewords of regular LDPC codes and cycle codes.
AB - Simulations have shown that the outputs of min-sum (MS) decoding generally behave in one of two ways: either the output vector eventually stabilizes at a codeword or it eventually cycles through a finite set of vectors that may include both code-words and non-codewords. The latter behavior has significantly contributed to the difficulty in studying the performance of this decoder. To overcome this problem, a new decoder, average min-sum (AMS), is proposed; this decoder outputs the average of the MS output vectors over a finite set of iterations. Simulations comparing MS, AMS, linear programming (LP) decoding, and maximum likelihood (ML) decoding are presented, illustrating the relative performances of each of these decoders. In general, MS and AMS have comparable word error rates; however, in the simulation of a code with large block length, AMS has a significantly lower bit error rate. Finally, AMS pseudocodewords are introduced and their relationship to graph cover and LP pseudocodewords is explored, with particular focus on the AMS pseudocodewords of regular LDPC codes and cycle codes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57849154050&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57849154050&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/TURBOCODING.2008.4658725
DO - 10.1109/TURBOCODING.2008.4658725
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:57849154050
SN - 9781424428632
T3 - 2008 5th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Related Topics, TURBOCODING
SP - 356
EP - 361
BT - 2008 5th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Related Topics, TURBOCODING
T2 - 2008 5th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Related Topics, TURBOCODING
Y2 - 1 September 2008 through 5 September 2008
ER -