1 / 27

Belief-Propagation with Information Correction: Near Maximum-Likelihood Decoding of LDPC Codes

Belief-Propagation with Information Correction: Near Maximum-Likelihood Decoding of LDPC Codes. Ned Varnica + , Marc Fossorier # , Alek Kav čić + + Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University # Department of Electrical Engineering University of Hawaii. Outline.

ria-rose
Download Presentation

Belief-Propagation with Information Correction: Near Maximum-Likelihood Decoding of LDPC Codes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Belief-Propagation with Information Correction: Near Maximum-Likelihood Decoding of LDPC Codes Ned Varnica+, Marc Fossorier#, Alek Kavčić+ +Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University #Department of Electrical Engineering University of Hawaii

  2. Outline • Motivation – BP vs ML decoding • Improved iterative decoder of LDPC codes • Types of BP decoding errors • Simulation results

  3. . . . . . . LDPC Code Graph • Parity check matrix • H • Bipartite Tanner code graph G = (V,E,C) • Variable (symbol) nodes vi  V, i = 0, 1, …, N-1 • Parity check nodes cj C, j = 0 , 1, … , Nc-1 Nc x N A non-zero entry in H an edge in G • Code rate • R = k/N, k  N-Nc • Belief Propagation • Iterative propagation of conditional probabilities

  4. Standard Belief-Propagation on LDPC Codes • Locally operating • optimal for cycle-free graphs • Optimized LDPC codes (Luby et al 98, Richardson, Shokrollahi & Urbanke 99, Hou, Siegel & Milstein 01, Varnica & Kavcic 02) • sub-optimal for graphs with cycles • Good finite LDPC have an exponential number of cycles in their Tanner graphs (Etzion, Trachtenberg and Vardy 99) • Encoder constructions • BP to ML performance gap due to convergence to pseudo-codewords (Wiberg 95, Forney et al 01, Koetter & Vontobel 03)

  5. Examples • Short Codes - e.g. Tanner code with N = 155, k = 64, diam = 6, girth = 8,dmin = 20 • Long Codes • - e.g. Margulis Code with N = 2640k = 1320

  6. Goals • Construct decoder • Improved BP decoding performance • More flexibility in performance versus complexity • Can nearly achieve ML performance with much lower computational burden • Reduce or eliminate LDPC error floors • Applications • Can use with any “off-the-shelf” LDPC encoder • Can apply to any communication/data storage channel

  7. Subgraph Definitions ^ x(L) {0,1}N Definition 1:SUC graphGS(L) = (VS(L), ES(L), CS(L))is graph induced by SUCCS(L) rRN x {0,1}N BCJR detector BP decoder channel transmitted binary vector received vector decoded vector after L iterations ^ • Syndrome s = H x(L) • CS(L) - Set of unsatisfied check nodes(SUC) CS(L) = {ci :(Hx(L))i 0} • VS(L) - Set of variable nodes incident to c  CS(L) • ES(L) - Set of edges connecting VS(L)and CS(L) ^ • dGs(v) - Degree in SUC graphGS(L)for v  V • dGs(v)  dG(v)

  8. Properties of SUC graph Observation 1: The higher the degree dGs(v) of a node v  Vs(L) the more likely is v to be in error e.g. Statistics for Tanner (155,64) code blocksfor which BP failed on AWGN channel at SNR = 2.5 dB • Select v node • Perform information correction

  9. Node Selection Strategy 1 Strategy 1: Determine SUC graph and select the node with maximal degree dGs in SUC graphGS(L) Select node v0 or v2 or v12

  10. Properties of SUC graph, cntd Definition 2: Nodes v1 and v2 are neighbors with respect to SUC if there exist cCS(L) incident to both v1 and v2 CS(L) • nv(m) - number of neighbors of v with degree dGs = m . . . nv(2) = 1 and nv(1) = 4 . . . Observation 2: The smaller the number of neighbors (wrt to SUC graph) with high degree, the more likely v is to be in error

  11. Node Selection Strategy 2 Strategy 2: Among nodes with maximal degree dGs select a node with minimal number of highest degree neighbors nv0(2)= nv12(2)= 1; nv2(2)= 2 nv0(1)= 4; nv12(1)= 6 Select node v0

  12. Alternatives to Strategy 2 max • dGs = max dGs(v) • Set of suspicious nodes Sv= {v : dGs(v) = dGs } • Edge penalty function r(v,c) = (Nc- set of v nodes incident to c) • Penalty function R(v) =  r(v,c) –  r(v,c) • Select vp Svas vp = argmin R(v) • Numerous related approaches possible v  V max max max dGs(vn); if Nc \ {v} vn Nc\{v} 0 ; if Nc \ {v} =  c  Cs c  Cs max max v  Sv

  13. Node Selection Strategy 3 • Decoder input on node vi • Memoryless AWGN channel: Observation 3: A variable node v is more likely to be incorrect if its decoder input is less reliable, i.e., if |O(v)| is lower Strategy 3: Among nodes with maximal degree dGs select node with minimal input reliability|O(v)|

  14. Message Passing - Notation • Set of log-likelihood ratios messages on v nodes: M = (C,O) • Decoder input: O = [O (v0 ), …, O (vN-1)] • Channel detector (BCJR) input B = [B (v0 ), …, B (vN-1)] . . . . . . C . . . V . . . . . . O . . . . . . T T T

  15. j = 1 j = 2 j = 3 7 3 8 1 9 4 10 start 11 5 12 2 13 6 14 Symbol Correction Procedures • Replace decoder and detector input LLRs corresponding to selected vp • O (vp) = +Sand B (vp) = +S • O (vp) = –Sand B (vp) = –S • Perform correction in stages • Test 2j combinations at stage j • For each test perform additional Kjiterations • Max number of attempts (stages) jmax

  16. Symbol Correction Procedures • “codeword listing” approach • Test all 2jmax possibilities • W – collection of valid codeword candidates • Pick the most likely candidate • e.g. for AWGN channel set x = argmin d(r,w) j = 1 j = 2 j = 3 7 3 8 1 9 ^ 4 wW start 10 • “first codeword” approach • Stop at a first valid codeword • Faster convergence, slightly worse performance for large jmax 11 5 12 2 13 6 14

  17. j = 1 j = 2 j = 3 j = 1 j = 2 j = 3 7 3 3 2 8 4 1 1 9 6 4 5 10 7 start 11 10 5 9 12 11 2 8 13 13 12 6 14 14 Parallel and Serial Implementation ( jmax= 3 ) start

  18. j = 1 j = 2 j = 3 7 3 8 1 9 4 10 start 11 5 12 2 13 6 14 Complexity - Parallel Implementation • Decoding continued • M need to be stored • storage  (2jmax) • lower Kj required • “first codeword” procedure - fastest convergence • Decoding restarted • M need not be stored • higher Kjrequired

  19. ML decoder 0 10 “codeword listing” procedure original BP (max 100 iter) -1 10 -2 10 WER -3 10 -4 10 -5 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 E / N [dB] b 0 Can we achieve ML? Fact 1: As jmax N, “codeword listing” algorithm with Kj = 0, for j < jmax, and Kjmax = 1 becomes ML decoder • For low values of jmax (jmax << N) performs very close to ML decoder • Tanner (N = 155, k = 64) code • jmax = 11, Kj = 10 • Decoding continued • faster decoding • M need to be stored • ML almost achieved

  20. Pseudo-codewords Elimination • Pseudo-codewords compete with codewords in locally-operating BP decoding (Koetter & Vontobel 2003) • c - a codeword in an m-cover of G • i - fraction of time vi V assumes incorrect value in c •  = (0,1, …,N-1) - pseudo-codeword • pseudo-distance (for AWGN) • Eliminate a large number of pseudo-codewords by forcing symbol ‘0’ or symbol ‘1’ on nodes vp • Pseudo-distance spectra improved • Can increase min pseudo-distance if jmax is large enough

  21. Types of BP decoding errors • Very high SNRs (error floor region) Stable errors on saturated subgraphs: • decoder reaches a steady state and fails • messages passed in SUC graph saturated Definition 3: Decoder D has reached a steady state in the interval [L1,L2] if Cs(L) = Cs(L1) for all L [L1,L2] • 2. Medium SNRs (waterfall region) • Unstable Errors: • decoder does not reach a steady state

  22. SUC Properties in Error Floor Region Theorem 1: In the error floor region Corollary: For regular LDPC codes with • Information correction for high SNRs (error floor region) • Pros: • Small size SUC • Faster convergence • Cons: • dGsplays no role in node selection

  23. ML decoder 0 “codeword listing” procedure 10 “first codeword” procedure original BP (max 100 iter) -1 10 -2 10 WER -3 10 -4 10 -5 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 E / N [dB] b 0 Simulation Results • Tanner (155,64) code • Regular (3,5) code • Channel: AWGN • Strategy 3 • jmax = 11, Kj = 10 • More than 1dB gain • ML almost achieved

  24. Simulation Results • Tanner (155,64) code • Regular (3,5) code • Channel: AWGN • Strategy 3 • “First codeword” procedure • jmax = 4,6,8 and 11 • Kj = 10

  25. Simulation Results – Error Floors • Margulis (2640,1320) code • Regular (3,6) code • Channel: AWGN • Strategy 3 • “First codeword” procedure • jmax = 5, Kj = 20 • More than 2 orders of magnitudes WER improvement

  26. Simulation Results – ISI Channels • Tanner (155,64) code • Channels: • Dicode (1-D) • EPR4 (1-D)(1+D)2 • Strategy 2 • jmax = 11, Kj = 20 • 1dB gain • 20 % of detected errors are ML

  27. Conclusion • Information correction in BP decoding of LDPC codes • More flexibility in performance vs complexity • Can nearly achieve ML performance with much lower computational burden • Eliminates a large number of pseudo-codewords • Reduces or eliminates LDPC error floors • Applications • Can use for any “off-the-shelf” LDPC encoder • Can apply to any communication/data storage channel

More Related