Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Short Non-Binary Low-Density Parity-Check Codes for Phase Noise Channels

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Short non-binary LDPC codes with DPSK reach within 1.2 dB of finite-length bounds on phase-noise channels down to a CER of 1e-3.

desk verdict A solid, reusable design methodology for short non-binary LDPC codes on phase-noise channels; the 1.2 dB claim is plausible, but the DT bound supporting it is under-quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02816 v1 pith:AKBTQCLE submitted 2019-08-07 cs.IT math.IT

Tudor Ninacs , Balázs Matuz , Gianluigi Liva , Giulio Colavolpe This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT
keywords non-binaryLDPCcodesnon-coherentdetectionphasenoiseDPalgorithmprotographfinite-lengthboundsDPSKturbo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper shows that short non-binary protograph LDPC codes, concatenated with m-ary DPSK and decoded by a joint factor-graph receiver, can operate within 1.2 dB of a finite-length bound on channels with Wiener phase noise, at codeword error rates down to $10^{-3}$. The supporting designs cover rate 1/2 with 8-DPSK (160 symbols), rate 2/3 with 8-DPSK (120 symbols), and rate 3/4 with 16-DPSK (128 symbols). The design recipe is explicit: exhaustively search small protograph base matrices using iterative-threshold estimates from Monte Carlo density evolution, then refine the best ensemble by adding a single edge to remove error floors. If the claim holds, it gives a concrete, pilot-free benchmark for short-packet systems with low-cost oscillators and a target against which future code designs for phase-noise channels can be measured.

What carries the argument

The engine is the protograph base matrix -- a small integer matrix whose entries count edges between check-node and variable-node types. The design searches exhaustively over matrices with entries in {0,1,2,3}, expurgates those with zero-weight columns or too many degree-1 columns, reduces to a minimal set modulo row/column permutations, and selects the ensemble with the best iterative threshold computed by Monte Carlo density evolution; a second step adds a single edge to the winning base matrix to lower the error floor. At the receiver, the discretized-phase (DP) algorithm runs forward-backward recursions on a phase-quantized trellis with L=8m levels and a simplified three-point increment distribution, producing extrinsic symbol probabilities that feed a non-binary belief-propagation decoder over GF(m). Detector and decoder exchange extrinsic messages iteratively as parts of one factor graph.

What would settle it

Recompute the dependency-testing bound for the same channel parameters with a much larger Monte Carlo sample or deterministic numerical integration, and check whether the reported gap of about 1.2 dB at a CER of $10^{-3}$ persists; also test the same codes with the unquantized phase-increment density instead of the P_Delta=0.1 approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a serially concatenated scheme consisting of a non-binary protograph LDPC code over GF(m) and an m-ary DPSK modulator, with iterative detection and decoding on a joint factor graph, reaches codeword error rates within 1.2 dB of the dependency-testing bound at $10^{-3}$ over a Wiener phase-noise AWGN channel. This is demonstrated for an 8-ary (160,80) rate-1/2 code, an 8-ary (120,80) rate-2/3 code, and a 16-ary (128,96) rate-3/4 code, with phase-noise standard deviations of 2° and 1° respectively. The authors further show that the protographs selected for the non-coherent channel also have the best thresholds among the searched candidates on the coherent AWGN channel, so the phase-noise-tolerant design is not achieved at the cost of coherent performance. They also report gains of about 0.7 dB over a reference serial turbo scheme with binary convolutional codes.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark against which the 1.2 dB gap is measured is a Monte Carlo estimate of the dependency-testing bound whose sample count and statistical accuracy are not reported, so a biased or noisy benchmark would change the headline gap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rate-1/2, 2/3 and 3/4 short non-binary LDPC codes with m-DPSK operate within 1.2 dB of the dependency-testing bound down to 10^-3 codeword error rate on Wiener phase-noise channels, without pilots.
  • Protographs that are threshold-optimal on the non-coherent channel also win on the coherent AWGN channel among the searched candidates, so a single code can serve both receiver modes.
  • The two-step design (threshold search plus single-edge refinement) removes visible error floors above 10^-3 at a small waterfall penalty.
  • The designed codes outperform a reference serial turbo scheme with binary convolutional codes by about 0.7 dB in both coherent and non-coherent operation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 1.2 dB gap holds under more careful bound estimation, it suggests the short-block performance penalty on this channel is mostly captured by the dependency-testing bound, and the phase discretization (L=8m) and simplified increment model are not limiting.
  • The same search procedure could be applied to other channels with memory -- for example, channels with frequency offset or time-varying fading -- by replacing the channel model in the density evolution and the DP detector.
  • Because the best non-coherent protographs coincide with the best coherent ones, a practical system could use a single code and switch between coherent and non-coherent receiver processing without redesign.
  • A natural test is to scale the design to longer blocks (N=500 or 1000) and see whether the 1.2 dB gap stays constant or grows, revealing whether the method is specific to the ultra-short regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a design methodology for short non-binary protograph LDPC codes concatenated with m-ary DPSK over AWGN channels affected by Wiener phase noise. The receiver performs iterative detection and decoding on a joint factor graph using the discretized-phase algorithm for symbol detection and non-binary belief propagation for decoding. The authors propose a two-step protograph search based on Monte Carlo density evolution thresholds, with a refinement step to lower error floors. Performance is benchmarked against finite-length dependency-testing (DT) bounds and information-rate limits, and against a serial turbo scheme from the literature. The headline result is that the designed codes perform within 1.2 dB of the DT bounds down to a codeword error rate of 10^-3 for rate 1/2 with 8-DPSK, rate 2/3 with 8-DPSK, and rate 3/4 with 16-DPSK.

Significance. If the reported margins are accurate, the paper provides a useful and concrete benchmark for short-block coded modulation over phase-noise channels, a regime relevant to mMTC. The explicit protograph matrices, threshold tables, and the comparison against a serial turbo detector make the design results reproducible and practically meaningful. The main limitation is that the central claim depends on a Monte Carlo estimate of the DT bound whose statistical quality and computation details are not reported; this must be addressed before the headline margin can be fully accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (17)] The DT bound curves in Figures 3-5, which are the reference for the headline "within 1.2 dB" claim, are obtained by averaging the summand in Eq. (17) over D simulated (s,r) tuples. The manuscript does not state D, the observed variance of the estimator, or any confidence interval for the bound. Since the horizontal displacement of the bound at CER = 10^-3 directly changes the reported gap, the central claim is not fully verifiable as written. Please report D, a variance estimate, and confidence or error bars for the bound curves, and state explicitly that the bound estimates are accurate to the claimed margin.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (17)] The computation of the information density i(s;r) for the non-coherent Wiener phase-noise channel is only described as done "as described in [32]" with a Monte Carlo approach. Reference [32] does not provide an algorithm for continuous-phase channels with memory, so it is unclear whether p(r) and p(r|s) are computed exactly (e.g., by a forward recursion on the factor graph) or with the same L-point phase discretization used by the detector. If the latter, the bound would not be a finite-length bound for the true channel and the 1.2 dB gap would be uninterpretable. Please provide the explicit recursion used to compute i(s;r), state the distribution over s, and clarify that the channel is not discretized for the bound.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C, Eq. (7)] There is a typographical error in Eq. (7): "p(ψi+1|,ψ i, ai+1)" should read "p(ψi+1|ψi, ai+1)".
  2. [Abstract] In the abstract, "1:2 dB" should be "1.2 dB".
  3. [Section III, Eq. (17)] The notation "K log2 m − 1" in Eq. (17) is an approximation of log2((M−1)/2); the text should state this explicitly, since the expression is not obviously equal for finite M.
  4. [Section V, Examples 1-3] The comparison with the serial turbo scheme does not report the interleaver size, number of turbo iterations, or other implementation parameters; please provide these details to make the benchmark reproducible.
  5. [Section IV-B] The Monte Carlo density evolution used for the thresholds in Tables III-V does not report the number of decoding attempts or any measure of the accuracy of the threshold estimates; adding these would strengthen the design selection procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central performance claim is measured against an independent finite-length bound and a literature benchmark, and the code-design procedure is not defined in terms of its own output.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The claimed result is that protograph-based non-binary LDPC codes, designed by Monte Carlo density-evolution threshold search, perform within about 1.2 dB of the finite-length dependency-testing (DT) bound down to CER 1e-3. The DT bound in Eq. (16)-(17) is an independent benchmark from Polyanskiy, Poor, and Verdu [32], evaluated by Monte Carlo using the channel information density; it does not depend on the designed code or on the fitted detector parameter. The threshold search in Section IV selects protographs by comparing iterative thresholds to the information-rate limit, but this is a design procedure, not a derivation of the simulated CER. The final CER curves are generated by Monte Carlo simulation of the actual concatenated system and are compared against external benchmarks: the DT bound and the serial turbo scheme from [6]. Self-citations to [21], [12], [15], and related work are present, but they are used to import established detection algorithms and a preliminary version of the system, not to justify the numerical performance claim. The tuning of P_Delta = 0.1 is a detector design parameter, and the paper explicitly reports it as obtained via simulation; it is not renamed as a prediction. No equation in the paper reduces the claimed gap to a fitted quantity or to a self-citation. The unquantified number D of Monte Carlo tuples in Eq. (17) is a statistical-quality concern, not a circularity concern: even a noisy bound is an independent benchmark rather than an input that determines the code's simulated CER by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Wiener phase-noise model, the DP detector approximations including a simulation-tuned P_Delta, and Monte Carlo estimates of both iterative thresholds and the DT bounds. No new physical entities are introduced. The protograph search itself is a design procedure with no free parameters in the channel model, but its outcome depends on the accuracy of the density evolution thresholds.

free parameters (3)
  • P_Delta (detector phase transition probability) = 0.1
    Called an optimization parameter obtained via simulation in Section II-C.1 after Eq. (14). Used in all simulations; its value is not derived and its sensitivity is not reported.
  • L (phase discretization levels) = 8m
    Chosen as 8 times the modulation order based on prior work claiming negligible loss versus unquantized phase. A hand-picked implementation parameter that affects detector accuracy.
  • Nit (maximum detector-decoder iterations) = 200
    Set to 200 in Section II-C.2 in line with non-binary LDPC literature. A hand-picked stopping rule that could affect the waterfall and error-floor results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Wiener phase noise with independent Gaussian increments (Eq. 3) adequately models the target channels.
    All performance claims and benchmarks assume this channel model; real oscillator phase noise may deviate from the Wiener model.
  • domain assumption The factorized transition p(psi_i | psi_{i-1}, a_i) and the single-Gaussian approximation for p_Delta (Eqs. 9-13) are valid.
    Used to derive the detector recursions; requires phase increments to be small enough that the folded Gaussian is well approximated by one term.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplified DP transition p.d.f. with P_Delta (Eq. 14) and L = 8m incurs negligible loss.
    The transition p.d.f. is an approximation with a simulation-tuned P_Delta; the paper does not quantify the loss incurred by this approximation.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo density evolution with the all-zero codeword assumption gives accurate iterative decoding thresholds.
    The threshold computation in Section IV-B relies on ensemble symmetry and finite-size Monte Carlo estimates; the accuracy of these estimates is not characterized.
  • domain assumption The dependency testing bound computed via Monte Carlo (Eq. 17) is a valid finite-length benchmark for this DPSK system.
    The DT bound from [32] is applied to a channel with memory through a Monte Carlo information-density estimate; the number of samples and its variance are not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Short Non-Binary Low-Density Parity-Check Codes for Phase Noise Channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AKBTQCLE

@misc{pith2026190802816,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Short Non-Binary Low-Density Parity-Check Codes for Phase Noise Channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AKBTQCLE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02816}
}
read the original abstract

This work considers the design of short non-binary low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes over finite fields of order m, for channels with phase noise. In particular, m-ary differential phase-shift keying (DPSK) modulated code symbols are transmitted over an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel with Wiener phase noise. At the receiver side, non-coherent detection takes place, with the help of a multi-symbol detection algorithm, followed by a non-binary decoding step. Both the detector and decoder operate on a joint factor graph. As a benchmark, finite length bounds and information rate expressions are computed and compared with the codeword error rate (CER) performance, as well as the iterative threshold of the obtained codes. As a result, performance within 1:2 dB from finite-length bounds is obtained, down to a CER of 1e-3.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02816 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transmitter block diagram. the field and modulation order are matched to each other. Dif￾ferential modulation is performed in two steps. At first the non￾binary symbols ci , are mapped to complex constellation points belonging to X =  e j2πl/m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Block diagram of the iterative receiver. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between LDPC codes over F8 with base matrices B I 1 and B I 1,1 with a serial turbo scheme, combined with 8-PSK modulation, code rate 1/2, N = 160 symbols and phase-noise having σ∆ = 2 ◦ for the non-coherent case. TABLE IV ITERATIVE DECODING THRESHOLDS FOR THE NON-COHERENT AND COHERENT AWGN CHANNEL FOR 8-DPSK MODULATION AND RATE-2/3 PROTOGRAPHS. Base Matrix (Eb/N0) ∗ nc [dB] (Eb/N0) ∗ c [dB] B II 1 [2 2 1… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation results of an LDPC code over F8 with base matrix B II 1 combined with 8-DPSK modulation, code rate 2/3, N = 120 symbols and phase-noise with σ∆ = 2 ◦ for the non-coherent case. TABLE V ITERATIVE DECODING THRESHOLDS FOR THE NON-COHERENT AND COHERENT AWGN CHAN…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,

    Y . Polyanskiy, H. V . Poor, and S. Verdú, “Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, May 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [1]

    IMT Vision-Framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2020 and beyond,

    International Telecommunication Union, “IMT Vision-Framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2020 and beyond,” Recommendation ITU-R M.2083-0 , 2015. 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.510−3 10−2 10−1 100 Eb/N0 [dB] CER DT bound, coh. DT bound, non-coh. LDPC BIII 1 , coh. LDPC BIII 1 , non-coh. Fig. 5. Simulation results of an LDPC cod...

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Scenarios for 5G mobile and wireless communications: the vision of the METIS project,

    A. Osseiran, F. Boccardi, V . Braun, K. Kusume, P. Marsch, M. Maternia, O. Queseth, M. Schellmann, H. Schotten, H. Taoka, H. Tullberg, M. A. Uusitalo, B. Timus, and M. Fallgren, “Scenarios for 5G mobile and wireless communications: the vision of the METIS project,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 26–35, May 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Toward massive, ultrareliable, and low-latency wireless communication with short packets,

    G. Durisi, T. Koch, and P. Popovski, “Toward massive, ultrareliable, and low-latency wireless communication with short packets,” Proc. IEEE , vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 1711–1726, Sep. 2016

    2016

  5. [4]

    Multiple-symbol differential detection of MPSK,

    D. Divsalar and M. K. Simon, “Multiple-symbol differential detection of MPSK,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 300–308, Mar. 1990

    work page 1990

  6. [5]

    Algorithms for iterative decoding in the presence of strong phase noise,

    G. Colavolpe, A. Barbieri, and G. Caire, “Algorithms for iterative decoding in the presence of strong phase noise,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1748–1757, Sep. 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [6]

    Communications over phase-noise channels: A tuto- rial review,

    G. Colavolpe, “Communications over phase-noise channels: A tuto- rial review,” Int. J. Satell. Commun. Network. , vol. 32, pp. 167–185, May/Jun. 2014, article first published online: Jul. 2013

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Theoretical analysis and performance limits of noncoherent sequence detection of coded PSK,

    G. Colavolpe and R. Raheli, “Theoretical analysis and performance limits of noncoherent sequence detection of coded PSK,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 46, pp. 1483–1494, Jul. 2000

    work page 2000

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Iterative decoding for coded noncoherent MPSK communications over phase-noisy AWGN channel,

    M. Peleg, S. Shamai, and S. Galan, “Iterative decoding for coded noncoherent MPSK communications over phase-noisy AWGN channel,” IEE Proceedings - Communications , vol. 147, no. 2, pp. 87–95, Apr. 2000

    2000

  2. [9]

    Turbo DPSK: iterative differential PSK demodulation and channel decoding,

    P. Hoeher and J. Lodge, “Turbo DPSK: iterative differential PSK demodulation and channel decoding,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 837–843, Jun. 1999

    1999

  3. [10]

    Construction and iterative decoding of LDPC codes over rings for phase-noisy channels,

    S. Karuppasami and W. Cowley, “Construction and iterative decoding of LDPC codes over rings for phase-noisy channels,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking , vol. 2008, pp. 1–9, Jan. 2008

    2008

  4. [11]

    Low-rate non- binary LDPC codes for coherent and blockwise non-coherent AWGN channels,

    B. Matuz, G. Liva, E. Paolini, M. Chiani, and G. Bauch, “Low-rate non- binary LDPC codes for coherent and blockwise non-coherent AWGN channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 4096–4107, Oct. 2013

    2013

  5. [12]

    Soft-output decoding of rotationally invariant codes over channels with phase noise,

    A. Barbieri and G. Colavolpe, “Soft-output decoding of rotationally invariant codes over channels with phase noise,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 2033–2033, Oct. 2007

    2007

  6. [13]

    On sparse graph coding for coherent and noncoherent demodulation,

    C. Piat-Durozoi, C. Poulliat, N. Thomas, M. Boucheret, and G. Lesthievent, “On sparse graph coding for coherent and noncoherent demodulation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory , Jun. 2017, pp. 2905–2909. NINACS et al.: SHORT NON-BINARY LOW-DENSITY PARITY-CHECK CODES FOR PH...

    2017

  7. [14]

    Serial concate- nation of LDPC codes and differential modulations,

    M. Franceschini, G. Ferrari, R. Raheli, and A. Curtoni, “Serial concate- nation of LDPC codes and differential modulations,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1758–1768, Sep. 2005

    2005

  8. [15]

    On the information rate and repeat- accumulate code design for phase noise channels,

    A. Barbieri and G. Colavolpe, “On the information rate and repeat- accumulate code design for phase noise channels,” IEEE Trans. Com- mun., vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 3223–3228, Dec. 2011

    2011

  9. [16]

    Design of repeat-accumulate codes for iterative detection and decoding,

    S. ten Brink and G. Kramer, “Design of repeat-accumulate codes for iterative detection and decoding,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 2764–2772, Nov. 2003

    2003

  10. [17]

    Convolutional codes over rings,

    J. L. Massey and T. Mittelholzer, “Convolutional codes over rings,” in Proc. 4th Joint Swedish-Soviet Int. Workshop on Inf. Theory , Gotland, Sweden, Aug. 1989, pp. 14–18

    1989

  11. [18]

    Coded modulation with convolutional codes over rings,

    R. Filho and P. Farrell, “Coded modulation with convolutional codes over rings,” in Proc. EUROCODE ’90, ser. Lecture notes on computer science, Udine, Italy, Nov. 1990, pp. 271–280

    1990

  12. [19]

    LDPC code construction and iterative receiver techniques for channels with phase noise,

    S. Karuppasami, W. G. Cowley, and S. S. Pietrobon, “LDPC code construction and iterative receiver techniques for channels with phase noise,” in VTC Spring 2008 - IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference , May 2008, pp. 2892–2896

    2008

  13. [20]

    LDPC codes over rings for PSK modulation,

    D. Sridhara and T. Fuja, “LDPC codes over rings for PSK modulation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 3209–3220, Sep. 2005

    2005

  14. [21]

    Non-binary LDPC coded DPSK modulation for phase noise channels,

    T. Ninacs, B. Matuz, G. Liva, and G. Colavolpe, “Non-binary LDPC coded DPSK modulation for phase noise channels,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., Paris, France, May 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  15. [22]

    Low density parity check codes over GF(q),

    M. Davey and D. MacKay, “Low density parity check codes over GF(q),” IEEE Commun. Lett. , vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 70–71, Jun. 1998

    1998

  16. [23]

    EXIT chart analysis and design of non-binary protograph-based LDPC codes,

    B.-Y . Chang, L. Dolecek, and D. Divsalar, “EXIT chart analysis and design of non-binary protograph-based LDPC codes,” in MILCOM 2011 Military Communications Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, Nov. 2011, pp. 566–571

    2011

  17. [24]

    Non- binary protograph LDPC codes for space communications,

    L. Costantini, B. Matuz, G. Liva, E. Paolini, and M. Chiani, “Non- binary protograph LDPC codes for space communications,” Int. J. Satell. Commun. Network., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 43–51, Mar. 2012

    2012

  18. [25]

    Design of regular (2, dc)- LDPC codes over GF (q) using their binary images,

    C. Poulliat, M. Fossorier, and D. Declercq, “Design of regular (2, dc)- LDPC codes over GF (q) using their binary images,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 1626–1635, Oct. 2008

    2008

  19. [26]

    Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm,

    F. Kschischang, B. Frey, and H.-A. Loeliger, “Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 498–519, Feb 2001

    2001

  20. [27]

    Optimal decoding of linear codes for minimizing symbol error rate,

    L. R. Bahl, J. Cocke, F. Jelinek, and J. Raviv, “Optimal decoding of linear codes for minimizing symbol error rate,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 284–287, Mar. 1974

    1974

  21. [28]

    Decoding algorithms for nonbinary LDPC codes over GF(q),

    D. Declercq and M. Fossorier, “Decoding algorithms for nonbinary LDPC codes over GF(q),” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 633–643, Apr. 2007

    2007

  22. [29]

    Log-domain decod- ing of LDPC codes over GF( q),

    H. Wymeersch, H. Steendam, and M. Moeneclaey, “Log-domain decod- ing of LDPC codes over GF( q),” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. , vol. 2, Paris, France, Jun. 2004, pp. 772–776

    2004

  23. [30]

    Nonbinary hybrid LDPC codes,

    L. Sassatelli and D. Declercq, “Nonbinary hybrid LDPC codes,” vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 5314–5334, Oct. 2010

    2010

  24. [31]

    Simulation-based computation of information rates for channels with memory,

    D. M. Arnold, H. A. Loeliger, P. O. V ontobel, A. Kavcic, and W. Zeng, “Simulation-based computation of information rates for channels with memory,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 3498–3508, Aug. 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    Low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes constructed from protographs,

    J. Thorpe, “Low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes constructed from protographs,” NASA JPL, Pasadena, CA, USA, IPN Progress Report 42-154, Aug. 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    Progressive edge-growth Tanner graphs,

    X.-Y . Hu, E. Eleftheriou, and D. M. Arnold, “Progressive edge-growth Tanner graphs,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf., San Antonio, TX, USA, Nov. 2001, pp. 995–1001

    2001

  27. [35]

    Non-binary protograph- based LDPC codes for short block-lengths,

    B. Y . Chang, D. Divsalar, and L. Dolecek, “Non-binary protograph- based LDPC codes for short block-lengths,” in Proc. IEEE Inf. Theory Workshop, Lausanne, Switzerland, Sep. 2012, pp. 282–286

    2012

  28. [36]

    Design and analysis of nonbinary LDPC codes for arbitrary discrete-memoryless channels,

    A. Bennatan and D. Burshtein, “Design and analysis of nonbinary LDPC codes for arbitrary discrete-memoryless channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 549–583, Feb. 2006

    2006

  29. [37]

    Protograph LDPC codes design based on EXIT analysis,

    G. Liva and M. Chiani, “Protograph LDPC codes design based on EXIT analysis,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf. , Washington, DC, USA, Nov. 2007, pp. 3250–3254

    2007

  30. [38]

    MacKay, Information Theory, Inference & Learning Algorithms

    D. MacKay, Information Theory, Inference & Learning Algorithms . New York, NY , USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002

    2002

  31. [39]

    Non-binary LDPC code design for the poisson PPM channel,

    B. Matuz, E. Paolini, F. Zabini, and G. Liva, “Non-binary LDPC code design for the poisson PPM channel,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 4600–4611, Nov. 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Serial concate- nation of interleaved codes: performance analysis, design, and iterative decoding,

    S. Benedetto, D. Divsalar, G. Montorsi, and F. Pollara, “Serial concate- nation of interleaved codes: performance analysis, design, and iterative decoding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 909–926, May 1998

    1998

  33. [41]

    Design of efficient erasure codes with differential evolution,

    A. Shokrollahi and R. Storn, “Design of efficient erasure codes with differential evolution,” in Differential Evolution. Springer, 2005, pp. 413–427

    2005

  34. [42]

    Binary representation of cycle tanner- graph GF(2b) codes,

    X. Y . Hu and E. Eleftheriou, “Binary representation of cycle tanner- graph GF(2b) codes,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. , vol. 1, Paris, France, Jun. 2004, pp. 528–532

    2004

  35. [43]

    Bounds on the error probability of block codes over the q-ary erasure channel,

    G. Liva, E. Paolini, and M. Chiani, “Bounds on the error probability of block codes over the q-ary erasure channel,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 2156–2165, Jun. 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Second Generation Framing Struc- ture, Channel Coding and Modulation Systems for Broadcasting, Inter- active Services, News Gathering and Other Broadband Satellite Appli- cations (DVB-S2), ETSI EN 302 307 v1.2.1, ETSI European Standard (Teleco...

    2009

  37. [45]

    TSG RAN WG1 meeting no. 85 R1-164041,

    “TSG RAN WG1 meeting no. 85 R1-164041,” 3GPP, Nanjing, China, Tech. Rep., May 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.