daniel j. costello, jr. · daniel j. costello, jr. dept. of electrical engineering, spatially...
Post on 11-Oct-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Daniel J. Costello, Jr.
Dept. of Electrical Engineering,
Spatially Coupled LDPC Codes:From Theory to Practice
University of Notre Dame
BIRS Workshop on Mathematical Coding Theory in Multimedia Streaming
Research Collaborators: David Mitchell,Michael Lentmaier, and Ali Pusane
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Outline
LDPC Block Codes
Spatially Coupled LDPC Codes
Parity-check matrix and Tanner graph representations, minimumdistance bounds, iterative decoding thresholds, protograph-based constructions
Protograph representation, edge-spreading construction, termination
Iterative decoding thresholds, threshold saturation, minimum distance
Practical Considerations
1
Window decoding; performance, latency, and complexity comparisonsto LDPC block codes; rate-compatibility; implementation aspects
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
LDPC Block Codes
Definition by parity-check matrix: [Gallager, '62]
Code:(J,K)-regular LDPC
block code:
2
Bipartite graph representation: [Tanner, '81]
n = 20 variable nodes of degree J = 3
l = 15 check nodes of degree K = 4
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
LDPC Block Codes
Definition by parity-check matrix: [Gallager, '62]
Code:(J,K)-regular LDPC
block code:
2
Bipartite graph representation: [Tanner, '81]
n = 20 variable nodes of degree J = 3
l = 15 check nodes of degree K = 4
Graph-based codes can be decoded iteratively with low complexity by
exchanging messages in the graph using Belief Propagation (BP).
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
For an asymptotically good code ensemble, the minimum distance grows linearly with the block length n
Minimum Distance Growth Rates of
(J,K)-Regular LDPC Block Code Ensembles
3
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
where is called
the typical minimum
distance ratio, or
minimum distance
growth rate.
For an asymptotically good code ensemble, the minimum distance grows linearly with the block length n
Minimum Distance Growth Rates of
(J,K)-Regular LDPC Block Code Ensembles
3
(J,K)-regular block codeensembles areasymptotically good, i.e.,
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
As the density of (J,K)-regular ensembles increases,approaches theGilbert-Varshamovbound.
where is called
the typical minimum
distance ratio, or
minimum distance
growth rate.
For an asymptotically good code ensemble, the minimum distance grows linearly with the block length n
Minimum Distance Growth Rates of
(J,K)-Regular LDPC Block Code Ensembles
3
(J,K)-regular block codeensembles areasymptotically good, i.e.,
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
[RU01] T. J. Richardson, and R. Urbanke, “The capacity of low-density parity-check codes under message
passing decoding”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 47 no. 2, Feb. 2001.
AWGNC thresholdsBEC thresholds
Iterative decoding thresholds can be calculated for (J,K)-regular
LDPC block code ensembles using density evolution (DE).
Thresholds of (J,K)-regular LDPC
Block Code Ensembles
4
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
[RU01] T. J. Richardson, and R. Urbanke, “The capacity of low-density parity-check codes under message
passing decoding”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 47 no. 2, Feb. 2001.
There exists a relatively large gap to capacity.
AWGNC thresholdsBEC thresholds
Iterative decoding thresholds can be calculated for (J,K)-regular
LDPC block code ensembles using density evolution (DE).
Thresholds of (J,K)-regular LDPC
Block Code Ensembles
4
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
[RU01] T. J. Richardson, and R. Urbanke, “The capacity of low-density parity-check codes under message
passing decoding”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 47 no. 2, Feb. 2001.
There exists a relatively large gap to capacity.
AWGNC thresholdsBEC thresholds
Iterative decoding thresholds can be calculated for (J,K)-regular
LDPC block code ensembles using density evolution (DE).
Thresholds of (J,K)-regular LDPC
Block Code Ensembles
Iterative decoding thresholds get further from capacity as the graph
density increases.
4
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Large LDPC codes can be obtained from a small base parity-checkmatrix B by replacing each nonzero entry in B with an M x M permutation matrix, where M is the lifting factor.
5
Protographs (Matrix Description)
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Large LDPC codes can be obtained from a small base parity-checkmatrix B by replacing each nonzero entry in B with an M x M permutation matrix, where M is the lifting factor.
length 6M = 24rate R = 1/2
Example: Irregular code with M = 4
5
Protographs (Matrix Description)
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Large LDPC codes can be obtained from a small base parity-checkmatrix B by replacing each nonzero entry in B with an M x M permutation matrix, where M is the lifting factor.
length 6M = 24rate R = 1/2
Example: Irregular code with M = 4
5
Irregularcodes havevariable rowand columnweights(check nodeand variablenode degrees)
Protographs (Matrix Description)
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Protographs are often represented using a bipartite Tanner graph
Protographs (Graphical Description)
3 check nodes
6 variable nodes
[Tho05] J. Thorpe, “Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) codes constructed from
protographs”, Jet Propulsion Laboratory INP Progress Report, Vol. 42-154 Aug. 2003.
6
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Protographs are often represented using a bipartite Tanner graph
Protographs (Graphical Description)
3 check nodes
6 variable nodes
The collection of all possible parity-check matrices with lifting factor M forms a code ensemble, where all the codes share a common structure
[Tho05] J. Thorpe, “Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) codes constructed from
protographs”, Jet Propulsion Laboratory INP Progress Report, Vol. 42-154 Aug. 2003.
6
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
.Quasi-cyclic (QC) LDPC codes are of great interest in practice, since
they have efficient encoder and decoder implementations
Quasi-Cyclic LDPC Codes
7
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
.Quasi-cyclic (QC) LDPC codes are of great interest in practice, since
they have efficient encoder and decoder implementations
Example: protograph construction of a (2,3)-regular QC-LDPC block code
Quasi-Cyclic LDPC Codes
7
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
.Quasi-cyclic (QC) LDPC codes are of great interest in practice, since
they have efficient encoder and decoder implementations
Example: protograph construction of a (2,3)-regular QC-LDPC block code
For QC codes, the permutationmatrices are shifted identities
Quasi-Cyclic LDPC Codes
7
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
[DDJA09] D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, C. Jones, and K. Andrews, “Capacity-approaching protograph
codes”, IEEE Journal on Select Areas in Communications, vol. 27, no. 6 Aug. 2009.
Multi-Edge Protographs
Protographs can have repeated edges (corresponding to integer valuesgreater than one in B)
Note that this makes nosense without lifting
8
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
[DDJA09] D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, C. Jones, and K. Andrews, “Capacity-approaching protograph
codes”, IEEE Journal on Select Areas in Communications, vol. 27, no. 6 Aug. 2009.
Multi-Edge Protographs
Protographs can have repeated edges (corresponding to integer valuesgreater than one in B)
Repeated edges in aprotograph correspond tousing sums of permutationmatrices to form LDPC codeensembles
Note that this makes nosense without lifting
8
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
[DDJA09] D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, C. Jones, and K. Andrews, “Capacity-approaching protograph
codes”, IEEE Journal on Select Areas in Communications, vol. 27, no. 6 Aug. 2009.
Multi-Edge Protographs
Protographs can have repeated edges (corresponding to integer valuesgreater than one in B)
Repeated edges in aprotograph correspond tousing sums of permutationmatrices to form LDPC codeensembles
denser graphs!
can also be QC (using circulant matrices)!
Note that this makes nosense without lifting
8
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
2e variablenodes
Rate Threshold Capacity Distancegrowth
rate
1/2 0.628 0.187 0.01450
2/3 1.450 1.059 0.00582
3/4 2.005 1.628 0.00323
4/5 2.413 2.040 0.00207
5/6 2.733 2.362 0.00145
6/7 2.993 2.625 0.00108
[DDJA09] D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, C. Jones, and K. Andrews, “Capacity-approaching protograph
codes”, IEEE Journal on Select Areas in Communications, vol. 27, no. 6 Aug. 2009.
'Good' Protographs
Ensemble average properties can be easily calculated from a protograph,thus simplifying the construction of 'good' code ensembles.
Iterative decoding thresholds close to capacity for irregular protographs
Minimum distance growing linearly with block length (asymptotically good) for regular and some irregular protographs
9
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Outline
Spatially Coupled LDPC Codes
Protograph representation, edge-spreading construction, termination
Iterative decoding thresholds, threshold saturation, minimum distance
LDPC Block Codes
Practical Considerations
10
Parity-check matrix and Tanner graph representations, minimumdistance bounds, iterative decoding thresholds, protograph-based constructions
Window decoding; performance, latency, and complexity comparisonsto LDPC block codes; rate-compatibility; implementation aspects
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatially Coupled Protographs
...
Consider transmission of consecutive blocks (protograph representation):
... (3,6)-regularLDPC-BC
base matrix
11
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatially Coupled Protographs
...
Consider transmission of consecutive blocks (protograph representation):
... (3,6)-regularLDPC-BC
base matrix
Blocks are spatially coupled (introducing memory) by spreading edges
over time:
11
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatially Coupled Protographs
...
Consider transmission of consecutive blocks (protograph representation):
... (3,6)-regularLDPC-BC
base matrix
Blocks are spatially coupled (introducing memory) by spreading edges
over time:
Spreading constraint: ( has size )
11
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Transmission of consecutive spatially coupled (SC) blocks results in aconvolutional protograph:
Spatially Coupled Protographs
12
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Transmission of consecutive spatially coupled (SC) blocks results in aconvolutional protograph:
Spatially Coupled Protographs
12
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Transmission of consecutive spatially coupled (SC) blocks results in aconvolutional protograph:
Spatially Coupled Protographs
12
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Transmission of consecutive spatially coupled (SC) blocks results in aconvolutional protograph:
... ...
Spatially Coupled Protographs
12
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Transmission of consecutive spatially coupled (SC) blocks results in aconvolutional protograph:
... ...
The bi-infinite convolutional protograph corresponds to a bi-infiniteconvolutional base matrix:
Spatially Coupled Protographs
Constraint length:
Rate:
12
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
SC-LDPC Code Ensembles
An ensemble of (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC codes can be created from theconvolutional protograph by the graph lifting operation
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
SC-LDPC Code Ensembles
An ensemble of (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC codes can be created from theconvolutional protograph by the graph lifting operation
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
SC-LDPC Code Ensembles
An ensemble of (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC codes can be created from theconvolutional protograph by the graph lifting operation
Graph lifting: is an permutation matrix
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
SC-LDPC Code Ensembles
An ensemble of (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC codes can be created from theconvolutional protograph by the graph lifting operation
Graph lifting: is an permutation matrix
If each permutation matrix is circulant, the codes are quasi-cyclic
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Code rate:
Consider terminating to a (block code) base matrix of length Lbv:
Terminated Spatially Coupled Codes
14
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Code rate:
For large L, RL approaches the unterminated code rate .
Consider terminating to a (block code) base matrix of length Lbv:
Terminated Spatially Coupled Codes
14
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Example: (3,6)-regular base matrix , ms = 2, L = 4, R4 = 1/4
Code rate:
For large L, RL approaches the unterminated code rate .
Consider terminating to a (block code) base matrix of length Lbv:
(check node degrees lowerat the ends)
Terminated Spatially Coupled Codes
14
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Example: (3,6)-regular base matrix , ms = 2, L = 4, R4 = 1/4
Code rate:
For large L, RL approaches the unterminated code rate .
Consider terminating to a (block code) base matrix of length Lbv:
(check node degrees lowerat the ends)
Terminated Spatially Coupled Codes
Codes can be lifted to different lengths and rates by varying M and L .
14
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
...
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-6
10-4
10-2
100
10 iterations
t
p
Evolution of message probabilities: (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code (L = 100)
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
Evolution of message probabilities: (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code (L = 100)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-6
10-4
10-2
100
20 iterations
t
p
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
Evolution of message probabilities: (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code (L = 100)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-6
10-4
10-2
100
50 iterations
t
p
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
Evolution of message probabilities: (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code (L = 100)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-6
10-4
10-2
100
100 iterations
t
p
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
Evolution of message probabilities: (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code (L = 100)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-6
10-4
10-2
100
200 iterations
t
p
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
Evolution of message probabilities: (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code (L = 100)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-6
10-4
10-2
100
300 iterations
t
p
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
Evolution of message probabilities: (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code (L = 100)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-6
10-4
10-2
100
340 iterations
t
p
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 34
Wave-like Decoding of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Variable nodes all have the same degree as the underlying block code.
Check nodes with lower degrees (at the ends) improve the BP decoder.
Evolution of message probabilities: (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code (L = 100)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-6
10-4
10-2
100
340 iterations
t
p
Note: the fraction of lower degree nodes tends to zero as i.e., the codes are asymptotically regular.
13
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Density evolution can be applied to the protograph-based ensembles
with [Sridharan et al. '04]:
Thresholds of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Example: BEC
16
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
L=4, gap=0.115
Density evolution can be applied to the protograph-based ensembles
with [Sridharan et al. '04]:
Thresholds of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Example: BEC
16
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
L=4, gap=0.115
Density evolution can be applied to the protograph-based ensembles
with [Sridharan et al. '04]:
Thresholds of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Example: BEC
L=10, gap=0.095
16
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
L=4, gap=0.115
Density evolution can be applied to the protograph-based ensembles
with [Sridharan et al. '04]:
Thresholds of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
Example: BEC
L=10, gap=0.095
(3,6)-regular block code:
16
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
BEC AWGN
Iterative decoding thresholds (protograph-based ensembles)
We observe a significant improvement in the thresholds of SC-LDPC codes compared to the associated LDPC block codes (LDPC-BCs) due to the lowerdegree check nodes at the ends of the graph and the wave-like decoding.
17
Thresholds of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
[LSCZ10] M. Lentmaier, A. Sridharan, D. J. Costello, Jr., and K.Sh. Zigangirov, “Iterative decoding threshold
analysis for LDPC convolutional codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 56:10, Oct. 2010.
SC
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
BEC AWGN
Iterative decoding thresholds (protograph-based ensembles)
We observe a significant improvement in the thresholds of SC-LDPC codes compared to the associated LDPC block codes (LDPC-BCs) due to the lowerdegree check nodes at the ends of the graph and the wave-like decoding.
In contrast to LDPC-BCs, the iterative decoding thresholds of SC-LDPC codes improve as the graph density increases.
17
Thresholds of Terminated
Spatially Coupled Codes
[LSCZ10] M. Lentmaier, A. Sridharan, D. J. Costello, Jr., and K.Sh. Zigangirov, “Iterative decoding threshold
analysis for LDPC convolutional codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 56:10, Oct. 2010.
SC
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
When symbols are perfectly known (BEC), all adjacent edges can be removedfrom the Tanner graph.
Why are Terminated Spatially Coupled
Thresholds Better?
...
18
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
When symbols are perfectly known (BEC), all adjacent edges can be removedfrom the Tanner graph.
Why are Terminated Spatially Coupled
Thresholds Better?
...
18
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
When symbols are perfectly known (BEC), all adjacent edges can be removedfrom the Tanner graph.
Why are Terminated Spatially Coupled
Thresholds Better?
...
18
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
When symbols are perfectly known (BEC), all adjacent edges can be removedfrom the Tanner graph.
Why are Terminated Spatially Coupled
Thresholds Better?
...
18
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
When symbols are perfectly known (BEC), all adjacent edges can be removedfrom the Tanner graph.
Why are Terminated Spatially Coupled
Thresholds Better?
...
18
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
When symbols are perfectly known (BEC), all adjacent edges can be removedfrom the Tanner graph.
Why are Terminated Spatially Coupled
Thresholds Better?
...
The threshold saturates (converges) to a fixed value numericallyindistinguishable from the maximum a posteriori (MAP) threshold of the (J, K)-regular LDPC-BC ensemble as [LSCZ10].
[LSCZ10] M. Lentmaier, A. Sridharan, D. J. Costello, Jr., and K.Sh. Zigangirov, “Iterative decoding threshold
analysis for LDPC convolutional codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 56:10, Oct. 2010.
18
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
When symbols are perfectly known (BEC), all adjacent edges can be removedfrom the Tanner graph.
Why are Terminated Spatially Coupled
Thresholds Better?
...
The threshold saturates (converges) to a fixed value numericallyindistinguishable from the maximum a posteriori (MAP) threshold of the (J, K)-regular LDPC-BC ensemble as [LSCZ10].
[LSCZ10] M. Lentmaier, A. Sridharan, D. J. Costello, Jr., and K.Sh. Zigangirov, “Iterative decoding threshold
analysis for LDPC convolutional codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 56:10, Oct. 2010.
For a more random-like ensemble, this has been proven analytically, first forthe BEC [KRU11], then for all BMS channels [KRU13].
[KRU11] S. Kudekar, T. J. Richardson and R. Urbanke, “Threshold saturation via spatial coupling: why
convolutional LDPC ensembles perform so well over the BEC”, IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory, 57:2, 2011
[KRU13] S. Kudekar, T. J. Richardson and R. Urbanke, “Spatially coupled ensembles universally achievecapacity under belief propagation”, IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory, 59:12, 2013.
18
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Threshold Saturation (BEC)
0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5
10-4
10-2
100
epsilon
Bit e
rasure
rate
BP
threshold
MAP
threshold
(3,6)(3,6)
BC
19
BP = iterative (suboptimal) decoding thresholdMAP = (optimal) maximum a posteriori threshold
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Threshold Saturation (BEC)
0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5
10-4
10-2
100
epsilon
Bit e
rasure
rate
(3,6)
MAP MAPBP BP
(3,6)
BC
19
(5,10)
BC
BP = iterative (suboptimal) decoding thresholdMAP = (optimal) maximum a posteriori threshold
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Threshold Saturation (BEC)
0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5
10-4
10-2
100
epsilon
Bit e
rasure
rate
(3,6)
BC
MAP MAPBP BP
SC-LDPC
codes
19
(5,10)
BC
BP = iterative (suboptimal) decoding thresholdMAP = (optimal) maximum a posteriori threshold
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Threshold Saturation (BEC)
0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5
10-4
10-2
100
epsilon
Bit e
rasure
rate
(3,6)
BC
MAP MAPBP BP
SC-LDPC
codes
19
(5,10)
BC
BP = iterative (suboptimal) decoding thresholdMAP = (optimal) maximum a posteriori threshold
optimal decoding performance with a suboptimal iterative algorithm!
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Threshold Saturation (AWGNC)
BPMAP
(3,6)-regularblock code
capacity
~0.5dB
20
BP = iterative (suboptimal) decoding thresholdMAP = (optimal) maximum a posteriori threshold
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Threshold Saturation (AWGNC)
BPMAP
(3,6)-regularblock code
(4,8)-regularblock code
BPMAP
capacity
~1.25dB
20
BP = iterative (suboptimal) decoding thresholdMAP = (optimal) maximum a posteriori threshold
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Threshold Saturation (AWGNC)
BPMAP
(3,6)-regularblock code
(4,8)-regularblock code
BPMAP
capacity
spatially coupledcodes
(3,6)(4,8)
20
BP = iterative (suboptimal) decoding thresholdMAP = (optimal) maximum a posteriori threshold
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Threshold Saturation (AWGNC)
optimal decoding performance with a suboptimal iterative algorithm!
BPMAP
(3,6)-regularblock code
(4,8)-regularblock code
BPMAP
capacity
spatially coupledcodes
(3,6)(4,8)
20
BP = iterative (suboptimal) decoding thresholdMAP = (optimal) maximum a posteriori threshold
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
BEC Thresholds vs Distance Growth
By increasing J and K, we obtain capacity achieving (J,K)-regular SC-LDPC code ensembles with linear minimum distance growth.
21
-BC
(J,K)-regular SC-LDPC codes combine the best features of irregularand regular LDPC-BCs, i.e., capacity approaching thresholds and lineardistance growth.
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
AWGNC Thresholds vs. Distance Growth
[MLC10] D. G. M. Mitchell, M. Lentmaier and D. J. Costello, Jr., “AWGN Channel Analysis of Terminated
LDPC Convolutional Codes”, Proc. Information Theory and Applications Workshop, San Diego, Feb. 2011.
Similar results are obtained for the AWGNC
22
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Distance Measures for SC-LDPC Codes
As the minimum distance growth rates of terminated SC-LDPCcode ensembles tend to zero. However, the free distance growth rates ofthe unterminated ensembles remain constant.
23
(3,6)-regular unterminated SC-LDPC free distance growth rates
(3,6)-regular terminated SC-LDPCminimum distance growth rates
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Distance Measures for SC-LDPC Codes
As the minimum distance growth rates of terminated SC-LDPCcode ensembles tend to zero. However, the free distance growth rates ofthe unterminated ensembles remain constant.
23
For large L, thestrength ofunterminatedensembles scaleswith theconstraint length and isindependent of L.
independent of L
normalized by L
(3,6)-regular unterminated SC-LDPC free distance growth rates
(3,6)-regular terminated SC-LDPCminimum distance growth rates
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Distance Measures for SC-LDPC Codes
As the minimum distance growth rates of terminated SC-LDPCcode ensembles tend to zero. However, the free distance growth rates ofthe unterminated ensembles remain constant.
23
For large L, thestrength ofunterminatedensembles scaleswith theconstraint length and isindependent of L.
An appropriatedistance measurefor 'convolutional-like' terminatedensembles shouldbe independent of L.
independent of L
normalized by L
(3,6)-regular unterminated SC-LDPC free distance growth rates
(3,6)-regular terminated SC-LDPCminimum distance growth rates
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Outline
LDPC Block Codes
Spatially Coupled LDPC Codes
Protograph representation, edge-spreading construction, termination
Iterative decoding thresholds, threshold saturation, minimum distance
Practical Considerations
24
Parity-check matrix and Tanner graph representations, minimumdistance bounds, iterative decoding thresholds, protograph-based constructions
Window decoding; performance, latency, and complexity comparisonsto LDPC block codes; rate-compatibility; implementation aspects
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 25
Decoding SC-LDPC Codes
SC-LDPC codes can be decoded with standard iterative decoding schedules.
me
ssage
s p
assed
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 25
Decoding SC-LDPC Codes
SC-LDPC codes can be decoded with standard iterative decoding schedules.
Reliable messagesfrom the endspropagate throughthe graph toward thecenter as iterationsproceed.
me
ssage
s p
assed
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 25
Decoding SC-LDPC Codes
SC-LDPC codes can be decoded with standard iterative decoding schedules.
Reliable messagesfrom the endspropagate throughthe graph toward thecenter as iterationsproceed.
me
ssage
s p
assed
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 25
Decoding SC-LDPC Codes
SC-LDPC codes can be decoded with standard iterative decoding schedules.
Reliable messagesfrom the endspropagate throughthe graph toward thecenter as iterationsproceed.
me
ssage
s p
assed
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 25
Decoding SC-LDPC Codes
SC-LDPC codes can be decoded with standard iterative decoding schedules.
Reliable messagesfrom the endspropagate throughthe graph toward thecenter as iterationsproceed.
The highly localized (convolutional) structure is well-suited for efficient
decoding schedules that reduce memory and latency requirements.
me
ssage
s p
assed
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 25
Decoding SC-LDPC Codes
SC-LDPC codes can be decoded with standard iterative decoding schedules.
Reliable messagesfrom the endspropagate throughthe graph toward thecenter as iterationsproceed.
Sliding window decoding (WD) updates nodes onlywithin a localized windowand then the window shiftsacross the graph [Lentmaieret al '10, Iyengar et al '12].
The highly localized (convolutional) structure is well-suited for efficient
decoding schedules that reduce memory and latency requirements.
me
ssage
s p
assed
width W
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 25
Decoding SC-LDPC Codes
SC-LDPC codes can be decoded with standard iterative decoding schedules.
Reliable messagesfrom the endspropagate throughthe graph toward thecenter as iterationsproceed.
Sliding window decoding (WD) updates nodes onlywithin a localized windowand then the window shiftsacross the graph [Lentmaieret al '10, Iyengar et al '12].
The highly localized (convolutional) structure is well-suited for efficient
decoding schedules that reduce memory and latency requirements.
me
ssage
s p
assed
width W
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 25
Decoding SC-LDPC Codes
SC-LDPC codes can be decoded with standard iterative decoding schedules.
Reliable messagesfrom the endspropagate throughthe graph toward thecenter as iterationsproceed.
Sliding window decoding (WD) updates nodes onlywithin a localized windowand then the window shiftsacross the graph [Lentmaieret al '10, Iyengar et al '12].
The highly localized (convolutional) structure is well-suited for efficient
decoding schedules that reduce memory and latency requirements.
me
ssage
s p
assed
width W
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Window Decoding Performance
[LPF11] M. Lentmaier, M. M. Prenda, and G. Fettweis, “Efficient Message Passing Scheduling for
Terminated LDPC Convolutional Codes”, Proc. IEEE ISIT, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2011.
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
26
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Window Decoding Performance
[LPF11] M. Lentmaier, M. M. Prenda, and G. Fettweis, “Efficient Message Passing Scheduling for
Terminated LDPC Convolutional Codes”, Proc. IEEE ISIT, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2011.
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
For equal liftingfactors, SC-LDPCcodes display alarge convolutionalgain at the cost ofincreased latency.
convolutional gain
26
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Window Decoding Performance
[LPF11] M. Lentmaier, M. M. Prenda, and G. Fettweis, “Efficient Message Passing Scheduling for
Terminated LDPC Convolutional Codes”, Proc. IEEE ISIT, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2011.
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
For equal liftingfactors, SC-LDPCcodes display alarge convolutionalgain at the cost ofincreased latency.
For equal latency,SC-LDPC codesstill display asignificantperformance gain.
equallatency
26
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Window Decoding Performance
[LPF11] M. Lentmaier, M. M. Prenda, and G. Fettweis, “Efficient Message Passing Scheduling for
Terminated LDPC Convolutional Codes”, Proc. IEEE ISIT, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2011.
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
For equal liftingfactors, SC-LDPCcodes display alarge convolutionalgain at the cost ofincreased latency.
For equal latency,SC-LDPC codesstill display asignificantperformance gain.
equallatency
26
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Window Decoding Performance
[LPF11] M. Lentmaier, M. M. Prenda, and G. Fettweis, “Efficient Message Passing Scheduling for
Terminated LDPC Convolutional Codes”, Proc. IEEE ISIT, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2011.
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
For equal liftingfactors, SC-LDPCcodes display alarge convolutionalgain at the cost ofincreased latency.
For equal latency,SC-LDPC codesstill display asignificantperformance gain.
equallatency
26
Trade-off in M vs W
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Required to achieve a BER of as a function of latency:
decreases as W (and thus thelatency) increases.
does not decreasesignificantly beyond acertain W
Equal Latency Comparison for
(3,6)-Regular LDPC Codes
BC
SC
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
27
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Required to achieve a BER of as a function of latency:
decreases as W (and thus thelatency) increases.
does not decreasesignificantly beyond acertain W
Equal Latency Comparison for
(3,6)-Regular LDPC Codes
BC
SC
SC
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
27
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Required to achieve a BER of as a function of latency:
decreases as W (and thus thelatency) increases.
does not decreasesignificantly beyond acertain W
Equal Latency Comparison for
(3,6)-Regular LDPC Codes
BC
SC
SC
SC
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
27
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Required to achieve a BER of as a function of latency:
decreases as W (and thus thelatency) increases.
does not decreasesignificantly beyond acertain W
Equal Latency Comparison for
(3,6)-Regular LDPC Codes
BC
SC
SC
SC
SC
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
27
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Required to achieve a BER of as a function of latency:
decreases as W (and thus thelatency) increases.
does not decreasesignificantly beyond acertain W
Equal Latency Comparison for
(3,6)-Regular LDPC Codes
BC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
27
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Required to achieve a BER of as a function of latency:
decreases as W (and thus thelatency) increases.
does not decreasesignificantly beyond acertain W
Equal Latency Comparison for
(3,6)-Regular LDPC Codes
BC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
27
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Required to achieve a BER of as a function of latency:
decreases as W (and thus thelatency) increases.
does not decreasesignificantly beyond acertain W
Equal Latency Comparison for
(3,6)-Regular LDPC Codes
large improvescode performance.
large W improvesdecoder performance.
When choosingparameters:
BC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
Latencies:LDPC:SC-LDPC:
27
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 28
Complexity Tradeoffs
For equal latency, SC-LDPC codes display a performance gain comparedto the underlying LDPC-BCs
(including non-binary codes)
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 28
Complexity Tradeoffs
For equal latency, SC-LDPC codes display a performance gain comparedto the underlying LDPC-BCs
With standardstopping rules, thecomputationalcomplexity ishigher for SC-LDPC codes
(including non-binary codes)
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 28
Complexity Tradeoffs
For equal latency, SC-LDPC codes display a performance gain comparedto the underlying LDPC-BCs
With standardstopping rules, thecomputationalcomplexity ishigher for SC-LDPC codes
LDPC-BCs cannot achieve equalperformance byincreasing thenumber ofiterations
(including non-binary codes)
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 29
For equal performance (BER of 10-5 at 1.5dB), SC-LDPC codes display alarge reduction in latency compared to LDPC-BCs of similar complexity
Complexity/Latency Tradeoffs
(including non-binary codes)
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 29
For equal performance (BER of 10-5 at 1.5dB), SC-LDPC codes display alarge reduction in latency compared to LDPC-BCs of similar complexity
Complexity/Latency Tradeoffs
(including non-binary codes)
With increasing(small) field sizes q,latency decreasesfor increasingcomplexity
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 29
For equal performance (BER of 10-5 at 1.5dB), SC-LDPC codes display alarge reduction in latency compared to LDPC-BCs of similar complexity
Complexity/Latency Tradeoffs
(including non-binary codes)
With increasing(small) field sizes q,latency decreasesfor increasingcomplexity
For larger q, bothlatency and complexityincrease (for both SC-LDPC codes andLDPC-BCs)!
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 29
For equal performance (BER of 10-5 at 1.5dB), SC-LDPC codes display alarge reduction in latency compared to LDPC-BCs of similar complexity
Complexity/Latency Tradeoffs
(including non-binary codes)
With increasing(small) field sizes q,latency decreasesfor increasingcomplexity
SC-LDPC codesover GF(4) offer agood balancebetween complexityand latency
For larger q, bothlatency and complexityincrease (for both SC-LDPC codes andLDPC-BCs)!
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Rate-compatible Punctured Codes
A linear code with rate R is punctured by removing a set of p columnsfrom its generator matrix, reducing the codeword length from n to
x x
30
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Rate-compatible Punctured Codes
A linear code with rate R is punctured by removing a set of p columnsfrom its generator matrix, reducing the codeword length from n to
x x
A variety of code rates can be achieved using the same decoder bypuncturing different numbers of symbols (rate compatibility)
30
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Rate-compatible Punctured Codes
A linear code with rate R is punctured by removing a set of p columnsfrom its generator matrix, reducing the codeword length from n to
x x
A variety of code rates can be achieved using the same decoder bypuncturing different numbers of symbols (rate compatibility)
puncturing fraction:
punctured rate:
The code rate is increased by puncturing:
30
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Randomly Punctured
SC-LDPC Codes (BEC)
M = 500, W=8Latency = 2MW = 8000
Randomly punctured SC-LDPC codes drawn from
Max its. = 10
31
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Randomly Punctured
SC-LDPC Codes (BEC)
M = 500, W=8Latency = 2MW = 8000
Randomly punctured SC-LDPC codes drawn from
Max its. = 10
Robust decodingperformance
Small gap tothreshold for allrates
No error floorsobserved
Gaps decreasewith increasing M
31
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Robust decodingperformance
Small but slightlyincreasing gap tothreshold (~1-1.25dB at 10-5) forincreasing
Gaps decreasewith increasing M
32
M = 500, W=8Latency = 2MW = 8000Max its. = 10
No error floorsobserved
Randomly Punctured
SC-LDPC Codes (AWGNC)
Randomly punctured SC-LDPC codes drawn from
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Regular SC-LDPC Codes vs.
Irregular LDPC-BCs
Consider a comparison of a (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code vs. anirregular-repeat-accumulate (IRA) LDPC-BC with optimizedprotograph taken from the WiMAX standard
33
Ex:
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Regular SC-LDPC Codes vs.
Irregular LDPC-BCs
Consider a comparison of a (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code vs. anirregular-repeat-accumulate (IRA) LDPC-BC with optimizedprotograph taken from the WiMAX standard
The IRA LDPC-BC ensemble has rate R=0.5, BEC threshold , and AWGNC threshold dB.
33
Ex:
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Regular SC-LDPC Codes vs.
Irregular LDPC-BCs
Consider a comparison of a (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code vs. anirregular-repeat-accumulate (IRA) LDPC-BC with optimizedprotograph taken from the WiMAX standard
The IRA LDPC-BC ensemble has rate R=0.5, BEC threshold , and AWGNC threshold dB.
We compare this to a (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code ensemble withL=50, R=0.49, and thresholds and dB.
33
Ex:
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Regular SC-LDPC Codes vs.
Irregular LDPC-BCs
Consider a comparison of a (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code vs. anirregular-repeat-accumulate (IRA) LDPC-BC with optimizedprotograph taken from the WiMAX standard
The IRA LDPC-BC ensemble has rate R=0.5, BEC threshold , and AWGNC threshold dB.
We compare this to a (3,6)-regular SC-LDPC code ensemble withL=50, R=0.49, and thresholds and dB.
For the SC-LDPC code, we choose W=6 and M=500 so that thelatency of both codes is 6000 bits. (Since a code symbol is present inW=6 'windows', we allow fewer iterations per position for the SC-LDPC window decoder.)
33
Ex:
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Gaps tothreshold willreduce withincreasinglatency
34
Regular SC-LDPC Codes vs.
Irregular LDPC-BCs
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Gaps tothreshold willreduce withincreasinglatency
Theasymptoticallygood regularSC-LDPC codeshows no sign ofan error floor
34
Regular SC-LDPC Codes vs.
Irregular LDPC-BCs
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Gaps tothreshold willreduce withincreasinglatency
Theasymptoticallygood regularSC-LDPC codeshows no sign ofan error floor
The regular SC-LDPC codestructure hasimplementationadvantages
34
Regular SC-LDPC Codes vs.
Irregular LDPC-BCs
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 35
Randomly Punctured LDPC Codes
Randompuncturing can beapplied to LDPCcodes to increasethe rate
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39 35
Randomly Punctured LDPC Codes
Randompuncturing can beapplied to LDPCcodes to increasethe rate
Equal latencyperformancecomparisons areconsistent for higherrate codes
Regular SC-LDPCcodes displayrobust decodingperformancecompared toirregular LDPC-BCs
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatial Coupling of Irregular Codes
We can also couple irregular codes to construct an irregular SC-LDPCcode ensemble. Consider the ARJA LDPC-BC protograph:
x
36
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatial Coupling of Irregular Codes
A spatially coupled version can be created by edge spreading:
We can also couple irregular codes to construct an irregular SC-LDPCcode ensemble. Consider the ARJA LDPC-BC protograph:
x
36
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatial Coupling of Irregular Codes
A spatially coupled version can be created by edge spreading:
We can also couple irregular codes to construct an irregular SC-LDPCcode ensemble. Consider the ARJA LDPC-BC protograph:
x
36
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatial Coupling of Irregular Codes
A spatially coupled version can be created by edge spreading:
We can also couple irregular codes to construct an irregular SC-LDPCcode ensemble. Consider the ARJA LDPC-BC protograph:
x
36
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatial Coupling of Irregular Codes
A spatially coupled version can be created by edge spreading:
We can also couple irregular codes to construct an irregular SC-LDPCcode ensemble. Consider the ARJA LDPC-BC protograph:
x
36
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatial Coupling of Irregular Codes
A spatially coupled version can be created by edge spreading:
We can also couple irregular codes to construct an irregular SC-LDPCcode ensemble. Consider the ARJA LDPC-BC protograph:
x
36
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatial Coupling of Irregular Codes
A spatially coupled version can be created by edge spreading:
... ...
We can also couple irregular codes to construct an irregular SC-LDPCcode ensemble. Consider the ARJA LDPC-BC protograph:
x
36
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Spatial Coupling of Irregular Codes
A spatially coupled version can be created by edge spreading:
... ...
We can also couple irregular codes to construct an irregular SC-LDPCcode ensemble. Consider the ARJA LDPC-BC protograph:
x
36
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
AWGNC Thresholds vs Distance Growth
37
Irregular SC-LDPC code ensembles also display excellent asymptotic
properties
[MLC10] D. G. M. Mitchell, M. Lentmaier and D. J. Costello, Jr., “AWGN Channel Analysis of Terminated
LDPC Convolutional Codes”, Proc. Information Theory and Applications Workshop, San Diego, Feb. 2011.
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Implementation Aspects
As a result of their capacity approaching performance and simplestructure, regular SC-LDPC codes may be attractive for future codingstandards. Several key features will require further investigation:
Hardware advantages of QC designs obtained by circulant liftings
Hardware advantages of the 'asymptotically-regular' structure
Design advantages of flexible frame length and flexible rateobtained by varying M, L, and/or puncturing
38
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Implementation Aspects
As a result of their capacity approaching performance and simplestructure, regular SC-LDPC codes may be attractive for future codingstandards. Several key features will require further investigation:
Hardware advantages of QC designs obtained by circulant liftings
Hardware advantages of the 'asymptotically-regular' structure
Design advantages of flexible frame length and flexible rateobtained by varying M, L, and/or puncturing
Of particular importance for applications requiring extremely lowdecoded bit error rates (e.g., optical communication, data storage) isan investigation of error floor issues related to stopping sets,trapping sets, and absorbing sets.
38
D. J. Costello, Jr., “Spatial Coupling vs. Block Coding: A Comparison” / 39
Conclusions
Spatially coupled LDPC code ensembles achieve threshold saturation,i.e., their iterative decoding thresholds (for large L and M) approach theMAP decoding thresholds of the underlying LDPC block code ensembles.
The threshold saturation and linear minimum distance growth propertiesof (J,K)-regular SC-LDPC codes combine the best asymptotic featuresof both regular and irregular LDPC-BCs.
With window decoding, SC-LDPC codes also compare favorably toLDPC-BCs in the finite-length regime, providing flexible tradeoffsbetween BER performance, decoding latency, and decoder complexity.
39
SC-LDPC codes can be punctured to achieve robustly good performanceover a wide variety of code rates.
top related