Accuracy and Reliability Frame error Nonresponse error Specification error Measurement error
Finite-Length Scaling and Error Floors
description
Transcript of Finite-Length Scaling and Error Floors
1
Finite-Length Scalingand Error Floors
Abdelaziz AmraouiAndrea MontanariRuediger Urbanke
Tom Richardson
2
Approach to Asymptotic PDF File
3
Finite Length Scaling
4
Finite Length Scaling
5
Finite Length Scaling
6
Finite Length Scaling
7
Analysis (BEC): Covariance evolution
Fraction of check nodes of degreegreater than one and equal to one.
Covariance terms.
As a function of residual graph fractional size.
8
Covariance evolution
9
Finite Length Curves
10
Analysis (BEC)
• Follow Luby et al: single variable at a time with the trajectory converging to a differential equation.
• Covariance of state space variables also follows a d.e.
• Increments have Markov property and regularity.
11
Results
12
Finite Threshold Shift
13
Generalizing from the BEC?
•No obvious incremental form (diff. Eq.)•No state space characterization of failure.•No clear finite dimensional state space.•Not clear what the right coordinates are for the general case (Capacity?).
Nevertheless, it is useful in practice to havethis interpretation of iterative failure and tohave the basic form of the scaling law.
14
Empirical Evidence
15
Error Floors
16
17
18
Error Floors:Review of the BEC
19
Error floors on the erasure channel: Stopping sets.
20
Error floors on the erasure channel: average performance.
21
Error floors on the erasure channel: decomposition
22
Error floors on the erasure channel: average and typical performance.
23
Error floors for general channels: Expurgated Ensemble Experiments.
AWGN channel rate 51/64 block lengths 4k
Random
Girth (8) optimized
Neighborhood optimized
24
Error floors for general channels: Trapping set distribution.
AWGN channel rate 51/64 block lengths 4k
(3,1)
(5,1)
(7,1)
25
Observations.
•Error floor region dominated by small weight errors.
•Subset on which error occur usually induces a subgraph with only degree 2 and degree 1 check nodes where the number of degree 1 check nodes is relatively small.
•Optimized graphs exhibit concentration of types of errors.
26
IntuitionIn the error floor event, nodes in the trapping sets receive 1’s with some reliability. Other nodes receive typical inputs.
(Reliable 1)
(Definite 0)
After a few iterations ‘exterior’ nodes and messages converge to high reliability 0s. Internally messages are 1s.
(Definite 0)
1
1
11
1
Nevertheless, if internal received are 1s, internal messaging reaches highly reliable 1 and message state gets trapped.
(Definite 0)
(9,3)
27
A decoder on an input ℇ Y is a sequence of maps:
Dl : ℇ {0,1}n
Defining Failure: Trapping Sets
(Assume the all-0 codeword is the desired decoding.
For the BEC let 1 denote an erasure.)
We say that bit j is eventually correct if there exists L so that l > L implies Dl(ℇ ) = 0.
Assuming failure, the trapping set T is the set of all bits that are not eventually correct.
28
Defining Failure for BP: Practice
Decode for 200 iterations. If the decoding is not successful decode an additional 20 iterations and take the union of all bits that do not decode to 0 during this time.
29
Trapping Sets: Examples
1. Let the decoder be the maximum likelihood decoder in one step. Then the trapping sets are the non-zero codewords.
2. Let the decoder be belief propagation over the BEC. Then the trapping sets are the stopping sets.
3. Let the decoder be serial (strict) flipping over the BSC. T is a trapping set if and only if the in the subgraph induced by T each node has more even then odd degree neighbors, and the same holds for the complement of T.
30
Analysis with Trapping Sets:Decomposition of failure
FER() = T P(ℇT, )
ℇT: The set of all inputs giving rise to failure on trapping set T.
Error Floors dominated by “small” events.
31
1. Find (cover) all trapping sets likely to have significant contribution to the error floor region.
T1,T2,T3,….,Tm
2. Evaluate contribution of each set to the error floor.
P(ℇT1, ), P(ℇT2, ),…
Predicting Error Floors: A two pronged attack.
Strictly speaking, we get a (tight) lower bound
FER() > i P(ℇTi, )
32
Finding Trapping Sets
Simulation of decoding can be viewed as stochastic process for finding trapping sets.
It is very inefficient, however.
We could use (aided) flipping to get some speed up.
It is still too inefficient.
33
Finding Trapping Sets (Flipping)
•Trapping sets can be viewed as “local” extrema of certain functions. E.g., number of odd degree induced checks.
•“Local” means, e.g., under single element removal, addition, or swap.
Therefore, we can look for subsets that are “local” extrema.
34
Finding Trapping Sets (Flipping)Basic idea:
•Build up a connected subset with bias towards minimizing induced odd degree checks.
•Check occasionally for containment of a in-flipping stable set by applying flipping decoding. Eventually such a set is contained.
•Check now for other types of variation:
•Out-flipping stability.
•Single aided flip stability (chains).
•……
35
Differences: BP and Flipping
36
Differences: BP and Flipping
r1
r1+r2+r3
r3
r2
37
Differences: BP and Flipping
38
Differences: BP and FlippingPDF File
39
•Find random variable x on which to condition the decoder input Y that “mostly” determines membership in ℇT . I.e.,
Pr{ℇT | x} is nearly a step function in x.
•Perform in situ simulation of trapping set while varying x to measure Pr{ℇT | x}.
•Combine with density of x to get Pr{ℇT }.
Evaluating Trapping SetsBasic idea:
40
Evaluating Trapping Sets
Condition input to trapping set
Otherwise simulate channel
41
Evaluating Trapping Sets: BECX is the number of erasures in T (=S).
42
Evaluating Trapping Sets: AWGNX is the mean noise input in T.
43
Evaluating Trapping Sets: AWGN
44
Evaluating Trapping Sets: Margulis 12,4
45
A tougher test case:G
46
Evaluating Trapping Sets: G
47
A Curve from a single point
48
Extrapolating a curve
49
Variation in Trapping Sets: (10,4) (10,2) (10,0)
50
Variation in Trapping Sets: (12,4) (12,2) (12,0)
51
Variation in Trapping Sets
52
Conclusions
•Error floor performance is predictable with considerable computational effort. (Would be nice to have scaling law for “best” codes.)
•Trade off between error floor and threshold (waterfall) can be optimized even for very deep error floors.
53
Conclusions
“It is interesting to observe that the search for theoretical understanding of turbo codes has transformed coding theorists into experimental scientists.”physicists.”