Prev: coff file download from Host processor
Next: digital beamforming with Concentric circular array
From: cpshah99 on 16 Feb 2010 03:46

>
>Looks like a trivial mistake somewhere. Are you sure the LDPC word is
>not getting shifted by one bit or so? The convolutional decoder will
>self synchronize, the LDPC won't.
>

HI Vlad

I do not think so because if that was the case, I would not get 0 BER in
the absence of noise.

Thanks.

Chintan Shah
From: cpshah99 on 18 Feb 2010 08:58
HI Guys

I still have the same problem as stated above. However, I tried to change
my channel.

My system is as below:

info -> LDPC -> Interleaver -> BPSK -> y=channel+noise

y -> MMSE Equalizer -> 2/sigma^2*\hat{x} -> Deinterleave -> LDPC decode
(feedforward only)

In above \hat{x} is the soft o/p from equalizer.

For Channel A of Proakis, which is not severe, I am getting good
performance after 50 iterations of LDPC code.

Now, when I change the channel to Proakis channel B, the BER after the
first iteration is worse than the uncoded BER. Additionally, as the
iteration increases, the BER does not improve.

The reason for this I found is that at high SNR, which is the case for such
channels, the Horizontal step of the LDPC decoding gives values {+14.5
-14.5} and the vertical step gives values in the range of \pm 1000s which
is not quite large.

So I think that at high SNR, *something* causes problem for LDPC decoder.

Any idea????

Chintan
From: Eric Jacobsen on 18 Feb 2010 17:33
On 2/18/2010 6:58 AM, cpshah99 wrote:
> HI Guys
>
> I still have the same problem as stated above. However, I tried to change
> my channel.
>
> My system is as below:
>
> info -> LDPC -> Interleaver -> BPSK -> y=channel+noise
>
> y -> MMSE Equalizer -> 2/sigma^2*\hat{x} -> Deinterleave -> LDPC decode
> (feedforward only)
>
> In above \hat{x} is the soft o/p from equalizer.
>
> For Channel A of Proakis, which is not severe, I am getting good
> performance after 50 iterations of LDPC code.
>
> Now, when I change the channel to Proakis channel B, the BER after the
> first iteration is worse than the uncoded BER. Additionally, as the
> iteration increases, the BER does not improve.
>
> The reason for this I found is that at high SNR, which is the case for such
> channels, the Horizontal step of the LDPC decoding gives values {+14.5
> -14.5} and the vertical step gives values in the range of \pm 1000s which
> is not quite large.

Not quite sure what you mean here by horizontal and vertical steps in
the LDPC, or what \pm 1000s means. Is this relevant for how your soft
decision works?

> So I think that at high SNR, *something* causes problem for LDPC decoder.
>
> Any idea????
>
> Chintan

Is the bottom line that errored bits are getting high-confidence scores
in the soft decision process? You could try AWGN with hard-decision
and see if the decoder still converges.

A couple thoughts I was having before you mentioned the
horizontal/vertical stuff:

1. Have you looked at the input error distributions and how they may be
affecting the problem? It could be that the channel interleaver isn't
spreading the bits around enough, although this shouldn't make much
difference with an LDPC that looks reasonably random. If the LDPC has a
lot of structure it may be more sensitive to input error distribution.

2. Is Proakis B a single channel instance or a statistical description?
My question is whether the problem is with just one particular
channel instance or an entire family of channels in a model? If it's
just one channel instance, it's entirely possible that you just found a
pathological case that breaks the decoder. Those happen.

3. Have you tried different scheduling algorithms in the LDPC? It
could be that something is amiss there.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com
From: cpshah99 on 19 Feb 2010 06:37

>
>Not quite sure what you mean here by horizontal and vertical steps in
>the LDPC, or what \pm 1000s means. Is this relevant for how your soft
>decision works?
>

By horizontal and vertical I mean the way the bit and check nodes are
uypdated.

>1. Have you looked at the input error distributions and how they may be
>affecting the problem? It could be that the channel interleaver isn't
>spreading the bits around enough, although this shouldn't make much
>difference with an LDPC that looks reasonably random. If the LDPC has a
>lot of structure it may be more sensitive to input error distribution.
>

The performance is same regardless of if we use interleaver or not. Which
is true as you said because LDPC code is random.

>2. Is Proakis B a single channel instance or a statistical description?
> My question is whether the problem is with just one particular
>channel instance or an entire family of channels in a model? If it's
>just one channel instance, it's entirely possible that you just found a
>pathological case that breaks the decoder. Those happen.
>

In proakis comms book, there are total 3 channels (chap 10, 4th ed). I am
getting gain only for channel A but channels B and C, there is no gain.

>3. Have you tried different scheduling algorithms in the LDPC? It
>could be that something is amiss there.
>

I do not know what you mean by this scheduling algorithms as I have just
started to work with LDPC. It will be great if you can expalin a little
bit.

Thanks.

Chintan Shah
From: Eric Jacobsen on 19 Feb 2010 20:32
On 2/19/2010 4:37 AM, cpshah99 wrote:
>> Not quite sure what you mean here by horizontal and vertical steps in
>> the LDPC, or what \pm 1000s means. Is this relevant for how your soft
>> decision works?
>>
>
> By horizontal and vertical I mean the way the bit and check nodes are
> uypdated.
>
>> 1. Have you looked at the input error distributions and how they may be
>> affecting the problem? It could be that the channel interleaver isn't
>> spreading the bits around enough, although this shouldn't make much
>> difference with an LDPC that looks reasonably random. If the LDPC has a
>> lot of structure it may be more sensitive to input error distribution.
>>
>
> The performance is same regardless of if we use interleaver or not. Which
> is true as you said because LDPC code is random.
>
>> 2. Is Proakis B a single channel instance or a statistical description?
>> My question is whether the problem is with just one particular
>> channel instance or an entire family of channels in a model? If it's
>> just one channel instance, it's entirely possible that you just found a
>> pathological case that breaks the decoder. Those happen.
>>
>
> In proakis comms book, there are total 3 channels (chap 10, 4th ed). I am
> getting gain only for channel A but channels B and C, there is no gain.
>
>> 3. Have you tried different scheduling algorithms in the LDPC? It
>> could be that something is amiss there.
>>
>
> I do not know what you mean by this scheduling algorithms as I have just
> started to work with LDPC. It will be great if you can expalin a little
> bit.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Chintan Shah

The scheduling algorithm refers to the method used in the decoder to
update the metrics. e.g., Flooding refers to updating all check nodes
before updating any variable nodes. Other schedules allow successive
variable nodes to update as new check node information is available.
There are a number of scheduling schemes, and naturally each performs a
little differently. I suspect that sensitivity to error distributions
may change with scheduling as well.

Don't know whether it will make a difference in your case, but it might
be worth looking into.



--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: coff file download from Host processor
Next: digital beamforming with Concentric circular array