Paper detail

Impact of redundant checks on the LP decoding thresholds of LDPC codes

Feldman et al.(2005) asked whether the performance of the LP decoder can be improved by adding redundant parity checks to tighten the LP relaxation. We prove that for LDPC codes, even if we include all redundant checks, asymptotically there is no gain in the LP decoder threshold on the BSC under certain conditions on the base Tanner graph. First, we show that if the graph has bounded check-degree and satisfies a condition which we call asymptotic strength, then including high degree redundant checks in the LP does not significantly improve the threshold in the following sense: for each constant delta>0, there is a constant k>0 such that the threshold of the LP decoder containing all redundant checks of degree at most k improves by at most delta upon adding to the LP all redundant checks of degree larger than k. We conclude that if the graph satisfies a rigidity condition, then including all redundant checks does not improve the threshold of the base LP. We call the graph asymptotically strong if the LP decoder corrects a constant fraction of errors even if the LLRs of the correct variables are arbitrarily small. By building on the work of Feldman et al.(2007) and Viderman(2013), we show that asymptotic strength follows from sufficiently large expansion. We also give a geometric interpretation of asymptotic strength in terms pseudocodewords. We call the graph rigid if the minimum weight of a sum of check nodes involving a cycle tends to infinity as the block length tends to infinity. Under the assumptions that the graph girth is logarithmic and the minimum check degree is at least 3, rigidity is equivalent to the nondegeneracy property that adding at least logarithmically many checks does not give a constant weight check. We argue that nondegeneracy is a typical property of random check-regular graphs.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.