Performance analysis of lt codes with different degree distribution
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 27

Performance analysis of LT codes with different degree distribution PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 40 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Performance analysis of LT codes with different degree distribution. Zhu Zhiliang , Liu Sha , Zhang Jiawei , Zhao Yuli , Yu Hai. Software College, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.

Download Presentation

Performance analysis of LT codes with different degree distribution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Performance analysis of lt codes with different degree distribution

Performance analysis of LT codes with different degree distribution

Zhu Zhiliang, Liu Sha, Zhang Jiawei,

Zhao Yuli, Yu Hai

Software College, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.

College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China


Outline

Outline

  • Introduction

  • Degree distribution of LT codes

  • Analysis of LT codes

    • Average degree

    • Degree release probability

    • Average overhead factor


Introduction

Introduction

  • The encoding/decoding complexity and error performance are governed by the degree distribution of LT code.

  • Designing a good degree distribution of encoded symbols [7]

    • To improve the encoding/decoding complexity and error performance

  • In this paper , we analysis

    • Ideal soliton distribution

    • Robust soliton distribution

    • Suboptimal degree distribution

    • Scale-free Luby distribution

    • Average degree

    • Degree release probability

    • Average overhead factor


Lt process

LT process

c1

a1

c2

a2

c3

a3

c4

a4

c5

a5

c6

covered = { }

processed = { }

ripple = { }

released = { }

STATE:

ACTION:

Init: Release c2, c4, c6

http://www.powercam.cc/slide/21817


Lt process1

LT process

c1

a1

c2

a2

c3

a3

c4

a4

c5

a5

c6

released = {c2,c4,c6}

covered = {a1,a3,a5}

processed = { }

ripple = {a1,a3,a5}

STATE:

ACTION:

Process a1


Lt process2

LT process

c1

a1

c2

a2

c3

a3

c4

a4

c5

a5

c6

released = {c2,c4,c6,c1}

covered = {a1,a3,a5}

processed = {a1}

ripple = {a3,a5}

STATE:

ACTION:

Process a3


Lt process3

LT process

c1

a1

c2

a2

c3

a3

c4

a4

c5

a5

c6

released = {c2,c4,c6,c1}

covered = {a1,a3,a5}

processed = {a1,a3}

ripple = {a5}

STATE:

ACTION:

Process a5


Lt process4

LT process

c1

a1

c2

a2

c3

a3

c4

a4

c5

a5

c6

released = {c2,c4,c6,c1,c5}

covered = {a1,a3,a5,a4}

processed = {a1,a3,a5}

ripple = {a4}

STATE:

ACTION:

Process a4


Lt process5

LT process

c1

a1

c2

a2

c3

a3

c4

a4

c5

a5

c6

released = {c2,c4,c6,c1,c5,c3}

covered = {a1,a3,a5,a4,a2}

processed = {a1,a3,a5,a4}

ripple = {a2}

STATE:

ACTION:

Process a2


Lt process6

LT process

c1

a1

c2

a2

c3

a3

c4

a4

c5

a5

c6

released = {c2,c4,c6,c1,c5,c3}

covered = {a1,a3,a5,a4,a2}

processed = {a1,a3,a5,a4,a2}

ripple = { }

STATE:

ACTION:

Success!


Ideal soliton distribution 6

Ideal solitondistribution [6]

  • Works poor

  • Due to the randomness in the encoding process,

    • Ripple would disappear at some point, and the whole decoding process failed.

[6] M. Luby, “LT codes”, Proc. Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. (Vancouver, Canada), 2002, pp. 271-282.


Robust soliton distribution 6

Robust solitondistribution [6]

Maximum failure probability of the decoder

when encoded symbols are received

Degree distribution of Ideal Soliton Distribution

[6] M. Luby, “LT codes”, Proc. Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. (Vancouver, Canada), 2002, pp. 271-282.


Suboptimal degree distribution

Suboptimal degree distribution

  • Optimal degree distribution is proposed[12]

    • When k is large, the coefficient matrix of optimal degree distribution is too sick.

    • No solution.

  • Suboptimal degree distribution:

[12] Zhu H P, Zhang G X, Xie Z D, "Suboptimal degree distribution of LT codes". Journal of Applied Sciences-Electronics and Information Engineering. Jan 2009, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 6-11.

R is initial ripple size

E is the expected number of encoded symbols required to recovery the input symbols.


Scale free luby distribution 13

Scale-free Luby distribution [13]

  • Based on modified power-law distribution

    • Presenting that scale-free property have a higher chance to be decoded correctly.

  • A large number of nodes with low degree

  • A little number of nodes with high degree

P1: the fraction of encoded symbols with degree-1

r : the characteristic exponent

A: the normalizing coefficient to ensure

[13] Yuli Zhao, Francis C. M. Lau, "Scale-free Luby transform codes", International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2012.


Analysis of lt codes

Analysis of LT codes

  • The encoding/decoding efficiency is evaluated by the average degree of encoded symbols.

    • Less average degree

    • Fewer times of XOR operations

  • Encoded symbol should be released until the decoding process finished

    • Degree release probability is very important

  • Less number of encoded symbols required to recovery the input symbols means less cost of transmitting the original data information.

    • The overhead should be considered

  • : degree distribution : average degree


Average degree ideal soliton distribution

Average degreeIdeal solitondistribution

  • Can be calculated based on the summation formula of harmonic progression

  • r : Euler's constant which is similar to 0.58

  • Average degree of ideal soliton degree distribution is


Average degree robust soliton distribution

Average degreeRobust solitondistribution

  • The complexity of its average degree is


Average degree suboptimal degree distribution

Average degreeSuboptimal degree distribution

  • The complexity of its average degree is


Average degree scale free luby distribution

Average degreeScale-free Luby distribution

  • Based on the properties of Scale-free

  • The average degree of Scale-free Luby Distribution will be small

  • (r-1) is the sum of a p-progression

  • It is obvious that the average degree of SF-LT codes is smaller

  • Encoding/decoding complexity of SF-LT code is much lower than the others


Degree release probability

Degree release probability

[6] M. Luby, “LT codes”, Proc. Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. (Vancouver, Canada), 2002, pp. 271-282.

  • [6]

  • In general, r(L) should be larger than 1

  • At least 1 encoded symbol is released when an input symbol is processed.


Degree release probability ideal soliton distribution 6

Degree release probabilityIdeal solitondistribution [6]

Degree release probabilityRobust soliton distribution


Degree release probability suboptimal degree distribution

Degree release probabilitySuboptimal degree distribution

  • Using limit theory, it can be expressed as , where

  • Suppose E encoded symbols is sufficient to recovery the k original input symbols.

  • At each decoding step, larger than 1 encoded symbol is released.


Degree release probability scale free luby distribution

Degree release probabilityScale-free Luby distribution

  • Initial ripple size must be bigger than Robust Soliton Distribution’s

  • k·P1is bigger than 1

  • The complexity is


Degree release probability1

Degree release probability

  • Suboptimal degree distribution's degree release probability is bigger than the others


Average overhead factor

Average overhead factor

  • A decreasing ripple size provides a better trade-off between robustness and the overhead factor [14]

  • The theoretical evolution of the ripple size :

    • Assuming that at each decoding iteration, the input symbols can be added in to the ripple set without repetition

[14] Sorensen J. H., Popovski. P., Ostergaard J., "On LT codes with decreasing ripple size", Arxiv preprint PScache/1011.2078v1.

: the number of degree-i input symbols left

L : the size of unprocessed input symbols


Average overhead factor1

Average overhead factor


Conclusion

Conclusion

  • Robust LT codes, suboptimal LT code and SF-LT code are capable to recovery the input symbols efficiently.

  • From the overhead factor, SF-LT codes and suboptimal LT codes need much less number of encoded symbols to recovery given number of input symbols.

  • The average degree of SF-LT code is smaller than the others.

  • SF-LT code performs much better probability of successful decoding and enhanced encoding/decoding complexity


  • Login