The original paper is in English. Non-English content has been machine-translated and may contain typographical errors or mistranslations. ex. Some numerals are expressed as "XNUMX".
Copyrights notice
The original paper is in English. Non-English content has been machine-translated and may contain typographical errors or mistranslations. Copyrights notice
Kertas kerja ini membandingkan kod turbo dan kod semakan pariti ketumpatan rendah (LDPC) serasi kadar berdasarkan prestasi kadar ralat blok (BLER) dan kerumitan penyahkodan untuk menjelaskan skema pengekodan saluran yang paling sesuai untuk skim pengekodan saluran dalam pautan bawah Evolved UTRA (E-UTRA) berasaskan OFDM. Keputusan simulasi dan analisis kerumitan penyahkodan menunjukkan bahawa walaupun kod Rate-Compatible/Quasi-Cyclic (RC/QC)-LDPC yang menggunakan kaedah penyebaran kepercayaan berlapis (BP) offset boleh mengurangkan kerumitan pengiraan sebanyak kira-kira 30% untuk kadar pengekodan saluran daripada R ≥ 1/2, purata yang diperlukan menerima tenaga isyarat setiap nisbah ketumpatan spektrum kuasa bit-ke-bunyi (Eb/N0) terdegradasi lebih kurang 0.2-0.3 dB untuk R = 1/3, 1/2 dan 3/4 berbanding untuk kod turbo. Selain itu, tahap kerumitan penyahkodan kod RC/QC-LDPC dengan algoritma δ-min hampir sama atau lebih tinggi daripada itu untuk kod turbo dengan sedikit kemerosotan dalam penerimaan yang diperlukan. Eb/N0. Walaupun tahap kerumitan penyahkodan kod ZigZag adalah lebih rendah daripada kod turbo, kod tersebut membawa kerugian yang berbeza dalam purata yang diperlukan diterima. Eb/N0 kira-kira 0.4 dB. Akhir sekali, kod Semakan Pariti Tunggal (SPC) turbo meningkatkan prestasi BLER berbanding kod ZigZag, iaitu, mencapai prestasi BLER yang hampir sama dengan kod turbo, dengan kos peningkatan dua kali ganda dalam kerumitan penyahkodan. Hasilnya, kami membuat kesimpulan bahawa kod turbo dengan interleaver bebas perbalahan adalah lebih menjanjikan daripada kod LDPC untuk mengutamakan prestasi yang boleh dicapai berbanding kerumitan dan sebagai skema pengekodan saluran untuk saluran data kongsi dalam E-UTRA.
The copyright of the original papers published on this site belongs to IEICE. Unauthorized use of the original or translated papers is prohibited. See IEICE Provisions on Copyright for details.
Salinan
Naoto OKUBO, Nobuhiko MIKI, Yoshihisa KISHIYAMA, Kenichi HIGUCHI, Mamoru SAWAHASHI, "Performance Comparison between Turbo Code and Rate-Compatible LDPC Code for Evolved UTRA Downlink OFDM Radio Access" in IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Communications,
vol. E92-B, no. 5, pp. 1504-1515, May 2009, doi: 10.1587/transcom.E92.B.1504.
Abstract: This paper compares the turbo code and rate-compatible low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes based on the block error rate (BLER) performance and decoding complexity in order to clarify which channel coding scheme is most appropriate for the channel coding scheme in the OFDM based Evolved UTRA (E-UTRA) downlink. Simulation results and the decoding complexity analysis show that although the Rate-Compatible/Quasi-Cyclic (RC/QC)-LDPC code employing an offset layered belief propagation (BP) method can reduce the computational complexity by approximately 30% for the channel coding rate of R ≥ 1/2, the required average received signal energy per bit-to-noise power spectrum density ratio (Eb/N0) is degraded by approximately 0.2-0.3 dB for R = 1/3, 1/2 and 3/4 compared to that for the turbo code. Moreover, the decoding complexity level of the RC/QC-LDPC code with the δ-min algorithm is almost the same or higher than that for the turbo code with a slight degradation in the required received Eb/N0. Although the decoding complexity level of the ZigZag code is lower than that of the turbo code, the code brings about a distinct loss in the required average received Eb/N0 of approximately 0.4 dB. Finally, the turbo Single Parity Check (SPC) code improves the BLER performance compared to the ZigZag code, i.e., achieves almost the same BLER performance as that for the turbo code, at the cost of a two-fold increase in the decoding complexity. As a result, we conclude that the turbo code with a contention free interleaver is more promising than the LDPC codes for prioritizing the achievable performance over complexity and as the channel coding scheme for the shared data channel in the E-UTRA.
URL: https://global.ieice.org/en_transactions/communications/10.1587/transcom.E92.B.1504/_p
Salinan
@ARTICLE{e92-b_5_1504,
author={Naoto OKUBO, Nobuhiko MIKI, Yoshihisa KISHIYAMA, Kenichi HIGUCHI, Mamoru SAWAHASHI, },
journal={IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Communications},
title={Performance Comparison between Turbo Code and Rate-Compatible LDPC Code for Evolved UTRA Downlink OFDM Radio Access},
year={2009},
volume={E92-B},
number={5},
pages={1504-1515},
abstract={This paper compares the turbo code and rate-compatible low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes based on the block error rate (BLER) performance and decoding complexity in order to clarify which channel coding scheme is most appropriate for the channel coding scheme in the OFDM based Evolved UTRA (E-UTRA) downlink. Simulation results and the decoding complexity analysis show that although the Rate-Compatible/Quasi-Cyclic (RC/QC)-LDPC code employing an offset layered belief propagation (BP) method can reduce the computational complexity by approximately 30% for the channel coding rate of R ≥ 1/2, the required average received signal energy per bit-to-noise power spectrum density ratio (Eb/N0) is degraded by approximately 0.2-0.3 dB for R = 1/3, 1/2 and 3/4 compared to that for the turbo code. Moreover, the decoding complexity level of the RC/QC-LDPC code with the δ-min algorithm is almost the same or higher than that for the turbo code with a slight degradation in the required received Eb/N0. Although the decoding complexity level of the ZigZag code is lower than that of the turbo code, the code brings about a distinct loss in the required average received Eb/N0 of approximately 0.4 dB. Finally, the turbo Single Parity Check (SPC) code improves the BLER performance compared to the ZigZag code, i.e., achieves almost the same BLER performance as that for the turbo code, at the cost of a two-fold increase in the decoding complexity. As a result, we conclude that the turbo code with a contention free interleaver is more promising than the LDPC codes for prioritizing the achievable performance over complexity and as the channel coding scheme for the shared data channel in the E-UTRA.},
keywords={},
doi={10.1587/transcom.E92.B.1504},
ISSN={1745-1345},
month={May},}
Salinan
TY - JOUR
TI - Performance Comparison between Turbo Code and Rate-Compatible LDPC Code for Evolved UTRA Downlink OFDM Radio Access
T2 - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Communications
SP - 1504
EP - 1515
AU - Naoto OKUBO
AU - Nobuhiko MIKI
AU - Yoshihisa KISHIYAMA
AU - Kenichi HIGUCHI
AU - Mamoru SAWAHASHI
PY - 2009
DO - 10.1587/transcom.E92.B.1504
JO - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Communications
SN - 1745-1345
VL - E92-B
IS - 5
JA - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Communications
Y1 - May 2009
AB - This paper compares the turbo code and rate-compatible low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes based on the block error rate (BLER) performance and decoding complexity in order to clarify which channel coding scheme is most appropriate for the channel coding scheme in the OFDM based Evolved UTRA (E-UTRA) downlink. Simulation results and the decoding complexity analysis show that although the Rate-Compatible/Quasi-Cyclic (RC/QC)-LDPC code employing an offset layered belief propagation (BP) method can reduce the computational complexity by approximately 30% for the channel coding rate of R ≥ 1/2, the required average received signal energy per bit-to-noise power spectrum density ratio (Eb/N0) is degraded by approximately 0.2-0.3 dB for R = 1/3, 1/2 and 3/4 compared to that for the turbo code. Moreover, the decoding complexity level of the RC/QC-LDPC code with the δ-min algorithm is almost the same or higher than that for the turbo code with a slight degradation in the required received Eb/N0. Although the decoding complexity level of the ZigZag code is lower than that of the turbo code, the code brings about a distinct loss in the required average received Eb/N0 of approximately 0.4 dB. Finally, the turbo Single Parity Check (SPC) code improves the BLER performance compared to the ZigZag code, i.e., achieves almost the same BLER performance as that for the turbo code, at the cost of a two-fold increase in the decoding complexity. As a result, we conclude that the turbo code with a contention free interleaver is more promising than the LDPC codes for prioritizing the achievable performance over complexity and as the channel coding scheme for the shared data channel in the E-UTRA.
ER -