8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
1/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 1Submission Slide 1
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group forWireless Personal Area NetworksProject: IEEE P802.15 Working Group forWireless Personal Area Networks
(WPANs)(WPANs)
Submission Title: LDPCCode Performance and Complexity Comparing with Convolutional and
RS Code
Date Submitted: [01 Sept 2009]
Source: [Qin Wang ] Company [University of Science & Technology Beijing]
Address: [30 Xueyuan Road, Beijing 100083, China]
Voice:[[+8610-62334781], FAX: [], E-Mail:[[email protected]]
Re: Contribution to 15.4g FSK-PHY
Abstract:Analysis of the performance and complexity ofLDPC to the convolutional and RS codes
being considered for FEC.
Purpose: Contribution to the CPP merged PHY
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis
for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The materialin this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s)
reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property
of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
2/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 2Submission
LDPCCode Performance and Complexity
Co
mparing withCo
nvo
lutio
nal and RSCode
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
3/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 3Submission
Background
Simulation Methodology
Simulation Results
Packet Error Rate (PER) vs. SNR
LDPC
C
onvolutional coding gain difference vs. Block size Impact of estimated SNR
Computational complexity comparison between LDPC code and RScode
Summary and Conclusions
References
Outline
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
4/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 4Submission
Background
Advanced coding candidates: BCH Code, Reed-Solomon Code, ConvolutionalCode, Turbo Code, Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) Code, etc.
Contribution IEEE 802.11-03/865 [1] introduced Low-Density Parity-Check(LDPC) codes as candidate codes for 802.11n applications. It showedpotential advantages of those codes over existing convolutional codes used in802.11a/g.
We compare the performance of example LDPC codes with the ConvolutionalCode in 802.11n, including Various frame lengths
Various code rates
Impact of estimated SNR
We compare the Computational Complexity of the LDPC with the RS code inDVB-C.
In this report, the performance comparison under AWGN channel is addressedonly. In the next related submission, emphasis will be on performancecomparison under other channel model.
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
5/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 5Submission
Simulation Methodology - General
Modulation BPSK
BPS
K
Coding Rate (R) 1/2 2/3
PHY model with BPSK constellation. Simulation included:
Channels simulated:
AWGN channel. This implementation utilized the MATLAB code.
Simulation scenario assumed:
All packets detected, ideal synchronization, no frequency offset
Ideal front end, Nyquist sampling frequency
Simulation Methodology - General
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
6/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 6Submission
General FEC:
Code lengths: 648, 1296 bits, chosen based on 802.11n standard [2]
Code rates: 1/2, 2/3 (as in 802.11n)
Convolutional codes:
Viterbi decoding algorithm
LDPC codes:
Iterative Sum-Product decoding algorithm (BP) with 20 iterations
Concatenated codewords for longer packets
Simulation Methodology - FEC
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
7/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 7Submission
Channel Model: AWGN
Modulation: BPSK
Simulation Results: PER vs. SNR
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1010
-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
SNR (dB)
PER
Pack et Error Rate (PER) vs. SNR under AW GN Channel
LDPC Code wi th pac ket length 648, coding rate 1/2LDPC Code wi th pac ket length 648, coding rate 2/3
LDPC Code wi th pac ket length 1296, coding rate 1/2
LDPC Code wi th pac ket length 1296, coding rate 2/3
Convolut ional Code wi th pac ket length 648, coding rate 1/2
Convolut ional Code wi th pac ket length 648, coding rate 2/3
Convolut ional Code wi th pac ket length 1296, coding rate 1/2
Convolut ional Code wi th pac ket length 1296, coding rate 2/3
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
8/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 8Submission
Simulation Results:(LDPC_coding_gain Convolutional_Coding_Gain) vs. Block Size
Modulation: BPSKCode rate: 1/2
Channel model: AWGNCoding gain difference measured at PER of 10-2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14002. 5
3
3. 5
4
4. 5
5
5. 5
6
6. 5
Block s ize (b its )
Coding
gain
difference
(dB)
LDPC-Convolutional Coding gain difference at PER of 10 -2 vs. block size
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
9/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 9Submission
Simulation Results: Impact of estimated SNR
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1610
-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
10log10(Est-SNR/Ideal-SNR)
BER
w i
i
l SN R Es t im
to r
w ith non-i
l SN R Es t im
to r
x-axis indicates:
SNRideal
SNRestimated
_
_log10 10!V
Where ideal_SNR denotes the
variable used to generate AWGN
and estimated_SNR denotes the
variable got by SNR estimation
algorithm.
Modulation type: BPSK
Coding rate: 1/2
Impact ofestimated SNR
Code length after encoder: 1944
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
10/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 10Submission
Complexity Comparison between LDPC Code and RS Cod
According to reference [3], the decoding complexity for one iteration of the
BP decoding is:
Addition operation:Multiplication operation:
where N is the code length ofLDPC code; J is the number ofones in each
column.
)13( JN
)23(4 JN
According to reference [4], the decoding complexity for RS decoding is:
Addition and multiplication operation in Galois Field:
where t is correct ability of RS code; n is code length; u is the number of
errors for one packet.
222)1(2 unutunt
Conclusion: The computational complexity ofLDPCCode increases
linearly with incensement of block size as that of RS Code.
For both LDPC decoder and RS decoder, the implementation complexity heavily
depends on the decoding algorithm, e.g. BP/log-BP/min-sum for LDPC and
architecture & logic design. Thus, we only discuss the computational complexity in
terms of big-O.
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
11/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 11Submission
LDPC codes offer considerable performance advantages over the existingconvolutional codes.
With the proper designLDPC
codes can be made flexible enough in terms ofcoding rate and block size, so as to satisfy demands of 802.15.4g applications.
The decoding algorithm ofLDPC presented here is not sensitive to the accuracyof SNR estimating.
The computational complexity ofLDPCCode increases linearly withincensement of block size as that of RS Code.
Summary and Conclusions
8/8/2019 15 10 0241-00-004g Ldpc Code Performance and Complexity
12/12
Sept 2009 doc.: IEEE 802. 15-10-0241-00-004g
Q. Wang [USTB]Slide 12Submission
References
[1] IEEE 802.11-03/865r1, LDPC FEC for IEEE 802.11n Applications, EricJacobson, Intel, November 2003.
[2] IEEE Std 802.11n/D2.00, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, Enhancements forHigherThroughput.
[3] Marc P. C. Fossorier, Miodrag Mihaljevic, Reduced Complexity IterativeDecoding ofLow-Density Parity Check Codes Based on BeliefPropagation,IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 47, No. 5, May, 1999.
[4] Hao Yongjie, Jiang jianguo, Improved Time-domain Decoding Algorithm ofRS Code, Computer Engineering, Vol. 34, No. 14, July 2008.