This letter is concerned with the evaluation of the average computational complexity of the maximum likelihood decoding of a linear block code using its trellis diagram. Each section of the L-section minimal trellis diagram for a linear block code consists of parallel components which are structurally identical subgraphs without cross connection between them. A parallel component is also known to be decomposed into subgraphs, and a decoding algorithm by using the structure of the subgraphs of parallel components was proposed, and an upper bound on the worst case computational complexity was derived. In this letter, the average computational complexity of the decoding algorithm is evaluated by computer simulation. We evaluated the average numbers of additions and comparisons performed in the decoding algorithm for example codes, (64,45) extended and permuted binary primitive BCH code, the third order Reed-Muller (64,42) code and its (64,40) subcode. It is shown that the average numbers are much smaller than those for the worst case, and hence the decoding algorithm is efficient when the number of sections, L, is small, say 4 or 8, for the example codes. Especially, for the (64,45) extended binary primitive BCH code with L
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.
Copy
Hidehisa NAGANO, Toru FUJIWARA, Tadao KASAMI, "Average Complexity Evaluation of an MLD Algorithm Using the Trellis Structure for a Linear Block Code" in IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Fundamentals,
vol. E78-A, no. 9, pp. 1209-1214, September 1995, doi: .
Abstract: This letter is concerned with the evaluation of the average computational complexity of the maximum likelihood decoding of a linear block code using its trellis diagram. Each section of the L-section minimal trellis diagram for a linear block code consists of parallel components which are structurally identical subgraphs without cross connection between them. A parallel component is also known to be decomposed into subgraphs, and a decoding algorithm by using the structure of the subgraphs of parallel components was proposed, and an upper bound on the worst case computational complexity was derived. In this letter, the average computational complexity of the decoding algorithm is evaluated by computer simulation. We evaluated the average numbers of additions and comparisons performed in the decoding algorithm for example codes, (64,45) extended and permuted binary primitive BCH code, the third order Reed-Muller (64,42) code and its (64,40) subcode. It is shown that the average numbers are much smaller than those for the worst case, and hence the decoding algorithm is efficient when the number of sections, L, is small, say 4 or 8, for the example codes. Especially, for the (64,45) extended binary primitive BCH code with L
URL: https://global.ieice.org/en_transactions/fundamentals/10.1587/e78-a_9_1209/_p
Copy
@ARTICLE{e78-a_9_1209,
author={Hidehisa NAGANO, Toru FUJIWARA, Tadao KASAMI, },
journal={IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Fundamentals},
title={Average Complexity Evaluation of an MLD Algorithm Using the Trellis Structure for a Linear Block Code},
year={1995},
volume={E78-A},
number={9},
pages={1209-1214},
abstract={This letter is concerned with the evaluation of the average computational complexity of the maximum likelihood decoding of a linear block code using its trellis diagram. Each section of the L-section minimal trellis diagram for a linear block code consists of parallel components which are structurally identical subgraphs without cross connection between them. A parallel component is also known to be decomposed into subgraphs, and a decoding algorithm by using the structure of the subgraphs of parallel components was proposed, and an upper bound on the worst case computational complexity was derived. In this letter, the average computational complexity of the decoding algorithm is evaluated by computer simulation. We evaluated the average numbers of additions and comparisons performed in the decoding algorithm for example codes, (64,45) extended and permuted binary primitive BCH code, the third order Reed-Muller (64,42) code and its (64,40) subcode. It is shown that the average numbers are much smaller than those for the worst case, and hence the decoding algorithm is efficient when the number of sections, L, is small, say 4 or 8, for the example codes. Especially, for the (64,45) extended binary primitive BCH code with L
keywords={},
doi={},
ISSN={},
month={September},}
Copy
TY - JOUR
TI - Average Complexity Evaluation of an MLD Algorithm Using the Trellis Structure for a Linear Block Code
T2 - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Fundamentals
SP - 1209
EP - 1214
AU - Hidehisa NAGANO
AU - Toru FUJIWARA
AU - Tadao KASAMI
PY - 1995
DO -
JO - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Fundamentals
SN -
VL - E78-A
IS - 9
JA - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Fundamentals
Y1 - September 1995
AB - This letter is concerned with the evaluation of the average computational complexity of the maximum likelihood decoding of a linear block code using its trellis diagram. Each section of the L-section minimal trellis diagram for a linear block code consists of parallel components which are structurally identical subgraphs without cross connection between them. A parallel component is also known to be decomposed into subgraphs, and a decoding algorithm by using the structure of the subgraphs of parallel components was proposed, and an upper bound on the worst case computational complexity was derived. In this letter, the average computational complexity of the decoding algorithm is evaluated by computer simulation. We evaluated the average numbers of additions and comparisons performed in the decoding algorithm for example codes, (64,45) extended and permuted binary primitive BCH code, the third order Reed-Muller (64,42) code and its (64,40) subcode. It is shown that the average numbers are much smaller than those for the worst case, and hence the decoding algorithm is efficient when the number of sections, L, is small, say 4 or 8, for the example codes. Especially, for the (64,45) extended binary primitive BCH code with L
ER -