Re: [10GBT] Comparison Table Between LDPC Coded Modulation Schemes
Thanks for taking a first crack at this. We have some initial
feedback for the table you've proposed:
you assuming floating point simulations for the reported results
entry #4, this is the overall rate (bits per symbol) but there should also be an
entry for the base LDPC(m,n) code parameters - block length (m) and info
entry #5, are you referring to the set partitioning gain (ie: both PAM-8 and
PAM-12 schemes claim a 12dB set partitioning) ? As Prof. Lin
mentioned, determining the true minimum distance of the code may not be feasible
in finite time.
entry #6, does your definition of latency include encoder+decoder
entry #7, I would prefer Es/No (or SNR) rather than Eb/No (SNR per "bit")
since simulations must be performed with mapped symbols - most results to date
are in terms of SNR. Also, I would suggest putting "number of iterations
required" as a separate table entry since it's pretty
entry # 10, we need to include a complexity metric for the encoder as well -
probably a and+xor count would suffice.
entry # 11, same comments on Es/No vs Eb/No data format.
There should probably be an entry that describes the code construction as either
regular or irregular, random or algebraic, and if algebraic, how the code is
constructed- ie: based on RS(32,2,31) or circulant decomposition, etc
Dr. Scott Powell
Senior Manager, Ethernet PHYs
Attached is a preliminary
comparison table which defines comparison criteria between the proposed
Coded Modulation Schemes Comparison.doc>>
In addition to the
preliminary table, there are a couple of further comparison criteria (item #12
in the table) which I believe should be added in the future after the first
round of comparison.
I would like to have
feedback on the suggested comparison criteria and will update/refine them as
we go along.