Comprehensive Study on CC-LDPC, BC-LDPC and
Polar Code
Kun Zhu, Zhanji Wu*
School of Information and Communication Engineering
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Beijing, China
*Corresponding author: Zhanji Wu, wuzhanji@bupt.edu.cn
Abstract— Channel coding scheme is very crucial for the
next sixth generation (6G) mobile communication. In this paper,
we investigate the encoding and decoding methods of the state-
of-the-art channel codes, which include the convolutional code
LDPC (CC-LDPC), block code LDPC (BC-LDPC) and polar
code to access the benefits from CC-LDPC. And then, we present
comprehensive evaluation to compare their error performance,
decoding complexity and latency. Our research shows that CC-
LDPC has the advantages in terms of high reliability, low
complexity and low latency. Finally, we propose some open
research problems and solving ideas for CC-LDPC application
in 6G communication.
Index Terms—convolutional-code low-density parity-check
(CC-LDPC), block code LDPC (BC-LDPC) , polar code, low
latency, high reliability.
I. I NTRODUCTION
In the recent two decades, as turbo code, low-density
parity-check (LDPC) code and polar code emerged, the
state-of-the-art channel coding schemes have approached
the Shannon limit very closely. In the fifth generation
(5G) mobile communication standard, the block code (BC)
LDPC and polar code are utilized for data channel and
control channel, respectively. Although these schemes get
excellent performance, they still have obvious limitations.
The BC-LDPC has some shortcomings in terms of slow
decoding convergence, high complexity and long decoding
latency. Meanwhile, it does not perform very well for the
short code length and low code rate. The polar code also
has unacceptable high decoding latency for long code length
due to the serial decoding calculation. For the future 6G
communication scenario, higher reliability, lower latency and
higher throughput are required to meet the real-time high-rate
data transmission. The convolutional code (CC) LDPC has
enormous potentials in terms of lower error floor, lower
decoding latency and lower decoding complexity.
The CC-LDPC was first proposed by M. Lentmaier,
A. Sridharan.et in [1], since its coding structure is like a
convolutional code. In [2], the term ”spatially coupled”
was firstly proposed. This term is a general concept to
denote the phenomenon of coupling several independent
code as a convolutional-like structure. Many properties of
CC-LDPC has been proved to be better than BC-LDPC.
‹,(((
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on July 02,2020 at 14:38:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Arvind Sridharan investigated the free distance and the lower
bound of CC-LDPC in [3] [4]. According to the research,
CC-LDPC has been proved to have larger free distance than
BC-LDPC in regular ensemble with the same row and column
weight. In [5] [6] [7], the regular terminated (TE) CC-LDPC
is proved to have more excellent performance as compared
with BC-LDPC under belief propagation (BP) decoding. In
addition, the BP threshold of TE-CC-LDPC can reach the
maximum likelihood (ML) decoding threshold of BC-LDPC
[2] [8]. This phenomenon is called ”threshold saturation
effect”. In other word, we can use linear complexity (CC
structure) instead of exponential complexity (ML decoding)
to achieve the same performance. However, the TE also
makes rate loss due to the slightly irregular structure in the
head and the tail of the codeword. For long code length, the
rate loss is very small, but for short code length, the rate loss
is non-negligible. To solve this problem, M. B. S. Tavares etc.
proposed a Tail-Biting (TB) CC-LDPC in [9] [10]. However,
the TB structure will worsen the codes performance. In [11],
authors compared the finite length TE-CC-LDPC, TB-CC-
LDPC and BC-LDPC. Through the literatures, we can learn
about the huge potential of CC-LDPC. Nevertheless, there
are still many technical problems to be explored to reach
the potential. In this paper, we consider that the CC-LDPC
has a semi-infinite structure, which means the code length is
infinite to avoid stopping problems.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. We firstly
introduce the encoding and decoding methods of BC-LDPC,
polar code and CC-LDPC code in section II, III and IV,
respectively. Secondly, we carry out comprehensive study to
compare their error performance, decoding complexity and
latency in section V, which turns out that CC-LDPC has
some obvious advantages in terms of high reliability, low
complexity and low latency. In section VI, we sum up some
open problems and solution ideas for CC-LDPC. Finally, we
reach some conclusions in section VII.
II. BC-LDPC
BC-LDPC can be considered as the conventional LDPC
code. The code is defined by a sparse N × K parity-check
matrix H. K is the length of source sequence and N is the
codeword length, N < K. Each column of H represents a
check node, and each row is denoted by a variable node.
Sparse means the number of zeros take very large proportion
of H. For an irregular BC-LDPC with a code rate of 1/2,
when its code length approaches infinity, the Eb/N0 threshold
distance required for reliable communication on the binary
input AWGN channel is only 0.0045dB from Shannon limit
[12].
A. Construct method
The BC-LDPC can be classified as regular and irregular
code. The regular code put forwarded by Gallager [13]. In
2001 [14], irregular LDPC has been proposed by Luby et al.
For the result of introduce different constraints into the LDPC
code, the irregular LDPC code improve the performance
dramatically. In recent decade, there are many construct
method to optimal the structure of code efficiently. The
Progressive Edge Growth (PEG) algorithm having the girth
as the target parameter. Approximate Cycle Extrinsic (ACE)
method adds more parameters to PEG for lower error floor.
Degree Distributions (DD) is an important structure property
of the base matrix. The most common tool to determine
the DD is Density Evolution (DE) based analysis. After
determined DD, Protograph-based or Quasi Cyclic (QC)
LDPC code construction have used the DD and lifting the
original basic matrix to obtain the optimized final matrix.
⎡ ⎤
1 1 1 1 1 0
⎢ 1 0 1 1 1 1 ⎥
B=⎣
0 1 0 1 1 1 ⎦
1⎡ 1 1 0 0 1
D W1 D W4 D W7 DW10 DW13
⎢ D W2 −1 D W8 DW11 DW14
HQC =⎢
⎣ −1
D W5
−1 DW12 DW15
D W3 D W6 D W9 −1 −1
We use the construct method, which is proposed by
Bocharova [15], to construct the QC-LDPC-BC. The detailed
introduction is summarized as follow two steps:
1) As the example in equation (1), the B is the basic
matrix. To optimize B, there are five criteria to ensure
good circle characteristic in [16]. The main idea is based
on ACE-like algorithm.
2) Then we replace the elements in the B by S ×S identity
diagonal Cyclic Permutation Matrixes (CPM) to obtain
the final HQC . The 0 element is marked as all-zero
matrix correspond to −1 in HQC . The permutation
factors DWi ∈ [0, S] is searched by optimizing Girth
Profile(GP).
In addition, we also use this method to construct the HQC
for weakly coupled CC-LDPC. The construct method of CC-
LDPC in this paper is based on the BC-LDPC construc-
t method above. We consider good Sliding-Window Girth
(SWG) for CC-LDPC in the step 2).
B. Encoding
LDPC code originate from linear code. The improvement
of this code is come from redundant check bits. We set
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on July 02,2020 at 14:38:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
information sequence as u = [u0 , u1 , . . . , uK ] and codeword
is v = [v0 , v1 , . . . , vN ]. The codeword satisfied as (2).
Hv T = 0 (2)
The encoded sequence can be divided to two part
v = [v data , v check ]. The first part v data = u. The
second part v check are the redundant check bits.
C. Decoding
With discovery of the Belief Propagation(BP) decoding
algorithm, LDPC reveals its great performance. The reliable
soft messages are exchanged through adjacent nodes during
iterations. On this basis, offset Min-Sum and scaled Min-Sum
algorithms are derived.
III. POLAR CODE
The core of the structure is processed by channel
polarization [17]. When the code tend to infinite long, part of
the channel will tend to be a perfect channel with a capacity
close to 1 and the other part of channel will tend to be 0.
Using the reliable part to transmit the information bits to
make few wrong bits as possible.
A. Construct method
The basic idea of the polar coding structure is to find out
the unreliable part of channel, which is usually called the
⎤ Frozen Set. The mainstream of the method to construct a
−1 (1)
D W16 ⎥ good polar code is based on DE and Gaussian Approximation
⎥
DW17 ⎦ (GA) [18]. The polar code which is used for comparison is
D W18 the systematic polar code [19].
B. Encoding
Let u is the source code and the x is the codeword. The
linear transformation process over a field F is expressed as:
x = uG x, u ∈ FN , G ∈ FN ×N (3)
N is the block size of generator matrix G, N = 2n . F is a
fixed binary field F2 . The N × N generator matrix is derived
from the equation:
 
⊗n 1 0
G N = F ΠN , F = (4)
1 1
Where F ⊗n denotes the nth Kronecker power of F . The ΠN
represent an N × N permutation matrix.
C. Decoding
Fig. 1. system of Polar code using CA-SCL
 For polar code the standard decoding algorithm is
Successive Cancelation (SC). To further improve the
performance A. Balatsoukas-Stimming propose the SC List
(SCL) decoder. This method splitting the decoding path into
some parallel path. The decoding complexity is in direct
proportion to the number of list. The CRC-aided SCL (CA-
SCL) decoding algorithm is proposed in [20]. The system
model is shown as Fig.1. By the turbo decoding in the dotted
box, the performance of polar code get significant improve,
also the decoding complexity get reduced. In this paper, we
use the CA-SCL decoder to achieve the best performance.
The polar code get limit performance in relative higher code
rate, because of the less Frozen Set is required after channel
polarization.
IV. CC-LDPC
A. Construct method
As shown in (5) , the general check matrix of CC-LDPC
are consisted by μ + 1 sub-matrixes and arranged them as
a diagonal zigzag graph, μ is called the syndrome former
memory. It is necessary to comprehend that CC-LDPC is
divide to time-varying and time-invariant two kinds code prior
to construct CC-LDPC. These design methods reduce the
problem of code construction to designing a one-period parity-
check matrix. So that the construction of giant check-parity
matrix become practical. The (5) is the general expression
of CC-LDPC. The index in parentheses represents the time
parameter. Assuming the period is T, Hi (t) = Hi (t + T ),
when T = 1 the (5) is an time-invariant CC-LDPC.
⎡ ⎤
H0 (0)
⎢ H1 (0) H0 (1) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. .. ⎥
⎢ . H1 (1) . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Hc = ⎢ ⎢ . .. ⎥ (5)
H (0) .. . H (t) ⎥
⎢ μ 0 ⎥
⎢ . ⎥
⎢ Hμ (1) H1 (t) . . ⎥
⎣ ⎦
.. .. ..
. . . algorithm of BC-LDPC, the encoding processes are show as
The first method to construct time-invariant code was
proposed by Tanner [21]. Several years later, [1] proposed
the time-varying construct method. And they first used
unwrapping procedure to obtain the parity-check matrix
of a periodically time-varying convolutional code from the
parity-check matrix of a block code. These two construct
methods can be defined as the primary construction method
for CC-LDPC [22] [23] [24]. Since then, people bring forward
many design ways aim to get better CC-LDPC.
Protograph-based method is a very common way for
CC-LDPC. Since Thorpe [22], recognized that protographs
provide an efficient way to constructing LDPC codes. The
protograph-based LDPC inherent the properties of protograph.
In [24] Mitchell use this method to obtain CC-LDPC. In
that work, the block protographs are coupling into a single
chain by edge spreading operation. In [25] Mitchell, analysis
the minimum distance and performance for protograph-based
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on July 02,2020 at 14:38:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CC-LDPC.
In [26], the CC-LDPC be divided into weakly and strongly
coupled respectively. This idea is based on maximize
minimum distance. The lower bound of minimum distance is
dmin ≤ (m + 1)(μm + 1). The m is denoted as the number of
row in each sub-matrix. For saving computation complexity,
the syndrome former constraint length vs = m × (μ + 1)
should not be large [27]. Therefore, μ and m could not be
large at the same time. In order to ensure the minimum
distance is large enough, one of m and μ need to be large.
The paper defined the code which have large μ and micro
m as strongly coupled. Conversely, the large m and small
μ code is defined as weakly coupled. For strongly coupled
code, author construct it by protograph-based method and
extend the non-zero elements to S × S CPMs. For the sake of
avoiding cycles of length 6, the strongly coupled code need to
be time-varying. The weakly coupled code is easier to design
for it have relatively large sub-matrixes, so we construct it
as time-invariant. We construct the single basic matrix and
ensure the shift value for S × S CPMs by the BC-LDPC
construct method, which we have mentioned above. And
using edge spreading operation to split the matrix HQC into
μ + 1 sub-matrix. Experimental results show these two kinds
of CC-LDPC get nearly similar performance.
B. Encoding
We let the m, n, S denote the rows, columns and circulating
factor of each sub-matrix, respectively. The size of the sub-
basic-matrices (sub-B) is m × n. The dim of Hi = mS × nS.
If we terminate the code at time parameter t = LCC the
code length N = LCC nS. The information sequence and
code sequence can be recorded in chronological order as
u[0,t] = [u0 , u1 , · · · , ut ] and v[0,t] = [v0 , v1 , · · · , vt ]. In
each point of time j, uj = [u(j,0) , u(j,1) , . . . , u(j,m) ] vj =
[v(j,0) , v(j,1) , . . . , v(j,n) ]. For each vj = [vjdata , vjcheck ], the
front part vjdata = uj and the second part vjcheck is a check
sequence of length mS. As the extension of the encoding
follow equations:
0 = H0 v0T
= H1 v0T + H0 v1T
= H2 v0T + H1 v1T + H0 v2T (6)
..
.
T T T
= Hμ vt−μ + Hμ−1 vt−(μ−1) · · · H1 vt−1 + H0 vtT
We construct a Sm × Sm unit matrix at the last part of H0 .
According to the last equation in (6), we summarized the
mathematic expression of the encoder as v(j,i) = u(j,i) , i ∈
[1, (n − m)S]. For the check bits, the expression is shown as:
(n−m)S
(t−(n−m)S,k)
v(i,j) = H0 v(j,k) +
k=1
μ nS (7)
(t−(n−m)S,L)
Hp v(j−p,k) , i ∈ ((n − m)S, nS]
p=1 k=1
In the (7), the left part of equation known as the messages
which come from the other sub-matrices. This is the direct
presentation of coupling part.
C. Decoding
In this work, we consider BP algorithm as the basic
decoding method. Nevertheless, if we use the conventional
BP algorithm for long LCC code, the decoding latency will
be unacceptable [28]. We use the Sliding Window Decoding
(SWD) algorithm [15] and layered decoding algorithm [29]
to reduce the decoding latency and complexity. As the Fig.2
shows an example of SWD decoding, the size of decoding
window is (W + μ)nS × W mS. In the example, W = 4 is
the length of decoding window, length of memory μ = 2. The
blue area indicate the window being decoded and the pink
area transmit the memorized information to current decoding
window. With the time index changed from t to t + 1 the
decoding window slide to the area in dot dash line. We can
also know the data in and data out position when time is t from
Fig.2, each sub-block of message need pass through whole
window until it be decoded. We let the number of iterations
of the window as Iw . So that, each bit will get equivalent
iterations Ie = Iw ×W times. We adopt the Layered Decoding
Algorithm (LDA) into the CC-LDPC decoding scheme to
improve the converge speed [30].
Fig. 2. Example of SWD
TABLE I
C OMPLEXITY C OMPARISON P ER B IT
CC-LDPC BC-LDPC
Operation
LDA-Log-BP Log-BP
addition/subtraction (4d¯v − 1)Ie (4d¯v − 1)Ie
table look-up 4d¯v Ie 4d¯v Ie
comparison - -
total complexity (8d¯v − 1)Ie (8d¯v − 1)Ie
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on July 02,2020 at 14:38:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
V. C OMPARISON AND A NALYSIS
A. Complexity and Decoding Latency
The N is defined as code length, L is the width of list
and d¯v is the average of variable nodes’ degree. In both
BC-LDPC and CC-LDPC, Ie is defined as the number of
iterations per code bit. The Ie in CC-LDPC is equivalent to
the I in BC-LDPC. We compare the CC-LDPC, BC-LDPC
and polar code in Table I. Assuming the d¯v is 3 in each
LDPC class code, N equal to 214 , Ie = 30 and L = 8. The
bit decoding complexity of CC-LDPC, BC-LDPC and polar
code are 690, 690 and 784, respectively.
For the decoding latency, the CC-LDPC and BC-LDPC
adopt parallel decoding, the decoding time complexity is
O(N · Ie ), which is in direct proportion to N . Polar code
employ serial decoding, the decoding time complexity is
O(LN log2 N ), which is in direct proportion to N log2 N .
Therefore, the decoding delay of CC-LDPC is an order of
magnitude better than polar code. For long length code, the
CC-LDPC and BC-LDPC save many operations compare
to polar code. In a word, the CC-LDPC get same decoding
complexity and latency with the BC-LDPC for Nw = N ,
Ie = I and same DD. The polar code get higher complexity
and latency compare to others, especially for long length
code. We will concrete analysis decoding complexity and
latency according to the simulation in next subsection.
B. Simulation and Analysis
We consider the performance comparison in Additive White
Gaussian Noise (AWGN) channel for Quadrature Phase Shift
Keying (QPSK) modulation. In spite of the irregular LDPC
codes can reach the better performance, there is randomness
in the search process. Thus, we construct the regular codes and
choose the best kind of codes into the comparison to ensure the
fairness of contrast. In these comparison, we let the window
length Nw = (W + μ)nS for weakly coupled CC-LDPC and
Nw = (W + Tμ )nT S for strongly coupled CC-LDPC. In
order to guarantee the constant code length comparison, Nw
need equal to code length N in BC-LDPC. The CC-LDPC are
semi-infinite construct, which means there is no truncation.
Firstly, we construct the regular weakly and strongly coupled
CC-LDPC compare with regular BC-LDPC and systematic
polar code. In order to ensure the comparisons are between
the best performance, we construct the BC-LDPC and CC-
LDPC in different choice of degree, then we pick the best one
in each kind of code. In the process of practice, we found the
regular BC-LDPC is good at dv = 3, the regular CC-LDPC is
good at dv = 4. Hence, we use this condition in the following
Polar-code
experiments.
CA-SCL
Fig.3 illustrates the codes comparison at about 16000 code
3L · log2 N
length and 0.5 code rate in terms of bit error rate (BER) and
3L · log2 N
frame error rate (FER). The P, B and C represent polar code,
L · log2 N
BC-LDPC and CC-LDPC, respectively. The corresponding
7L · log2 N
parameters are shown in Table II. In Fig.3, the polar and
BC-LDPC perform better than CC-LDPC in low SNR region.
 Fig. 3. Error Performance Comparison at 0.5 code rate Fig. 4. Error Performance Comparison at 0.8 code rate

TABLE II
CODE PARAMETERS OF F IG .3 error performance of polar code get worse as compared with
other LDPC codes. C3 (Ie = 10) and C4 (Ie = 15) perform
code name CPM size size of B(sub-B) μ W N (Nw ) 0.15dB better than B2 (I = 25) at 1e-6 BER and 0.4dB better
P1 - - - - 16384 than P2 (L = 8) at 1e-5 BER. The decoding complexity of
B1 683 × 683 12 × 24 - - 16392 C3 (Ie = 10) and C4 (Ie = 15) are as much as 54% and 80%
C1 68 × 68 20 × 40 1 5 16320 that of B2 (I = 25), respectively, while the decoding latency
C2 49 × 49 2×4 12 10 16464 (iteration number) of C3 (Ie = 10) and C4 (Ie = 15) are as
much as 40% and 60% that of B2 (I = 25), respectively. For
the same latency Ie = I = 25, C3 (Ie = 25) and C4 (Ie = 25)
However, in the high SNR area, the CC-LDPC codes have have 0.25dB coding gain as compared with B2 (I = 25) at
obvious advantage. As shown in Fig.3, the C1 (Ie = 10) and 1e-6 BER.
C2 (Ie = 20) have the same performance as B1 (I = 50)
and P1 (L = 8). Given the same performance, the decoding VI. O PEN R ESEARCH P ROBLEMS
complexity of C1 (Ie = 10) is as much as 27% of B1 (I = 50)
Although CC-LDPC exhibits excellent potential, there
or 39.5% of P1 (L = 8). The decoding complexity of C2
are still many problems to be further studied [31], and we
(Ie = 20) is as much as 54% and 79% for B1 (I = 50)
summarize them as follow:
and P1 (L = 8), respectively. Similar results are also for FER
performance, so CC-LDPCs have the best performance and
the fastest convergence. Increasing the Iw to Ie = 30, C1 and 1 The first problem is that the current CC-LDPC codes do
C2 codes get larger coding gain, while the complexity is only not perform very well at short-to-moderate code length.
80% of B1 (I = 50). We speculate that CC-LDPC codes are more sensitive
to the minimum distance than BC-LDPC. We need to
propose a special construction method to maximize the
TABLE III minimum distance of the SC-structured base matrices for
CODE PARAMETERS OF F IG .4 short-to-moderate code length, or we may slightly change
the coupling structure to reduce the sensitivity.
code name CPM size size of B(sub-B) μ W N (Nw )
2 As mentioned above, the TE-CC-LDPC codes get sig-
P2 - - - - 32768
nificant coding gain. However, the LCC leads to some
B2 1632 × 1632 4 × 20 - - 32640
rate-loss for the code. A proper termination scheme can
C3 182 × 182 6 × 30 1 5 32670 take the potential of CC-LDPC to mitigate the rate-loss
C4 82 × 82 1×5 30 10 32800 without performance cost. It still needs more study to
solve this issue .
In Fig.4, a high code rate 0.8 is considered, and the 3 A key problem for CC-LDPC is rate-compatible and
corresponding parameters are shown in Table III. In Fig.4, the hybrid ARQ (HARQ) design method. Some methods

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on July 02,2020 at 14:38:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 were proposed to construct it [32] [33]. We still need
to find an efficient rate compatible scheme to make CC-
LDPC more flexible and reliable for various code rates
and HARQ applications.
VII. C ONCLUSION R EMARKS
The aim of this paper is to present the advantages of CC-
LDPC code as compared with BC-LDPC and polar. Firstly,
we briefly introduce the construct methods, encoding and
decoding algorithms for these codes. Secondly, we compare
their error performance, decoding complexity and latency.
The results show that the CC-LDPC has obvious advantages
in terms of lower error floor, faster decoding convergence and
lower decoding complexity. We also discuss about several
open problems and solution ideas for CC-LDPC. In a word,
CC-LDPC is a very promising channel coding scheme with
high reliability and low latency for the next 6G mobile
communication.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is sponsored by the National Natural Science
Fund (61171101) and the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities of P.R. China.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Jiminez Felstrom and K. S. Zigangirov, “Time-varying periodic
convolutional codes with low-density parity-check matrix,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, Vol. 45, No. 6 (1999).
[2] S. Kudekar et al, “Threshold saturation via spatial coupling: Why
convolutional LDPC ensembles perform so well over the BEC,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, Vol. 57, No. 2, p. 803 (2011).
[3] A. Sridharan, D. Truhachev, M. Lentmaier, D. J. Costello and K. S.
Zigangirov, “Distance Bounds for an Ensemble of LDPC Convolutional
Codes,” in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 53, no. 12,
pp. 4537-4555, Dec. 2007. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2007.909113
[4] A. Sridharan, D. V. Truhachev, M. Lentmaier, D. J. Costello and K. S.
Zigangirov, “On the free distance of LDPC convolutional codes,” Inter-
national Symposium onInformation Theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceed-
ings., Chicago, IL, 2004, pp. 312-312.doi: 10.1109/ISIT.2004.1365349
[5] A. Sridharan, M. Lentmaier, D. J. Costello, Jr., and K. S. Zigangirov,
“Convergence analysis of a class of LDPC convolutional codes for the
erasure channel,” in Proceedings of the 42nd Allerton Conference on
Communication, Control, and Computing, (Monticello, IL, USA), 2004.
[6] M. Lentmaier, A. Sridharan, K. S. Zigangirov and D. J. Costel-
lo, “Terminated LDPC convolutional codes with thresholds close
to capacity,” Proceedings. International Symposium on Information
Theory, 2005. ISIT 2005., Adelaide, SA, 2005, pp. 1372-1376.doi:
10.1109/ISIT.2005.1523567
[7] D. J. Costello, L. Dolecek, T. E. Fuja, J. Kliewer, D. G. M. Mitchell
and R. Smarandache, “Spatially coupled sparse codes on graphs: theory
and practice,” in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 7, pp.
168-176, July 2014.doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2014.6852099
[8] S. Kudekar, C. Measson, T. J. Richardson, and R. L. Urbanke, “Thresh-
old saturation on BMS channels via spatial coupling,” in Proc. Int. Symp.
Turbo Codes Iterative Inf. Process. (ISTC), Brest, France, Sep. 2010, pp.
309C313.
[9] M. B. S. Tavares, K. S. Zigangirov and G. P. Fettweis, “Tail-
Biting LDPC Convolutional Codes,” 2007 IEEE International Sym-
posium on Information Theory, Nice, 2007, pp. 2341-2345. doi:
10.1109/ISIT.2007.4557569
[10] M. B. S. Tavares, K. S. Zigangirov and G. P. Fettweis, “Tail-Biting
LDPC Convolutional Codes Based on Protographs,” 2007 IEEE 66th
Vehicular Technology Conference, Baltimore, MD, 2007, pp. 1047-
1051.doi: 10.1109/VETECF.2007.227
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on July 02,2020 at 14:38:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[11] Leven, Andreas, and Laurent Schmalen. “Status and recent advances on
forward error correction technologies for lightwave systems.” Journal of
Lightwave Technology 32.16 (2014): 2735-2750.
[12] Richardson, Thomas J., Mohammad Amin Shokrollahi, and Rdiger L.
Urbanke. “Design of capacity-approaching irregular low-density parity-
check codes.” IEEE transactions on information theory 47.2 (2001): 619-
637.
[13] R. G. Gallager, “Low-Density Parity-Check Codes,” IRE Trans. Info.
Theory, vol. 8, no. 1, Jan. 1962, pp. 21C28.
[14] M. G. Luby et al., “Improved Low-Density Parity-Check Codes using
Irregular Graphs,” IEEE Trans. Info. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, Feb. 2001,
pp. 585C98.
[15] Bocharova, Irina E., Boris D. Kudryashov, and Rolf Johannesson.
“Searching for binary and nonbinary block and convolutional LDPC
codes.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 62.1 (2015): 163-183.
[16] Wu, Zhanji, and Xin Huang. “A LDPC convolutional code optimization
method for FTN systems.” 2017 3rd IEEE International Conference on
Computer and Communications (ICCC). IEEE, 2017.
[17] Arikan, Erdal. “Channel polarization: A method for constructing
capacity-achieving codes for symmetric binary-input memoryless chan-
nels.” IEEE Transactions on information Theory 55.7 (2009): 3051-3073.
[18] Mori, Ryuhei, and Toshiyuki Tanaka. “Performance and construction
of polar codes on symmetric binary-input memoryless channels.” 2009
IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory. IEEE, 2009.
[19] Arikan, Erdal. “Systematic polar coding.” IEEE communications letters
15.8 (2011): 860-862.
[20] Niu, Kai, and Kai Chen. “CRC-aided decoding of polar codes.” IEEE
Communications Letters 16.10 (2012): 1668-1671.
[21] Tanner R M.“ Convolutional codes from quasi-cyclic codes: A link
between the theories of block and convolutional codes”[M]. University
of California, Santa Cruz, Computer Research Laboratory, 1987.
[22] Thorpe, Jeremy. “Low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes constructed
from protographs.” IPN progress report 42.154 (2003): 42-154.
[23] D. G. M. Mitchell, A. E. Pusane, K. S. Zigangirov and D. J. Costello,
“Asymptotically good LDPC convolutional codes based on protographs,”
2008 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, Toronto,
ON, 2008, pp. 1030-1034. doi: 10.1109/ISIT.2008.4595143
[24] Mitchell, David GM, Michael Lentmaier, and Daniel J. Costello. “S-
patially coupled LDPC codes constructed from protographs.” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory 61.9 (2015): 4866-4889.
[25] Mitchell, David GM, Ali E. Pusane, and Daniel J. Costello. “Minimum
distance and trapping set analysis of protograph-based LDPC convolu-
tional codes.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 59.1 (2012):
254-281.
[26] Schmalen, Laurent, et al. “Spatially coupled soft-decision error correc-
tion for future lightwave systems.” Journal of Lightwave Technology
33.5 (2014): 1109-1116.
[27] Battaglioni, Massimo, et al. “Design and analysis of time-invariant
SC-LDPC convolutional codes with small constraint length.” IEEE
Transactions on Communications 66.3 (2017): 918-931.
[28] Iyengar, Aravind R., et al. “Windowed decoding of protograph-based
LDPC convolutional codes over erasure channels.” IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory 58.4 (2011): 2303-2320.
[29] Hocevar, Dale E. “A reduced complexity decoder architecture via
layered decoding of LDPC codes.” IEEE Workshop onSignal Processing
Systems, 2004. SIPS 2004.. IEEE, 2004.
[30] D. Chang et al., “LDPC convolutional codes using layered decoding
algorithm for high speed coherent optical transmission,” OFC/NFOEC,
Los Angeles, CA, 2012, pp. 1-3.
[31] Costello, Daniel J., et al. “Spatially coupled sparse codes on graphs:
Theory and practice.” IEEE Communications Magazine 52.7 (2014):
168-176.
[32] Nitzold, Walter, Gerhard P. Fettweis, and Michael Lentmaier. “Spatially-
coupled nearly-regular LDPC code ensembles for rate-flexible code
design.” 2014 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).
IEEE, 2014.
[33] Mitchell, David GM, et al. “Randomly punctured spatially coupled
LDPC codes.” 2014 8th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and
Iterative Information Processing (ISTC). IEEE, 2014.