Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Partial Proposal: Turbo Codes
Partial Proposal: Turbo Codes
11-04/903-00-0000n
Partial Proposal:
Turbo Codes
Outline
Outline
CCSDS binary, tail bits 23, 33, 25, 37 1/6, 1/4, 1/3,
(deep space) 16-state 1/2
k b in a ry k /2 b in a ry
d a at
c o u p le s
p e rm u ta tio n
Y 1 Y 1
p e rm u ta tio n
2
Y
( a) ( b) Y 2
polynomia l s 15,13( or 13,15)
B
X A
k b in a ry
d a at k 2
/b in a ry
c o u p el s
p e rm u ta tio n
Y 1 Y 1
p e rm u ta tio n
2
Y
( c) ( d) Y 2
The turbo code proposed for all sizes, all coding rates
systematic part A systematic part
c
B o
1
A d
e
B
w
permutation Y o
N = k/2 (N) 2 r
punctu-
couples ring d
+ Y of data
circular (tail-biting) redundancy part redundancy part
encoding
Decoding
FER
5
Gaussian,
1504 bits,
10-1 R = 4/5
5
Max-Log-MAP algorithm
10-2
Sliding window 5
Decoding complexity
Useful rate: 100 Mbps with 8 iterations
5-bit quantization (data and extrinsic)
Gates RAM
• 164,000 @ Clock = 100 Mhz Data input buffer
• 82,000 @ Clock = 200 Mhz +
• 54,000 @ Clock = 400 Mhz 8.5xk for extrinsic information
For 0.18m CMOS + 4000 for sliding window
(example: 72,000 bits for 1000-byte block)
No ROM
Outline
Introduction
• Purpose
– Show the multiple benefits of TCs for 802.11n standard
– Overview of duo-binary TCs
– Comparison between TC and .11a Convolutional Code
– High Flexibility
– Complexity
A s1 s2 s3
redundancy part
W Y
A systematic part
B
1
c
o
d
e
w
permutation
(k/2) o
N = k/2 couples W1 or 2 Y1 or 2
2 r
of data d
puncturing
redundancy part
• Duo-binary input:
– Reduction of Latency & Complexity (compared to UMTS TCs)
– Complexity per decoded bit is 35 % lower than binary UMTS TCs.
– Better convergence in the iterative decoding process
The number of
iterations can
be adjusted for
better
performance –
complexity
trade-off
Simulation Environment
• Both Turbo Codes and 802.11a CCs simulated
Performance: AWGN
3.5-4 dB
gain over
802.11a CC
Performance: model B
~3 dB
gain over
802.11a
CC
Performance: model D
~3 dB
gain over
802.11a
CC
Performance: model E
~3 dB
gain over
802.11a
CC
Flexibility
Conclusions
• Mature, stable, well established and implemented
• Complexity:
– Show 35% decrease in complexity per decoded bit over UMTS TCs
– Performance is slightly better than UMTS TCs
References
• [1] IEEE 802.11-04/003, "Turbo Codes for 802.11n", France Telecom R&D, ENST
Bretagne, iCoding Technology, TurboConcept, January 2004.
• [2] IEEE 802.11-04/243, "Turbo Codes for 802.11n", France Telecom R&D,iCoding
Technology, May 2004.
• [3] IEEE 802-04/256, "PCCC Turbo Codes for IEEE 802.11n", IMEC, March 2004.
• [4] C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, P. Thitimajshima, "Near Shannon limit error-correcting
coding and decoding: Turbo Codes", ICC93, vol. 2, pp. 1064-1070, May 93.
• [5] C. Berrou, "The ten-year-old turbo codes are entering into service", IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 41, pp. 110-116, August 03.
• [6] C. Berrou, M. Jezequel, C. Douillard, S. Kerouedan, "The advantages of non-binary
turbo codes", Proc IEEE ITW 2001, pp. 61-63, Sept. 01.
• [7] TS25.212 : 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) ; Technical Specification
Group (TSG) ; Radio Access Network (RAN) ; Working Group 1 (WG1); "Multiplexing
and channel coding (FDD)". October 1999.
• [8] EN 301 790 : Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) "Interaction channel or satellite
distribution systems". December 2000.
• [9] EN 301 958 : Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) "Specification of interaction
channel for digital terrestrial TV including multiple access OFDM". March 2002.