When are erasure correcting block codes better than convolutional codes in a multi-hop network?

Jonas Hansen, Jan Østergaard, Johnny Kudahl, John Madsen

Research output: Contribution to book/anthology/report/conference proceedingArticle in proceedingResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the effect of imposing a maximum allowed delay on the symbol loss probability for a set of rate 1/2 erasure correcting codes. Given some maximum allowable delay, we define the effective symbol loss probability to be the probability that a symbol is received too late or not at all. Consider a network with three nodes; source, relay, and sink. The source encodes data using an erasure correcting code, the relay decodes, recodes, and finally the sink decodes using Gaussian elimination. We compare the effective symbol loss probability of systematic triangular block codes, dense block codes, and systematic convolutional codes. For a wide range of packet loss probabilities and allowable symbol delays, our results show that the systematic triangular block codes are superior. Our results also show that the field size does not affect the gain in effective symbol loss probability.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationInternational Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems (ICSPCS) 11th
PublisherIEEE
Publication dateDec 2017
Pages1-5
ISBN (Electronic)978-1-5386-2887-4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2017
Event11th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems, ICSPCS’2017 - Gold Coast, Australia
Duration: 13 Dec 201715 Dec 2017
http://www.dspcs-witsp.com/icspcs_2017/index.html

Conference

Conference11th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems, ICSPCS’2017
CountryAustralia
CityGold Coast
Period13/12/201715/12/2017
Internet address

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'When are erasure correcting block codes better than convolutional codes in a multi-hop network?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this