In many communications systems, disturbances may be received in a plurality of different forms. More specifically, a communications system may receive stationary noise and/or non-stationary noise. Stationary noise may include Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) and/or other types of stationary noise. Non-stationary noise may include impulse noise and/or other noise that may cause a burst disturbance to a received signal.
Immunity to both stationary and non-stationary disturbances may be improved by using a “Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) margin” (expressed in decibels (dB)), which may be configured to determine the available SNR overhead in case of a sudden increase in noise variance. Typical margin values, which may be in the range of a few dB, may become useless in the presence of these high-energy bursts. Classical techniques to protect coded systems against such interferences without the use of external codes employ channel interleaving to spread burst-errors, thereby improving the burst-error-correction capability. However, these techniques suffer from one or more technical drawbacks.
Thus, a heretofore unaddressed need exists in the industry to address the aforementioned deficiencies and inadequacies.
Included are embodiments for subframe interleaving. At least one embodiment of a method includes receiving at least one subframe, the at least one subframe being derived from a plurality of frames of data and interspersing at least a portion of the at least one subframe according to a predetermined subframe interleaving strategy.
Also included are embodiments of a subframe interleaver. At least one embodiment includes a receiving component configured to receive at least one subframe, the at least one subframe being derived from a plurality of frames of data and a first determining component configured to determine whether a total number of received subframes exceeds a predetermined threshold. Some embodiments include an interspersing component configured to, in response to determining that the total number of received subframes exceeds the predetermined threshold, intersperse at least a portion of the at least one subframe according to a predetermined subframe interleaving strategy.
Other systems, methods, features, and advantages of this disclosure will be or become apparent to one with skill in the art upon examination of the following drawings and detailed description. It is intended that all such additional systems, methods, features, and advantages be included within this description and be within the scope of the present disclosure.
Many aspects of the disclosure can be better understood with reference to the following drawings. The components in the drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon clearly illustrating the principles of the present disclosure. Moreover, in the drawings, like reference numerals designate corresponding parts throughout the several views. While several embodiments are described in connection with these drawings, there is no intent to limit the disclosure to the embodiment or embodiments disclosed herein. On the contrary, the intent is to cover all alternatives, modifications, and equivalents.
Included are systems and methods for self-protection against non-stationary disturbances with a single Parallel Concatenated Convolutional (PCC), or Low-Density Parity Check (LDPC) code and/or other codes. Self-protection may include the ability to correct a mixture of random-errors and burst-errors to achieve an output Bit Error Rate (BER) that is below a specified target without using additional coding. Such systems may be configured to efficiently utilize an available Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) margin. Additionally included are embodiments of a self-protection unit that that may be configured for erasure-decoding, subframing and subframing interleaving operability.
Systems using a multicarrier modulation scheme, such as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and Discrete MultiTone (DMT) modulation schemes, may be sensitive to burst noise since a burst corrupting a few time-domain samples may spread across subcarriers of a corresponding multicarrier symbol after a conversion from time-domain to frequency domain.
As a nonlimiting example, for a system using an OFDM or DMT modulation, a burst signal that corrupts one or more time-domain samples may spread across subcarriers of a corresponding OFDM and/or DMT symbol when a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) operation is performed at a receiver. Hence, the burst length after an FFT operation may equal an integer multiple of the symbol length (see for example,
Additionally, burst errors may be associated with an energy level that is significantly higher than the SNR margin. Consequently, the entire symbol affected by a burst may be severely corrupted. Such symbols carry very little information to help a decoder, and may be erased.
Assuming perfect synchronization and equalization, the equivalent frequency-domain channel model that jointly accommodates random- and burst-errors may be represented by a memory-less channel disturbed by two noise sources: 1) a stationary background Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN), and 2) non-stationary Symbol-Erasures (SE) corresponding to frequency-domain bursts, called error events. For each symbol k, the channel input maybe represented by a vector Xk where each element corresponds to the constellation signal transmitted per subcarrier. The channel output is then a vector yk as defined in expression (1):
where ⊙ stands for the element-by-element vector product, the vector a denotes the attenuation per subcarrier, nk is a white Gaussian noise vector with zero mean and variance σ2, and * represents a symbol-erasure.
More specifically, in at least one exemplary embodiment, the channel coding process is assumed to be such that a codeword (often referred to as a frame) may be composed of an integer number η of symbols. Based on the channel model, a WC-AWGN-SE channel may be introduced to evaluate the ability of a coded multicarrier system to correct isolated worst-case error events corrupting “α” consecutive symbols. An isolated worst-case error event may include scenario where an arrival time between two error events is sufficiently large so that no more than one error event affects a single frame. Thus, a WC-AWGN-SE (η, α, σ2) channel may be configured to assume that each frame comprised of η symbols has α (integer) contiguous symbol-erasures. Since α may be an integer, a frame can be corrupted by a limited number η−α+1 of distinct length-α error events uniformly located in the length-η frame. The location of symbol-erasures is assumed to be known by the decoder, which is practically valid for OFDM systems. The ratio Pf=α/η is defined as the frame erasure rate (FER).
As a nonlimiting example, a fully coded OFDM system may be configured to transmit data over a WC-AWGN-SE (η, α, σ2) channel. Assuming that the location of symbol erasures is available at the decoder, some techniques to improve the system performance without additional coding combine erasure decoding and channel interleaving whose functions are distinct.
Erasure-decoding may include setting to zero the log-likelihood metrics (sent to the decoder) of bits associated with symbol-erasures. Given the design decoder output BER Pb in a pure AWGN(σ2) environment, it is usually (but not always) possible to maintain Pb in a WC-AWGN-SE (η, α, σ2) environment by increasing the signal power by the amount Γ(Pf, Pb). Given the uniform occurrence probability of error events in a WC-AWGN-SE environment, Γ(Pf, Pb) is obtained by averaging the SNR degradation (relative to the AWGN performance) due to simultaneously erasing the αN/η contiguous bits with indices (ζ−1)N/η+1 to (ζ+α−1)N/η in the N-bit frame, for all starting locations ζε{1, . . . , η−α+1} of error events. Therefore, a configuration with an SNR margin Γs can achieve a decoder output BER of Pb in a WC-AWGN-SE (η, α, σ2) environment as long as Pf≦Pf,max, where Pf,max, is the maximum value Pf yielding Γ(Pf,Pb)≦Γs.
If Pf>Pf,max, erasure-decoding is insufficient to ensure a BER of Pb with the SNR margin. In this case, channel interleaving may be used, which involves reordering the bits of each original frame into an integer number D≧1 of frames in order to reduce the number of contiguous corrupted bits per frame. Hence, if an error event affects a frame in the channel, the error may actually corrupt non-contiguous bits spread across D different original frames, in which the number of erasures may be reduced by a factor of approximately D. For D=1. Although the original FER Pf remains unchanged, the effect of interleaving the bits in a frame may reduce Γ(Pf,Pb), thereby increasing Pf,max,. D is called the interleaving depth. Two classes of channel interleavers may be used in communications systems: random channel interleaver and convolutional channel interleaver.
A random channel interleaver (RCI) may be configured to randomly interleave the coded sequence in order to spread and randomize corrupted bits into D frames. Since PCC and LDPC codes may be designed to effectively correct random-errors, random interleaving represents a good solution to improve the erasure correction capability per frame Pf,max, (e.g., to lower Γ(Pf,Pb)). However, given its block structure, the RCI may introduce an extra latency equal to twice the delay of transmitting D−1 frames and also requires the interleaving pattern to be stored.
A Convolutional Channel Interleaver (CCI) is a synchronous interleaver that cyclically spreads error events. The CCI is particularly advantageous in applications that only demand improved spreading capabilities, since the CCI can achieve the minimum possible latency (half that of the RCI) with a minimum storage capacity. The CCI does not require storage for an interleaving pattern. However, given its periodic deterministic interleaving pattern, the CCI does not randomize the location of corrupted bits, hence does not guarantee an erasure-decoding performance as good as that obtained with the combination of erasure-decoding and RCI of similar depth.
Self-protected systems may be configured for erasure-decoding with an enhanced channel interleaver that combines the high erasure correction capability of the RCI with the low latency and storage capacity of the CCI. A new channel interleaver may be formed by the serial concatenation of a subframer 204 and a subframe interleaver 206, whose operations are detailed below.
Referring now to the drawings,
Subframing may include reordering the elements of a single frame in order to reduce the SNR degradation Γ(Pf,Pb), thereby increasing Pf,max,. Depending on the particular configuration, subframing may be completed in two steps. First, the subframer 204 may determine a set of N/η-bit subsets F1, iε{1, . . . , η} of the frame F, such that
such that the average SNR degradation due to simultaneously erasing all bits of the sets
is reduced (compared to erasing αN/η contiguous bits in the frame.
Second, the original frames may be reordered so that all bits in Fi are contiguous in the reordered frame, which comprises η contiguous blocks, called subframes, respectively containing the bits in the subsets F1 to Fη. The reordering of the original frame into subframes is dictated by a so-called subframing pattern, noted Sηα.
Subframing does not modify the system latency, which may be configured to equal (or substantially equal) the delay to encode and decode a frame (2η symbol times). However, both transmitter and receiver may be utilized to store the subframing pattern and the reordered frame. The choice of subsets Fi's to maximize Pf,max, depends on the structure of the code. Various embodiments of this disclosure may be configured to provide a memory efficient approach to determine a set of Fi's that both increases Pf,max, and yields a cyclic subframing pattern of small period, hence utilizing small storage capacity.
By increasing Pf,max,, subframing can maintain Pb with a higher FER Pf without interleaving several frames together. If Pf≦Pf,max, each subframe may be mapped to a symbol transmitted over the WC-AWGN-SE channel. However, in the case Pf>Pf,max, subframing may be insufficient and the use of additional techniques, such a subframe interleaving, may be utilized.
A subframe interleaver 206 may also be included in the Self-Protection Unit 200 and may be configured to receive the subframes from the subframer 204. The subframe interleaver 206 may also be configured to interleave the received subframes to reduce the effect of impulse noise on a signal. More specifically, as discussed in more detail below, as impulse noise may span the length of one or more subframes. In order to reduce the number of subframes associated with any given frame that are affected by received impulse noise, at least one embodiment may be configured to interleave and/or otherwise rearrange the subframes. In such a configuration, received impulse noise may span the length of a plurality of subframes, however, since the subframes are interleaved, only a fraction of the subframes associated with a given frame are affected. This may enhance the performance of a decoder 222 and/or other components illustrated in
The interleaved subframes may be sent from the subframe interleaver 206 of the Self-Protection Unit to a constellation mapper 210. The constellation mapper 210 may be configured to map bits of the subframes to the same OFDM symbol, as discussed in more detail, below. The mapped data may then be sent to a transmission channel 212. The transmission channel 212 can be configured to evaluate the performance of the system. One should note that transmission channel 212 can be a wireless channel, wireline channel, and/or other channel for evaluating the performance of the system.
Additionally the transmission channel 212 may send the data to a constellation demapper 214 for demapping the data. The demapped data is sent to a subframe deinterleaver 218, which may be configured to deinterleave the received data. Additionally, a symbol error detector 216 may be included and configured to flag a confidence signal associated with the accuracy of the received data. Upon deinterleaving, the data may be sent to a desubframer 220 to return the subframes back to a frame format. The data may then be sent to a decoder 222. Additionally, an off-line calibration component 208 may be configured to receive a code type and (among other things) determine a distance in time between subframes.
More specifically, in at least one nonlimiting example, subframe interleaving may be introduced to spread isolated error events over several subframes associated with distinct original frames, thereby reducing the original FER Pf. The subframe interleaver 206 may be configured to operate on subframes and may be used for a spreading capability via a convolutional structure. Any of a plurality of subframe interleaving techniques may be utilized, a plurality of which are discussed below.
A first interleaving technique, inspired by Forney's approach, may involve 1) reordering according to the subframing pattern S Dηα each frame in Dη subframes, where D=┌α/ηPf,max┐, and 2) interleaving subframes so that each symbol includes at most a single subframe from a specific frame. The original FER Pf (=α/η) may then be reduced by a factor D. This technique may be configured to introduce a minimum extra latency of
symbol times.
In a second Interleaving technique, each original frame may be reordered into Dη subframes according to SDη1, where D=┌1/ηPf,max┐. The subframes are then interleaved so that no contiguous sequence of a symbols contains more than one subframe taken from the same original frame. A convolutional interleaver may be utilized and configured to realize such interleaving and introduce an extra latency equal to (in symbol times)
where (η, α) denotes the greatest common divisor of η and α.
Given the parameters {η, α, Pf,max}, in various embodiments, one may select the technique (first or second, described above) that yields the lowest latency. Thus, subframe interleaving introduces at most an extra latency equal to that of the classical CCI. When the equations above produce equal (or substantially equal) results, the second technique may be selected since this algorithm interleaves fewer subframes, thus requiring less memory and less latency. In many embodiments, Dη<<N, hence the storage capacity of the subframe interleaver 206 (Dη subframe indices) may be almost negligible compared to that of a bit-CCI (N bits). The bits in each subframe may be stored in the subframer 204.
By using subframe interleaving of depth D, a length-α error event corrupts at most D if the first technique is utilized (or α D if the second technique is utilized) different original frames if the interleaving techniques described above are used. Therefore, to be capable of maintaining the target BER of Pb for D≠1, the transmission channel 212 may be configured to assume Dη (first technique) and αDη (second technique) symbols per frame (e.g., an increased arrival time between error events) depending on which interleaving technique is used.
During a transmission mode after encoding, each frame may be reordered according to SDηα (first interleaving technique) or SDηα (second interleaving technique) into Dη subframes with labels in {1, . . . , Dη}. The subframes may then be interleaved using the selected technique (first or second). Finally, the D interleaved subframes forming each symbol k may be mapped (via constellation mapper 210 (
As codes designed to correct random errors are also likely to perform well in the presence of random erasures, a reasonable model to tackle channel erasures might involve randomly distributing the erasures throughout the frame. Thoroughly, the concept of random erasures can serve as a basis for a reference subframing strategy, which may include random subframing. Random subframing may include randomly reordering the original coded bit sequence into η complementary subframes. Although random subframing yields fairly good performance for both PCC and LDPC codes, the technique may require storing the N-bit subframing pattern. Thus, various embodiments may be configured to provide deterministic subframing strategies for PCC and LDPC codes that are nearly as effective in performance as random subframing in terms of Pf,max, but that reduce the storage capacity for the subframing pattern.
At least one exemplary embodiment may utilize a rate-R PCC Code (R≧⅓) obtained by puncturing a rate-⅓ PCC code. When using an iterative a posteriori probability decoder, the systematic, non-interleaved parity, and interleaved parity bits (respectively denotes as sn, pn, nε{1, . . . , N}) may have different levels of importance. Given the high importance of systematic bits and the regular trellis structure, one exemplary embodiment involves cyclically, puncturing only the two parity sequences so that punctured elements are: 1) alternately and equally distributed in both sequences, and 2) well scattered in each sequence.
Puncturing bits at the transmitter yields similar performance to erasing the same bits at the receiver. Consequently, a system using subframing dictated by Sηα is equivalent to a system punctured by α constant puncturing patterns (CCP's) uniformly selected from a set of η CPP's that respectively puncture all bits contained in each subset Fi, following by transmitting over an AWGN (σ2) channel. Thus, a good set of Fi's is given by a set of CPP's jointly optimized to lower the SNR degradation in an AWGN environment. The joint determination of CPP's is slightly different from the puncturing strategy stated in the previous paragraph. By extending this strategy to the three sequences, a good subframing technique (referred to herein as “strategy 2”) may be provided by first, alternately and equally distributing systematic, parity, and interleaved parity bits to subframes. Next, the coded bits generated by the same data bit may be distributed into different subframes. Third, for each coded sequence, all bits allocated to the same subframe may be scattered in the original ordering. Fourth, the subframes are complementary.
At least one cyclic subframing pattern with a small period that is as effective as random patterns can be constructed using the strategy 2. The same cyclic pattern Sηα can be used for any α. However, the η subframe indices should be permuted to minimize the average SNR degradation due to uniformly erasing α subframes with contiguous indices.
As a nonlimiting example, the rate-R=½ PCC code may be configured to generate an originally ordered coded sequence (s1, p1, s2, p2, s3, p3, . . . ). For η=4, a good 16-periodic subframing pattern determined via the second strategy is given by S4α=[1234214213312443]. The subframer can be realized with a η-position commutator distributing the ηth coded bit, ηε{1, . . . , N} to the subframe with index S4α(η %16), where % denotes the modulo operator.
Thus far, two different subframe interleaving techniques have been suggested without proving the existence of interleaver devices that achieve desired latencies. Below is a discussion of a convolutional subframe interleaver that achieves the desired latencies with a reduced (even minimum, in some cases) storage capacity. The generic structures of the subframe interleaver 206 and deinterleaver 218 are depicted in
The interleaver parameters differ with respect to the selected interleaving technique (first or second). The first Interleaving technique is simpler to implement and can be realized with a single periodic interleaver device. Consequently, as discussed below, both interleaver devices forming the subframe interleaver are detailed while assuming that the second interleaving technique is selected. The possibility of interleaving according to the first technique with the structure given in
The interleaver may be formed by a serial concatenation of two interleaver devices. The first device, called a symbol interleaver, is inspired by Ramsey's type I/III interleavers and interleaves the subframer output symbols. The second device is a periodic interleaver that interleaves the subframes associated with each output symbol of the first interleaver.
The symbol interleaver is formed by a Δ1-stage shift register and a η-position commutator that are both clocked every OFDM symbol time. Each stage of the shift register stores the D subframe indices associated with each symbol output of the subframer. The total number of stages is given by Δ1=(Dη−1)α−η+(η, α)−(D−1)B, where
Given the label iε{1, . . . , η} of a symbol in each frame (i=1+(k−1)% η), the ith symbol is delayed by σi symbols, where σi is given by the recursive formula
The shift register has η outputs, labeled i, which respectively corresponds to the outputs of the σith register stages and are η-periodically sampled by the commutator. Unlike Ramsey's structure, the outputs are not evenly distributed in the shift register, which yields a more complex commutation sequence, that is: the ith output is sampled when the shift register inputs the symbol with label 1+(i+σi−1)% η, for all iε{1, . . . , η}.
As discussed above, the symbol (first device) deinterleaver is inspired by Ramsey's type II/IV unscramblers and is formed by a shift register and a commutator similar to those used in the symbol interleaver, where the commutation is performed in the same order as in the interleaver 206.
As illustrated, the first device interleaving-deinterleaving latency may be configured to equal the maximum delay introduced by the interleaver 206, (e.g., equals Δ1). Similar to type I-to-IV interleavers, since each shift register stores Δ1 symbols, the combined storage capacity of both symbol interleaver and deinterleaver devices 2 Δ1 symbols, which corresponds to twice the minimum possible storage capacity. Although a storage-reducing technique (minimizing the storage capacity to Δ1 symbols) similar to that proposed by Ramsey in J. L. Ramsey, “Realization of optimum interleavers,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 338-345, May 1970, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, is applicable to the symbol interleaver, the storage reduction is not discussed in this paper for brevity. The symbol interleaver, in this particular nonlimiting example, has no restrictions on the values of η, D and α.
Once a symbol is interleaved, the D constituent subframes may be interleaved by a BD×D periodic subframe (second device) interleaver. The periodic subframe interleaver may be formed by a bank of D parallel delayed lines, where the jth subframe, jε{1, . . . , D} delays the jth subframe constituting each input symbol (through a (j−1)B-stage shift register clocked every symbol. At each symbol time k, the D delayed lines output the D subframe-indices associated with the transmitted symbol xk. The associate periodic deinterleaver may have a structure similar to that of the interleaver, except that the delay of the jth line equals (D−j)B symbol times. The latency of the periodic interleaver-deinterleaver, noted Δ2, equals (D−1)B symbol times. The storage capacity of the periodic interleaver (and deinterleaver) may be minimum.
Assuming that the second interleaving technique is selected, the latency Δ of the subframe interleaver-deinterleaver depicted in
Assuming that the first interleaving technique is selected, the subframe interleaver given in
A goal of the various embodiments of this disclosure is to present good memory-efficient subframing strategies that can be generally applied to any PCC or LDPC code. For both PCC and LDPC codes, such optimization may depend on the code structure and would involve joint consideration of the subframing pattern with the code structure. For instance, for systems using PCC codes, the subframing pattern can be optimized to maximize the minimum output weight and/or minimize the multiplicity of low weight codewords of the equivalent punctured system.
Another embodiment provides a subframing strategy for LDPC codes that requires no additional storage. The simplest subframing strategy, labeled as Strategy 3, involves allocating sets of N/η contiguous bits in the frame to distinct subframes. Monte Carlo simulations for a randomly-constructed regular rate-R=½ systematic LDPC code of length N=4000 bits on the WC-AWGN-SE channel with sum-product decoding have shown that the average BER performance based on erasing each possible combination of α contiguous subframes obtained via Strategy 3 is almost indistinguishable from the BER performance obtained via random subframing. The similarity in performance for random subframing and strategy 3 is most likely due to the fact that the parity-check matrix implicitly provides a form of random interleaving by introducing dependencies between bits that are scattered throughout the codeword. Explicitly providing a random interleaver, as done in random subframing, thus is superfluous. Note that applying Strategy 3 to PCC codes results in worse performance as compared to random subframing due to the fact that the systematic and parity bits associated with the same data bit are simultaneously erased, which results in poor decoding performance.
For both PCC and LDPC codes, we observed that FER values Pf>1−R as well as values of Pf<1−R, but near 1−R may not be corrected. As a nonlimiting example, for the considered rate—R=½ LDPC code, Pf=⅜ resulted in an asymptotic BER (BER obtained on the WC-AWGN-SE when σ2→0) of 10−2 with random subframing. This clearly indicates the existence of a cutoff value for the FER that can be corrected with asymptotically vanishing BER for a given LDPC code. If the FER is above the cutoff value, the lowest achievable BER is limited by a hard error floor.
In practice, ┌(p/q, Pb) is simulated with a deterministic subframing pattern Sqp (determined with strategy 2 or 3) for various sets of integers {p, q}. Then, ┌(p/q, Pb) and Sqp are stored in a table (ROM) used in the SPU calibration to determine Pf,max. For each input {p, q, Pb}, the table outputs ┌(p/q, Pb) and Sqp. By definition Pf,max is the highest correctable FER with ┌s. However, practically, Pf,max may be set as the maximum value of p/q (in the table) yielding ┌(p/q, Pb)<┌s. For example, given the limited set of simulated curves presented in
For this specific example, we evaluated with Monte-Carlo simulations the performance degradation due to deleting (setting to zero) the metrics associated with a single corrupted symbol per turbo frame. For each simulated turbo frame, the location of the corrupted (i.e., deleted) symbol is chosen randomly with a uniform probability.
Following strategy 2, the curves (b) and (c) of
The capability of correcting impulse events may depend on both the code characteristics and margin. The nonlimiting example above shows that for a specific code with rate R=½, the information can be corrected with 5.5 dB margin for turbo frames with less than ⅓ of the bits in a turbo frame are corrupted by impulsive noise. For the same code, the margin required to correct a corrupted symbol for Pf=½ becomes 13.5 dB. For Pf=1, since all the bits are corrupted, the code generally does not offer any protection against impulse noise.
Based on the observation that highly punctured turbo codes can maintain a target QoS (Quality of Service) with a few dB SNR margin, a self-protection method has been presented to protect TTCM-coded OFDM-based systems against non-stationary noise. Compared to classical systems, protecting all the data with a RS code, self-protected systems may have a reduced latency. As a nonlimiting example, a self-protection method may be used to reduce the latency of TTCM-coded VDSL-DMT systems while maintaining the standard INP requirements.
Various embodiments disclosed herein may be configured to provide efficient combinations of erasure-decoding and channel interleaving, called “self-protection” to correct a mixture of AWGN and burst-erasures, where the available SNR margin is used to reduce the transmission delay. Self-protection as discussed herein may involve increasing erasure correction capabilities per codeword by using subframing and, if necessary, reducing the number of erasures per codeword by interleaving several codewords together. Various memory-efficient subframing strategies for PCC and LDPC codes may be used that require reduced storage resources as compared to random subframing. More specifically, some embodiments of subframing strategies may be configured to provide similar performance to random subframing. Also, a realization of an interleaver device 206 is provided and may be configured to interleave large blocks of bits (called subframes) and may achieve, with a reduced storage capacity, and a latency at most equal to that of the classical convolutional channel interleavers. Simulation results demonstrate that the SNR margin required for maintaining a given quality of service (target BER and frame erasure rate) may be significantly lower for PCC codes compared to LDPC codes. Consequently, PCC codes may be utilized in self-protected OFDM systems.
A determination can be made whether i equals N (block 938). If i does not equal N, the subframer can set i=i+1 (block 940) and the flowchart returns to block 936. If i equals N, the subframes F1, F2, . . . , FDη (and/or addresses associated with these subframes) can be contiguously sent to the subframe interleaver 206.
If, at block 1132, a PCC pattern that might be used for a PCC code is determined, the subframer 204 can distribute the coded bits (systematic, parity, and interleaved parity bits) generated by the turbo (PCC) code into subframes (block 1136). First, the subframer 204 can distribute the coded bits (systematic, parity, and interleaved parity bits) generated by the same data bit into different subframes (if possible). Second, the distribution may be completed such that all subframes contain the same (or close to the same) number of systematic bits. This second point applies similarly for parity and interleaved parity bits. Third, for each coded sequence, the systematic bits allocated to the same subframe may be scattered in the original ordering. In other words, systematic bits that are contiguous in the original ordering may be distributed to different subframes (if possible. This third point applies similarly for parity and interleaved parity bits.
If, at block 1132, an LDPC pattern that might be used for an LDPC code is determined, the subframer can divide the frame into Dη blocks of N/Dη bits that are contiguous in the frame. Each block may be a subframe. Similarly, the subframing pattern may be given by S(i)=ceil(i*Dη/N), for i an integer in {1, . . . , N} (block 1142).
The embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof. At least one embodiment disclosed herein may be implemented in software and/or firmware that is stored in a memory and that is executed by a suitable instruction execution system. If implemented in hardware, one or more of the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented with any or a combination of the following technologies: a discrete logic circuit(s) having logic gates for implementing logic functions upon data signals, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) having appropriate combinational logic gates, a programmable gate array(s) (PGA), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), etc.
One should note that the flowcharts included herein show the architecture, functionality, and operation of a possible implementation of software. In this regard, each block can be interpreted to represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the blocks may occur out of the order and/or not at all. For example, two blocks shown in succession may in fact be executed substantially concurrently or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the operations involved.
One should note that any of the programs listed herein, which can include an ordered listing of executable instructions for implementing logical functions, can be embodied in any computer-readable medium for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device, such as a computer-based system, processor-containing system, or other system that can fetch the instructions from the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device and execute the instructions. In the context of this document, a “computer-readable medium” can be any means that can contain, store, communicate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. The computer readable medium can be, for example but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device. More specific examples (a nonexhaustive list) of the computer-readable medium could include an electrical connection (electronic) having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette (magnetic), a random access memory (RAM) (electronic), a read-only memory (ROM) (electronic), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory) (electronic), an optical fiber (optical), and a portable compact disc read-only memory (CDROM) (optical). In addition, the scope of the certain embodiments of this disclosure can include embodying the operations described in logic embodied in hardware or software-configured mediums.
Additionally, embodiments discussed herein may be implemented in (and/or associated with) one or more different devices. More specifically, depending on the particular configuration, operations discussed herein may be implemented in a set-top box, a satellite system, a television, a portable appliance, a gaming unit, a personal computer, an MP3 player, an IPOD® player, a cellular telephone, a wireless communication receiver, a Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) modem, a wireline communication system and/or other devices.
One should also note that conditional language, such as, among others, “can,” “could”, “might”, or “may”, unless specifically stated otherwise, or otherwise understood within the context as used, is generally intended to convey that certain embodiments include, while other embodiments do not include, certain features, elements and/or steps. Thus, such conditional language is not generally intended to imply that features, elements and/or steps are in any way required for one or more particular embodiments or that one or more particular embodiments necessarily include logic for deciding, with or without user input or prompting, whether these features, elements and/or steps are included or are to be performed in any particular embodiment. Additionally, use of the term “receive”, “receiving”, “received”, and other similar terms is not intended to limit the disclosure to actions taken at an input port and/or output port. Depending on the particular embodiment, the term “receive” (as well as variations thereof) may be interpreted to include internal and/or external communication of data.
It should be emphasized that the above-described embodiments are merely possible examples of implementations, merely set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of this disclosure. Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of the disclosure. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure.
This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/615,535, filed Dec. 22, 2006, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. This application also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/754,669, filed Dec. 30, 2005 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/771,885, filed Feb. 10, 2006, each of which are incorporated by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7146357 | Suzuki et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7450645 | Osorio et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
20020129314 | Kim et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20060062314 | Palin et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20070153838 | Pons et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070153838 A1 | Jul 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60754669 | Dec 2005 | US | |
60771885 | Feb 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11615535 | Dec 2006 | US |
Child | 11617028 | US |