Split LP and ADMM into two sections; done with cost function derivation for LP
This commit is contained in:
parent
5ca393187e
commit
40e731d111
@ -160,8 +160,8 @@ which minimizes the objective function $f$ (as shown in figure \ref{fig:dec:spac
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\section{LP Decoding using ADMM}%
|
||||
\label{sec:dec:LP Decoding using ADMM}
|
||||
\section{LP Decoding}%
|
||||
\label{sec:dec:LP Decoding}
|
||||
|
||||
\Ac{LP} decoding is a subject area introduced by Feldman et al.
|
||||
\todo{Space before citation?}
|
||||
@ -171,40 +171,40 @@ which minimizes the objective function $f$ (as shown in figure \ref{fig:dec:spac
|
||||
decoding and one, which is an approximation with a more manageable
|
||||
representation.
|
||||
To solve the resulting linear program, various optimization methods can be
|
||||
used;
|
||||
the one examined in this work is \ac{ADMM}.
|
||||
\todo{Why chose ADMM?}
|
||||
used.
|
||||
|
||||
Feldman at al. begin by looking at the \ac{ML} decoding problem%
|
||||
\footnote{They assume that all codewords are equally likely to be transmitted,
|
||||
making the \ac{ML} and \ac{MAP} decoding problems equivalent.}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\begin{align}
|
||||
\hat{\boldsymbol{c}} = \argmax_{\boldsymbol{c} \in \mathcal{C}}
|
||||
f_{\boldsymbol{Y} \mid \boldsymbol{C}} \left( \boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{c} \right)
|
||||
f_{\boldsymbol{Y} \mid \boldsymbol{C}} \left( \boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{c} \right)%
|
||||
\label{eq:lp:ml}
|
||||
.\end{align}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
Assuming a memoryless channel, \ref{eq:lp:ml} can be rewritten in terms
|
||||
of the \acp{LLR} $\gamma_i$ \cite[Sec 2.5]{feldman_thesis}:%
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\hat{\boldsymbol{c}} = \argmin_{\boldsymbol{c}\in\mathcal{C}}
|
||||
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \gamma_i y_i,%
|
||||
\hspace{5mm} \gamma_i = \ln\left(
|
||||
\frac{f_{\boldsymbol{Y} | \boldsymbol{C}}
|
||||
\left( Y_i = y_i \mid C_i = 0 \right) }
|
||||
{f_{\boldsymbol{Y} | \boldsymbol{C}}
|
||||
\left( Y_i = y_i | C_i = 1 \right) } \right)
|
||||
.\end{align*}
|
||||
%
|
||||
They suggest that maximizing the likelihood
|
||||
$f_{\boldsymbol{Y} \mid \boldsymbol{C}}\left( \boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{c} \right)$
|
||||
is equivalent to minimizing the negative log-likelihood.
|
||||
|
||||
\ldots (Explain arriving at the cost function from the ML decoding problem)
|
||||
|
||||
Based on this, they propose their cost function%
|
||||
The authors propose the following cost function%
|
||||
\footnote{In this context, \textit{cost function} and \textit{objective function}
|
||||
have the same meaning.}
|
||||
for the \ac{LP} decoding problem:%
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \gamma_i c_i,
|
||||
\hspace{5mm} \gamma_i = \ln\left(
|
||||
\frac{f_{\boldsymbol{Y} | \boldsymbol{C}}
|
||||
\left( Y_i = y_i \mid C_i = 0 \right) }
|
||||
{f_{\boldsymbol{Y} | \boldsymbol{C}}
|
||||
\left( Y_i = y_i | C_i = 1 \right) } \right)
|
||||
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \gamma_i c_i
|
||||
.\end{align*}
|
||||
%
|
||||
%
|
||||
With this cost function, the exact integer linear program formulation of \ac{ML}
|
||||
decoding is the following:%
|
||||
%
|
||||
@ -213,6 +213,8 @@ decoding is the following:%
|
||||
\text{subject to }\hspace{2mm} &\boldsymbol{c} \in \mathcal{C}
|
||||
.\end{align*}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
\todo{$\boldsymbol{c}$ or some other variable name? e.g. $\boldsymbol{c}^{*}$.
|
||||
Especially for the continuous consideration in LP decoding}
|
||||
|
||||
As solving integer linear programs is generally NP-hard, this decoding problem
|
||||
has to be approximated by one with looser constraints.
|
||||
@ -551,11 +553,27 @@ vertices;
|
||||
these represent erroneous non-codeword solutions to the linear program and
|
||||
correspond to the so-called \textit{pseudocodewords} introduced in
|
||||
\cite{feldman_paper}.
|
||||
However, since for \ac{LDPC} codes $Q$ scales linearly with $n$, it is a lot
|
||||
more tractable for practical applications.
|
||||
However, since for \ac{LDPC} codes $Q$ scales linearly with $n$ instead of
|
||||
exponentially, it is a lot more tractable for practical applications.
|
||||
|
||||
The resulting formulation of the relaxed optimization problem
|
||||
(called \ac{LCLP} by the authors) is the following:%
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\text{minimize }\hspace{2mm} &\sum_{i=1}^{n} \gamma_i c_i \\
|
||||
\text{subject to }\hspace{2mm} &\ldots
|
||||
.\end{align*}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\section{LP Decoding using ADMM}%
|
||||
\label{sec:dec:LP Decoding using ADMM}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item TODO: \Ac{ADMM} as a solver
|
||||
\item Why ADMM?
|
||||
\item Adaptive Linear Programming?
|
||||
\item How ADMM is adapted to LP decoding
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user