Fixed spelling and grammatical errors in theory chapter
This commit is contained in:
parent
4981c220cd
commit
5989c33621
@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
In this chapter, the theoretical background necessary to understand this
|
||||
work is given.
|
||||
First, the used notation is clarified.
|
||||
First, the notation used is clarified.
|
||||
The physical aspects are detailed - the used modulation scheme and channel model.
|
||||
A short introduction to channel coding with binary linear codes and especially
|
||||
\ac{LDPC} codes is given.
|
||||
@ -252,13 +252,13 @@ Figure \ref{fig:theo:tanner_graph} shows the tanner graph for the
|
||||
\label{fig:theo:tanner_graph}
|
||||
\end{figure}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
\noindent \acp{CN} and \acp{VN}, and by extention the rows and columns of
|
||||
\noindent \acp{CN} and \acp{VN}, and by extension the rows and columns of
|
||||
$\boldsymbol{H}$, are indexed with the variables $j$ and $i$.
|
||||
The sets of all \acp{CN} and all \acp{VN} are denoted by
|
||||
$\mathcal{J} := \left[ 1:m \right]$ and $\mathcal{I} := \left[ 1:n \right]$, respectively.
|
||||
The \textit{neighbourhood} of the $j$th \ac{CN}, i.e., the set of all adjacent \acp{VN},
|
||||
The \textit{neighborhood} of the $j$th \ac{CN}, i.e., the set of all adjacent \acp{VN},
|
||||
is denoted by $N_c\left( j \right)$.
|
||||
The neighbourhood of the $i$th \ac{VN} is denoted by $N_v\left( i \right)$.
|
||||
The neighborhood of the $i$th \ac{VN} is denoted by $N_v\left( i \right)$.
|
||||
For the code depicted in figure \ref{fig:theo:tanner_graph}, for example,
|
||||
$N_c\left( 1 \right) = \left\{ 1, 3, 5, 7 \right\}$ and
|
||||
$N_v\left( 3 \right) = \left\{ 1, 2 \right\}$.
|
||||
@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ the use of \ac{BP} impractical for applications where a very low \ac{BER} is
|
||||
desired \cite[Sec. 15.3]{ryan_lin_2009}.
|
||||
Another popular decoding method for \ac{LDPC} codes is the
|
||||
\textit{min-sum algorithm}.
|
||||
This is a simplification of \ac{BP} using an approximation of the the
|
||||
This is a simplification of \ac{BP} using an approximation of the
|
||||
non-linear $\tanh$ function to improve the computational performance.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -478,13 +478,13 @@ and minimizing $g$ using the proximal operator
|
||||
%
|
||||
Since $g$ is minimized with the proximal operator and is thus not required
|
||||
to be differentiable, it can be used to encode the constraints of the problem
|
||||
(e.g., in the form of an \textit{indicator funcion}, as mentioned in
|
||||
(e.g., in the form of an \textit{indicator function}, as mentioned in
|
||||
\cite[Sec. 1.2]{proximal_algorithms}).
|
||||
|
||||
The \ac{ADMM} is another optimization method.
|
||||
In this thesis it will be used to solve a \textit{linear program}, which
|
||||
is a special type of convex optimization problem, where the objective function
|
||||
is linear and the constraints consist of linear equalities and inequalities.
|
||||
is linear, and the constraints consist of linear equalities and inequalities.
|
||||
Generally, any linear program can be expressed in \textit{standard form}%
|
||||
\footnote{The inequality $\boldsymbol{x} \ge \boldsymbol{0}$ is to be
|
||||
interpreted componentwise.}
|
||||
@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ interpreted componentwise.}
|
||||
\label{eq:theo:admm_standard}
|
||||
\end{alignat}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
A technique called \textit{lagrangian relaxation} \cite[Sec. 11.4]{intro_to_lin_opt_book}
|
||||
A technique called \textit{Lagrangian relaxation} \cite[Sec. 11.4]{intro_to_lin_opt_book}
|
||||
can then be applied.
|
||||
First, some of the constraints are moved into the objective function itself
|
||||
and weights $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ are introduced. A new, relaxed problem
|
||||
@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ is then formulated as
|
||||
\label{eq:theo:admm_relaxed}
|
||||
\end{align}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
the new objective function being the \textit{lagrangian}%
|
||||
the new objective function being the \textit{Lagrangian}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\mathcal{L}\left( \boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{\lambda} \right)
|
||||
@ -525,10 +525,10 @@ the new objective function being the \textit{lagrangian}%
|
||||
.\end{align*}%
|
||||
%
|
||||
This problem is not directly equivalent to the original one, as the
|
||||
solution now depends on the choice of the \textit{lagrange multipliers}
|
||||
solution now depends on the choice of the \textit{Lagrange multipliers}
|
||||
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}$.
|
||||
Interestingly, however, for this particular class of problems,
|
||||
the minimum of the objective function (herafter called \textit{optimal objective})
|
||||
the minimum of the objective function (hereafter called \textit{optimal objective})
|
||||
of the relaxed problem (\ref{eq:theo:admm_relaxed}) is a lower bound for
|
||||
the optimal objective of the original problem (\ref{eq:theo:admm_standard})
|
||||
\cite[Sec. 4.1]{intro_to_lin_opt_book}:%
|
||||
@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ $g_i: \mathbb{R}^{n_i} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
|
||||
i.e., $g\left( \boldsymbol{x} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} g_i
|
||||
\left( \boldsymbol{x}_i \right)$,
|
||||
where $\boldsymbol{x}_i,\hspace{1mm} i\in [1:N]$ are subvectors of
|
||||
$\boldsymbol{x}$, the lagrangian is as well:
|
||||
$\boldsymbol{x}$, the Lagrangian is as well:
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\text{minimize }\hspace{5mm} & \sum_{i=1}^{N} g_i\left( \boldsymbol{x}_i \right) \\
|
||||
@ -638,18 +638,18 @@ This modified version of dual ascent is called \textit{dual decomposition}:
|
||||
.\end{align*}
|
||||
%
|
||||
|
||||
The \ac{ADMM} works the same way as dual decomposition.
|
||||
It only differs in the use of an \textit{augmented lagrangian}
|
||||
\ac{ADMM} works the same way as dual decomposition.
|
||||
It only differs in the use of an \textit{augmented Lagrangian}
|
||||
$\mathcal{L}_\mu\left( \boldsymbol{x}_{[1:N]}, \boldsymbol{\lambda} \right)$
|
||||
in order to strengthen the convergence properties.
|
||||
The augmented lagrangian extends the ordinary one with an additional penalty term
|
||||
The augmented Lagrangian extends the ordinary one with an additional penalty term
|
||||
with the penaly parameter $\mu$:
|
||||
%
|
||||
\begin{align*}
|
||||
\mathcal{L}_\mu \left( \boldsymbol{x}_{[1:N]}, \boldsymbol{\lambda} \right)
|
||||
= \underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^{N} g_i\left( \boldsymbol{x_i} \right)
|
||||
+ \boldsymbol{\lambda}^\text{T}\left( \boldsymbol{b}
|
||||
- \sum_{i=1}^{N} \boldsymbol{A}_i\boldsymbol{x}_i \right)}_{\text{Ordinary lagrangian}}
|
||||
- \sum_{i=1}^{N} \boldsymbol{A}_i\boldsymbol{x}_i \right)}_{\text{Ordinary Lagrangian}}
|
||||
+ \underbrace{\frac{\mu}{2}\left\Vert \sum_{i=1}^{N} \boldsymbol{A}_i\boldsymbol{x}_i
|
||||
- \boldsymbol{b} \right\Vert_2^2}_{\text{Penalty term}},
|
||||
\hspace{5mm} \mu > 0
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user