an.tsouchlos/ba-thesis
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

Document ready for correction up to and including chapter proximal and appendix

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Andreas Tsouchlos 2023-04-11 22:20:58 +02:00
parent 7a6968d0ca
commit df6b3b1785
4 changed files with 11 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
latex/thesis/abbreviations.tex
View File

@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
\DeclareAcronym{AWGN}{
short = AWGN,
long = additive white gaussian noise
long = additive white Gaussian noise
}
\DeclareAcronym{ADMM}{

6
latex/thesis/chapters/appendix.tex
View File

@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ their results in \cite[Sec. 5.1]{proximal_paper}
and they seem to suitably describe the behaviour of the decoding performance
over a wide range of values for $\gamma$.
The parameter $\omega$ is chosen to be $0.05$ and the maximum number of
iterations performed $K$ is 100.
iterations $K$ performed is 100.
$\eta$ is set to $1.5$.
In figure \ref{fig:prox:gamma_omega_multiple}, the relationship between
@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ $\gamma \in \left\{ 0.01, 0.05, 0.15 \right\}$.
{res/proximal/2d_ber_fer_dfr_pegreg252x504.csv};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{LDPC code (Progressive Edge Growth Construction) with $n=504, k=252$
\caption{LDPC code (progressive edge growth construction) with $n=504, k=252$
\cite[\text{PEGReg252x504}]{mackay_enc}}
\end{subfigure}%
@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ $\gamma \in \left\{ 0.01, 0.05, 0.15 \right\}$.
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{LDPC code (Progressive Edge Growth Construction) with $n=504, k=252$
\caption{LDPC code (progressive edge growth construction) with $n=504, k=252$
\cite[\text{PEGReg252x504}]{mackay_enc}}
\end{subfigure}%

2
latex/thesis/chapters/comparison.tex
View File

@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
TODO
\todo{Note: This chapter is currently only a very rough draft and is not yet ready for correction}
%In this chapter, proximal decoding and \ac{LP} Decoding using \ac{ADMM} are compared.
%First the two algorithms are compared on a theoretical basis.
%Subsequently, their respective simulation results are examined and their

8
latex/thesis/chapters/proximal_decoding.tex
View File

@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ $\SI{2.80}{GHz}$ and utilizing all cores.
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Time requirements of the proximal decoding algorithm imlementation%
\caption{Timing requirements of the proximal decoding imlementation%
\protect\footnotemark{}}
\label{fig:prox:time_comp}
\end{figure}%
@ -1502,6 +1502,8 @@ theoretical considerations.
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[grid=both,
width=0.6\textwidth,
height=0.45\textwidth,
xlabel={$n$}, ylabel={Time per frame (s)},
legend style={at={(0.05,0.77)},anchor=south west},
legend cell align={left},]
@ -1518,8 +1520,8 @@ theoretical considerations.
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Time Complexity of Proximal Decoding and Modified Implementation%
\protect\footnotemark{}}
\caption{Comparison of the timing requirements of the implementations of proximal
decoding and the improved algorithm\protect\footnotemark{}}
\label{fig:prox:time_complexity_comp}
\end{figure}%
%