Degree Optimization and Stability Condition for the Min-Sum Decoder

TL;DR

This paper analyzes the stability and degree distribution optimization of the min-sum decoding algorithm, revealing its limitations compared to sum-product decoding and proposing modifications to improve performance.

Contribution

It characterizes the stability condition of MS decoding, compares it with BP, and optimizes degree distributions, highlighting the performance gap to Shannon capacity.

Findings

Stability condition for MS decoding is similar to BP.

Optimal degree distributions for MS are bounded away from capacity.

Modified MS with scaling reduces the gap to capacity slightly.

Abstract

The min-sum (MS) algorithm is arguably the second most fundamental algorithm in the realm of message passing due to its optimality (for a tree code) with respect to the {\em block error} probability \cite{Wiberg}. There also seems to be a fundamental relationship of MS decoding with the linear programming decoder \cite{Koetter}. Despite its importance, its fundamental properties have not nearly been studied as well as those of the sum-product (also known as BP) algorithm. We address two questions related to the MS rule. First, we characterize the stability condition under MS decoding. It turns out to be essentially the same condition as under BP decoding. Second, we perform a degree distribution optimization. Contrary to the case of BP decoding, under MS decoding the thresholds of the best degree distributions for standard irregular LDPC ensembles are significantly bounded away from the Shannon threshold. More precisely, on the AWGN channel, for the best codes that we find, the gap to capacity is 1dB for a rate 0.3 code and it is 0.4dB when the rate is 0.9 (the gap decreases monotonically as we increase the rate). We also used the optimization procedure to design codes for modified MS algorithm where the output of the check node is scaled by a constant $1/\alpha$. For $\alpha = 1.25$, we observed that the gap to capacity was lesser for the modified MS algorithm when compared with the MS algorithm. However, it was still quite large, varying from 0.75 dB to 0.2 dB for rates between 0.3 and 0.9. We conclude by posing what we consider to be the most important open questions related to the MS algorithm.