Globecom 2013 - Optical Networks and Systems Symposium
Iterative Hard-Decision Decoding of Braided BCH
Codes for High-Speed Optical Communication
Yung-Yih Jian, Henry D. Pfister, Krishna R. Narayanan
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Abstract—Designing error-correcting codes for optical com-
munication is challenging mainly because of the high data rates
(e.g., 100 Gbps) required and the expectation of low latency,
low overhead (e.g., 7% redundancy), and large coding gain (e.g.,
>9dB). Although soft-decision decoding (SDD) of low-density
parity-check (LDPC) codes is an active area of research, the
mainstay of optical transport systems is still the iterative hard-
decision decoding (HDD) of generalized product codes with
algebraic syndrome decoding of the component codes. This is
because iterative HDD allows many simplifications and SDD of
LDPC codes results in much higher implementation complexity.
In this paper, we use analysis and simulation to evaluate
tightly-braided block codes with BCH component codes for high-
speed optical communication. Simulation of the iterative HDD
shows that these codes are competitive with the best schemes
based on HDD. Finally, we suggest a specific design that is
compatible with the G.709 framing structure and exhibits a
coding gain of >9.35 dB at 7% redundancy under iterative HDD
with a latency of approximately 1 million bits.
Index Terms—optical communications, braided block codes,
iterative decoding, syndrome decoding
I. I NTRODUCTION
In this paper, we describe a forward error correction (FEC)
scheme for optical transport networks (OTNs) that uses a
modified construction of tightly-braided block codes (TBBCs)
with Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquengham (BCH) component codes.
TBBCs are a family of generalized product codes with a
continuous streaming structure that are well suited for hard-
ware implementation [1]. Our construction is motivated by
the generalized product codes described in [2] and the recent
successes of low-density parity-check (LDPC) convolutional
codes (or spatially-coupled LDPC codes) [3], [4], [5]. Similar
to other FEC schemes based on generalized product codes,
TBBCs with BCH component codes achieve excellent perfor-
mance with low-complexity iterative HDD.
Recently, coding for OTNs has seen a resurgence in popular-
ity among researchers in coding and communications. While
optimized LDPC and protograph LDPC codes can approach
capacity, the required complexity is significant. OTNs have the
additional challenge of high code rates (e.g., 7% redundancy)
and very high data rates (e.g., 100 Gb/s) and, hence, the per-
bit decoding complexity must be kept very low. One benefit of
the 100 Gb/s rate is that a decoding delay of 10 microseconds
translates to a processing delay of one million bits. Based on
this, a number of researchers have shown that significant gains
978-1-4799-1353-4/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
Raghu Rao and Raied Mazahreh
Xilinx, Inc.
Austin, TX and Sandy, Utah
are possible for the existing ITU-T G.709 OTN frame structure
with 7% overhead [6], [7], [8], [9].
The main contributions of this paper are the definition of
a new extrinsic iterative decoding rule that improves perfor-
mance and is analyzable via density evolution, the construction
of modified TBBCs with bit grouping to reduce decoding de-
lay, and the simulation of two G.709 compatible constructions.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Product Codes
Product codes were introduced by Elias in 1954 and their
iterative HDD was proposed by Abramson in 1968 [10], [11].
Given two linear component codes with lengths m and n, the
idea is to form an m × n array of bits and require that each
row is codeword of the length-n code and that each column
is a codeword of the length-m linear code. This results in
a length N = mn linear code whose minimum distance is
the product the minimum distances of the component codes.
It is worth noting that iterative HDD of product codes was
proposed well before the recent revolution in coding theory
but iterative decoding of product codes became popular only
after the advent of iterative SDD based on the turbo principle
[12], [13].
B. Generalized Product Codes
We use the term generalized product code to refer to any
code where the code bits can: (i) be permuted into an array
with rows of length-n and each row is a codeword of a length-
n linear code and (ii) be permuted into another array with
rows of length-m and each row is a codeword of a length-m
linear code. Instead of the block length N = mn required by
product codes, one needs only that m and n divide N . Also,
the permutation between the two arrays of row codewords can
be arbitrary, instead of just a rectangular interleaver. These
codes can also be seen as generalized LDPC (GLDPC) codes
[14], [15] with degree-2 bits.
C. Iterative Hard-Decision Decoding
In this section, we describe message-passing hard-decision
decoding for generalized product codes. We highlight the
difference between conventional decoding, which we call
intrinsic message passing (IMP), and the approach from [5],
which we call extrinsic message passing (EMP). In EMP
algorithms, messages passed on edges in the Tanner graph are
computed only from their extrinsic information. For certain
2376
 Globecom 2013 - Optical Networks and Systems Symposium

(`) (`)
random ensembles, this enables analysis via density evolution. replaced by 0 and then computes ŵj,k,0 = Dt (ν j,k,0 ) and
We emphasize that this is different than the conventional (h (`) i (`)

iterative HDD rule typically used by product and generalized (`) ŵj,k,0 if Dt ν̂j,k,0 6= fail
product codes. µ̂ik ,j,0 = k
fail otherwise.
Consider the Tanner graph of a generalized product code
where each code bit is represented by a variable node and (`) (`) (`)
Likewise, the second BDD defines ν̂j,k,1 , (ν̂i1 ,j , . . . , ν̂in ,j )
each code constraint is represented by a constraint node. Let except that the k-th element is replaced by 1 and then
(`) (`) (`)
r be the vector of channel output bits, νi,j ∈ {0, 1} be the computes ŵj,k,1 = Dt (ν j,k,1 ) and
messages passed from the i-th bit node to the j-th constraint
(`) (h (`) i (`)

node in the `-th iteration, and µi,j ∈ {0, 1} be the messages (`) ŵj,k,1 if Dt ν̂j,k,1 6= fail
passed from the j-th constraint node to the i-th bit node µ̂ik ,j,1 = k
fail otherwise.
in the `-th iteration. We assume the constraint nodes define
an (n, k, dmin ) component code C with dmin = 2t + 1. Let (`)
One can see that the message µ̂i,j will be in the set
Dt : {0, 1}n → C ∪ {fail} be the operator defined by
{(0, 0), (1, 1), (0, 1), (0, fail), (fail, 1), (fail, fail)}.
bounded distance decoding (BDD) with decoding radius t.
The message-passing rule for the i-th bit node is
The bounded distance component decoder either returns a 
(`)
codeword or declares failure and returns fail.
0 if µ̂i,j 0 = (0, 0)


1) Intrinsic Message Passing : For a bit node i and a (`+1)
ν̂i,j , (`) (3)
constraint node j, let N (i) = {j, j 0 } be the constraint-node  1 if µ̂i,j 0 = (1, 1)

(`) (`) (`) r otherwise.
neighbors of i. Let ν j , (νi1 ,j , . . . , νin ,j ) be the collection i
of the all input messages to the j-th constraint node in the `-th (0)
iteration and assume that ik = i (i.e., bit i is the k-th bit in the The iteration is initialized by setting ν̂i,j = ri for each bit
(`) (`) (`)
j-th code constraint). Let wj , (w1,j , . . . , wn,j ) = Dt (ν j )
(`) node i and all j ∈ N (i).
(`)
be the output of the BDD decoder applied to the input By replacing the k-th element of ν̂ j with both 0 and
(`)
messages at the j-th constraint node. Then, the message- 1, the computed output µ̂ik ,j remains independent of the
passing rules, for each constraint node j, are (`)
incoming message ν̂ik ,j on that edge. Therefore, only extrinsic
νi,j
(`+1) (`)
= µi,j 0 (1) information is used in the computation of the output message
 on the (ik , j) edge from the j-th constraint node. The out-
w(`) if
(`)

Dt ν j 6= fail put message from a bit node depends only on the channel
(`) k,j
µik ,j = (2) observation and the input from the other edge. Therefore,
ν (`)
ik ,j otherwise.
this defines an extrinsic message-passing algorithm with hard-
(0) decision messages.
The iteration starts by initializing νi,j = ri for each bit node 3) Low-Complexity EMP Algorithm: As described above,
i and all j ∈ N (i). From (1) and (2), one can see that the the EMP algorithm needs to run the BDD algorithm 2n times
IMP algorithm only uses channel outputs at the beginning of to compute the output messages from a single constraint node.
the iterations, and then, exchanges the output of the constraint The primary purpose of that description was to demonstrate
nodes in the subsequent iterations. The IMP is the conventional that the algorithm is indeed an EMP algorithm. Now, we show
approach used for the iterative HDD of product codes. that exactly the same outputs can be computed with a single
2) Extrinsic Message Passing: In the IMP message-passing decode and some post processing. In the `-th iteration, let
(`)
rule (2), the computation of the output message µik ,j passed (`)
w , Dt (ν̂ j ) be the output of the BDD at the j-th constraint
(`)
from j to ik uses the input message νik ,j . This violates (`)
node with ν̂ j as an input. In this case, we will see that one
the principle of using only extrinsic information in message- (`+1) (`)
can calculate ν̂ j directly from ν̂ j . In this section, the
passing rules. To rectify this, the following modification was (`)
proposed in [5] (though it was described slightly differently). µ̂ik ,j messages are used only to explain the correctness of the
We note that the messages in the EMP decoder are denoted simplified algorithm. Consider the following facts.
(`) (`)
by ν̂i,j and µ̂i,j to distinguish them from the IMP decoder. Fact 1. If w = fail, then at least one element of µ̂ik ,j will
(`)
(`)
Let ν̂i,j ∈ {0, 1} be the message passed by the EMP be a fail for all k = 1, 2, . . . , n. By (3), one can show that
(`+1)
algorithm from the i-th bit node to the j-th constraint node ν̂ik ,j 0 = rik for all k = 1, 2, . . . , n.
(`) (`) (`)
and let ν̂ j , (ν̂i1 ,j , . . . , ν̂in ,j ) be the collection of all input (`)
messages to the j-th constraint node in the `-th iteration. Fact 2. If w 6= fail and dH (ν̂ j , w) < t, then one can
(`) (`)
Assume also that ik = i (i.e., the i-th bit node is bit k show that µ̂ik ,j,0 = µ̂ik ,j,1 for all k = 1, 2, . . . , n. Thus, we
in the j-th code constraint). To compute the EMP message (`+1) (`)
have ν̂ik ,j 0 = µ̂ik ,j,0 for all k = 1, 2, . . . , n.
(`) (`) (`)

µ̂i,j , µ̂i,j,0 , µ̂i,j,1 from the j-th constraint node to the i-
(`)
th bit node, BDD is performed twice. The first BDD defines Fact 3. If w 6= fail and dH (ν̂ j , w) = t, then first suppose
(`) (`) (`) (`) (`)
ν̂j,k,0 , (ν̂i1 ,j , . . . , ν̂in ,j ) except that the k-th element is that wk = ν̂ik ,j for some k. One can see that µ̂ik ,j must not

2377
 Globecom 2013 - Optical Networks and Systems Symposium

(`+1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (5) (6) (7)

x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1 x(9)
(8)
(9) (9) (9) (9)
be (0, 0) or (1, 1). Thus, we know ν̂ik ,j 0 = rik . On the other x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 0 x1 x2 x3 x4
(`) (`) (0)
x−1 (1)
x0
(1)
x1
(1)
x2
(1)
x3
(1)
x4
(6)
x−4
(7)
x−3
(8) (9)
x−2 x−1 x(10) (10) (10) (10) (10)
x1 x2 x3 x4
hand, suppose that wk 6= ν̂ik ,j . One can show that µ̂ik ,j,0 = 0
(0) (1) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (7) (8) (9) (10)
(`) (`+1) x−2 x−1 x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1 x(11) (11) (11) (11) (11)
x1 x2 x3 x4
µ̂ik ,j,1 = wk . Therefore, ν̂ik ,j 0 = wk . 0
(0) (1) (2) (8) (9) (10) (11)
x−3 x−2 x−1 x(3)
0
(3) (3) (3) (3) (12) (12) (12) (12) (12)
x1 x2 x3 x4 x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1 x0 x1 x2 x3 x4
Using these facts, we define the low-complexity EMP- (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (9) (10) (11) (12)
(`) x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1 x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1 x(13)
0
(13) (13) (13) (13)
x1 x2 x3 x4
HDD decoder in Algorithm 1. Since the distance dH (ν̂ j , w) (1) (2) (3) (4) (10) (11) (12) (13)
0 x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1 x(5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
x1 x2 x3 x4 x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1
is automatically obtained while performing BDD, the only 0
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (11) (12) (13)
0 0 x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1 x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x−4 x−3 x−2
overhead of the MP-HDD algorithm is a little Boolean logic.
(3) (4) (5) (6) (12) (13)
0 0 0 x−4 x−3 x−2 x−1 x(7)
0
(7) (7) (7) (7)
x1 x2 x3 x4 x−4 x−3
Algorithm 1 The low-complexity EMP-HDD algorithm 0 0 0 0
(4)
x−4
(5)
x−3
(6)
x−2
(7)
x−1 (8)
x0
(8)
x1
(8)
x2
(8)
x3
(8)
x4
(13)
x−4
Iteration `: For each constraint node j,
(`) Figure 1. Codeword of a TBBC with modulo presentation.
• Compute w = Dt (ν̂ j ).
• For k = 1, . . . , n, (i)
containing x0 [1]. A block of codewords is n consecutive
(`) (`+1)
– if dH (ν̂ j , w) > t, then ν̂ik ,j 0 = rik batches of systematic and parity bits (i.e., n2 bits in total).
(`) (`+1) In this paper, we assume the component codes are BCH
– elseif dH (ν̂ j , w) < t, then ν̂ik ,j 0 = wk
(`+1)


codes and that HDD is used. In this case, the decoding
– else ν̂ik ,j 0 = 1 − ν̂ik ,j rik OR wk OR (rik wk ).
complexity can be significantly reduced by cleverly computing
and updating the syndromes associated with each codeword.
D. Tightly-Braided Block Codes This technique is part of the product-code folklore and is
discussed for OTNs in [6], [8].
TBBCs are a family of generalized product codes that
Braided codes have now been identified as an early instance
were introduced by Truhachev, Lentmaier, and Zigangirov in
of spatially-coupled codes [16], [4]. It is now known that the
2002 [1]. Similar to product codes, these codes are based on
performance of iterative decoding for spatially-coupled codes
horizontal and vertical component block codes. In contrast to
can be much better than their uncoupled cousins due to a
finite rectangular product codes, a TBBC codeword can be
phenomenon known as threshold saturation. In particular, the
seen either as a diagonal band in an infinite-dimensional array
initial code bits (e.g., bits in the top left corner of Fig. 1)
(e.g., see [1, Fig. 2a]) or as a product code with cyclically
participate in code constraints where half of the code bits are
shifted column codes and staggered row codes (e.g., see
known to be zero. These known-zero bits allow decoding to get
Fig. 1). Since each symbol is protected by one horizontal and
started at much higher noise levels. Once started, the decoding
one vertical component code, the important parity-on-parity
continues to progress as long as the noise level is less than a
property of product codes is preserved. This structure also
noise threshold that is strictly larger than the noise threshold
allows for a low-complexity systematic encoder.
of the product code based on the same component codes.
In this paper, we focus on the case where the horizontal and
vertical component codes are identical and have odd length. E. Density Evolution Analysis
Fig. 1 shows a partial codeword for the case where they are For some families of generalized product codes with random
both (n, k) = (9, 6) codes. In comparison to [1, Fig. 2a], this permutations (e.g., GLDPC codes), one can define ensembles
figure uses a modulo n wrapping of the row index to map of increasing length and rigorously use density evolution to
the semi-infinite diagonal band onto a semi-infinite rectangle. identify the noise threshold of the ensemble [16]. For the
The systematic bits are shown in blue, the parity bits in red, binary erasure channel, this can be done both for intrinsic
and the boundaries of the row codewords are shown with (i.e. peeling) and extrinsic (i.e., message passing) decoding.
a green border. In general, the codeword boundary of each But, for binary symmetric channel, there is a possibility of
column code is cyclically shifted downward with respect to miscorrection and the calculation is only rigorous for EMP
the previous column. If the column code happens to be cyclic, decoding. For example, this is done for spatially-coupled
then this detail is inconsequential and the constraint is simply GLDPC codes with fixed component codes in [5].
that every column must be a codeword. For that reason, the For product codes, a similar calculation can be done for
codeword boundaries of the column codes are not highlighted. a sequence of ensembles where the length of the component
The natural systematic encoder for TBBCs processes sys- codes becomes unbounded but the error-correction capability
tematic bits in batches
(i)  of size K = 2k−n andn+1 the i-th
batch is stays fixed (e.g., sequences of t-error-correcting BCH codes
denoted xj for j ∈ −(k − n+1 2 ), . . . , (k − 2 ) in Fig. 1. of increasing length) [17]. If there is a genie that prevents
All bits to the left of the first column are assumed to be 0 miscorrection, then there is a rigorous decoding threshold for
and the bottom left corner (marked in gray) is also initialized the average number of channel errors in each code. Similar
to 0. Likewise, parity bits are generated in batches of size arguments can be applied to compute thresholds for braided
(i)
P = 2(n − k) and the i-th batch is denoted by xj for codes. The asymptotic noise threshold associated with the
n−1 n−1
|j| ∈ (k − 2 ), . . . , 2 . The parity bits are computed standard product code based on (1020,988) shortened BCH
by placing the i-th batch of systematic bits in the array and component codes is approximately p = 0.005. Assuming one
then applying a systematic encoder to the row/column codes can achieve an output BER of 10−15 for this input BER, this

2378
 Globecom 2013 - Optical Networks and Systems Symposium
corresponds to a normalized coding gain [2, §7.1.3] of
erfc−1 (0.005)
   
239
20 log10 − 10 log10 ≈ 9.50 dB.
erfc−1 (10−15 ) 255
III. B RAIDED C ODES FOR O PTICAL C OMMUNICATION
A. Coding for Optical Communication
Coding for optical communications has a long history and
we only have space to discuss a few results that are particularly
relevant. We start by noting that coding for optical systems
system began with a (255, 239) Reed-Solomon code over
GF(256). For this code, algebraic HDD corrects up to 8
symbols errors and provides a coding gain of 6.2 dB. As data
rates increased and coding become more important, a number
of proposals for improved coding schemes were collected in
the ITU-T Recommendation G.975.1 [2]. These schemes have
rates close to 239/255 (to match the original RS code) and
are now referenced by the appendix where they appeared. In
Appendix I.3 of G.975.1, a serial concatenation of an outer
RS and an inner BCH codes is described that achieves 8.99
dB of NCG at 10−15 BER under iterative HDD. In Appendix
I.9, a generalized product code is described based on a single
(1020,988) t = 3 BCH component code with 2 extra parity
bits and this scheme is reported to achieve 8.67 dB of coding
gain at 2 · 10−14 BER. With some post processing to remove
the error floor, it seems that the coding gain of I.9 can be
improved to roughly 9.2 dB at 10−15 BER. The (1020,988)
BCH discussed above can be constructed by shortening the
(1023,991) BCH code we discuss in Section III-C. In fact, our
use of this BCH code was motivated by the I.9 construction.
Djordjevic et al. consider the soft-decision iterative de-
coding of GLDPC codes for optical communication in [18]
and report promising results but the decoding complexity of
soft-decision decoding is much higher than syndrome-based
HDD. In 2010, Justesen and his coauthors [6], [7] identified
generalized product codes with BCH component codes as
a very promising solution for this problem and described
some decoding thresholds and error floor estimates. However,
they do not present simulation results for braided codes or
describe a G.709 compatible construction. In 2012, Smith et al.
introduced “staircase codes” and showed that they achieve 9.41
dB of NCG at 10−15 BER [8]. Their construction produces a
generalized product code that is very similar to the blockwise
variant of braided codes described in [1]. Indeed, they are an
excellent choice for optical communication.
In 2011, we began analyzing the iterative HDD of spatially-
coupled GLDPC codes for optical communication [5] and ex-
perimenting with practical implementations based on TBBCs.
We have found that, depending on the parameters, TBBCs have
performance and implementation advantages over staircase
codes. In particular, the continuous streaming structure of the
encoder and decoder is quite amenable to hardware implemen-
tation and the longer coupling window between codes provides
more coding gain. To make a fair comparison between these
types of systems, however, one must carefully control for the
decoding complexity and delay.
2379
B. Decoding Delay
TBBCs based on BCH component codes and algebraic
syndrome decoding are a natural choice for OTNs because they
offer better performance at the expense of a longer decoding
delay, when the delay is measured in bits. Due to the high
data rates involved, the long delay in bits becomes a short
delay in time when measured in seconds. Justesen seems to
be the first researcher who suggested their use in OTNs [7].
Even with this effect, the delay becomes prohibitive when one
wants high code rates (i.e., high-rate component codes) and
low error floors (e.g., component codes with t ≥ 3). For this
reason, there is always interest in reducing the decoding delay
without degrading performance.
Therefore, we also consider a modified family of TBBCs
that reduces the decoding delay of TBBCs. The idea is to let
each entry in the array represent a group of b bits, where b
divides n and n/b is odd. These b bits are all contained in
the same row codeword and the same column codeword. This
change simply scales the horizontal and vertical dimensions
of Fig. 1 down by a factor b but leaves the encoding and
decoding operations essentially the same. Recall that a block
of codewords is defined to be n consecutive batches of
systematic and parity bits (i.e., n2 bits in total). For a decoder
with W blocks of decoding delay, the decoding delay in bits
is reduced by a factor of b because a block of codewords
now contains b(n/b)2 = n2 /b bits. On the other hand, the
error floor is increased because the row and column codes
now overlap in b bits rather than 1 bit.
C. G.709 Compatible Construction
Now, we describe TBBCs whose parameters are compatible
with the ITU-T G.709 OTN frame structure [19]. In particular,
an optical frame consists of KF = 122368 information bits and
PF =8192 parity bits in an overall length of NF =130560 bits.
Let g̃(x) be the generator for the (n, k) = (1023, 993)
primitive narrow-sense 3-error-correcting BCH code. We con-
sider TBBCs where the component code, which is used by
both rows and columns, is a (1023, 991) BCH code whose
generator polynomial is g(x) = (x2 + 1)g̃(x). The additional
factor of x2 +1 forces the codewords bits at odd/even positions
to separately have even parity1 and increases the minimum
distance to 8. An efficient high-throughput syndrome decoder
for this code can be built by directly computing and factoring
the error-locator polynomial (e.g., see [8]).
Therefore, the systematic encoder for this TBBC accepts
K = 2k − n = 959 systematic bits and outputs P = 2(n −
k) = 64 parity bits during each encoding stage. Since each
optical frame consists of PF = 8192 parity bits, it makes
sense to combine PF /P = 128 input batches to form one
optical frame. The only problem is that this requires too many
systematic bits for the optical frame. Therefore, we shorten
the TBBC by modifying the encoder to accept K 0 = K − 3 =
956 systematic bits (with the 3 missing bits set to 0) and
puncturing these 3 zeros from transmitted stream. With this
1 Using this knowledge during BCH decoding significantly reduces the
probability of miscorrection.
 Globecom 2013 - Optical Networks and Systems Symposium
modification, the encoder requires exactly 128K 0 = 122368 =
KF systematic bits to encode one OTN frame.
This construction works for the standard TBBC (i.e., b = 1)
and also for the modified construction with bit grouping b = 3
(e.g., 3 × 341 = 1023). Moreover, the decoding delay in bits
of the b = 3 construction is a factor of 3 smaller than the
b = 1 system for similar performance. We also note that the
bit ordering can be chosen so that a slightly-modified decoding
rule guarantees the correction of burst errors of at most 6120/b
bits (e.g., 2040 bits for b = 3).
IV. E RROR F LOOR A NALYSIS
A. Stopping Set Analysis of BER Floor
Definition 4. A stopping set S is a subset of bit positions
(i.e., each position in this set represents a bit error) such that
every row and column codeword with at least one bit in the
set must contain at least t + 1 bits in the set.
This is the natural generalization of stopping sets [20] to
generalized product codes and it has been considered a number
of times before [21], [17], [8]. If initial set of errors contains
a stopping set S, then there will be at least |S| errors at the
output of the iterative decoder. Therefore, the error floor is
generally dominated by the minimal stopping sets. Let smin
be the minimum number of bits in any stopping set.
In the following discussion, we will estimate the error floor
due to stopping sets of size smin . Recall that in the modified
coding scheme discussed in Section III-B, each entry in the
array represents a group of b bits. We will refer to a group of
b bits as a cell. This means that a group of b bits participate
in the same row code and the same column code and hence, b
has an significant effect on smin and, hence, on the error floor.
To enumerate all stopping sets, we consider c×d rectangular
arrays of integers a = {ai,j } where all row and column sums
are at least t + 1. Let Ac,d be the average number of ways that
a c × d array can be placed into a rectangular intersection of
row and column cells containing a randomly chosen cell. For
a picture, see Fig. 1 or the unwrapped version [1, Fig. 2a]. To
compute Ac,d , we focus on error patterns whose top-left cell is
the i-th cell

(numbered from i = 0) of a row. In this case, there
i
are c−1 ways to choose c − 1 row cells below the first row
and inside the diagonal band and there are n/b−i−1


d−1 ways to
choose d − 1 column cells to the right of the i-th cell. This
implies the average number of c × d rectangular intersection
patterns that contain a randomly chosen cell is given by
n/b−1   
b X i n/b − i − 1
Ac,d = cd ,
n i=0 c − 1 d−1
where the sum gives the total number whose top-left cells are
on a particular row, the factor cd accounts for the size of each
pattern, and the nb normalizes by the number of cells in one
Qc a,Qthe
row. For a fixed
d
number
b

of compatible bit error patterns
is given by i=1 j=1 ai,j . in memory before outputting hard decisions for the oldest
Let nc = d t+1
b e denote the least number of cells that can
contain t + 1 bit errors. It can be seen that the minimum
stopping set size is smin = nc (t + 1). This can be seen by
2380
picking any nc row and nc column cells such that each row
intersects each column. Then, the number of errors assigned to
the nc × nc cells in the intersection is chosen to be a circulant
matrix a whose first row is some set of nc numbers that sum
up to t + 1. This construction implies each of the nc chosen
rows (and columns) will have exactly t + 1 errors.
If b > t, then nc = 1 and, hence, smin = t + 1, which
is generally much too small for optical applications. In this
paper, we are primarily interested in the case when t = 3 and
b = 3 where the minimal stopping sets have nc = 2, smin = 8,
and the errors are confined to a 2 × 2 block of cells. Given the
cell locations associated with a 2 × 2 block of errors, there are
34 error patterns of the form (2, 2; 2, 2), 9 error patterns of the
form (1, 3; 3, 1) and 9 error patterns of the form (3, 1; 1, 3),
resulting in a total of 99 stopping sets of size 8 for every 2 × 2
block. For each of these blocks, the fraction of bits in error
is 8/12 = 2/3. Therefore, the overall bit error probability
due to stopping sets of size 8 is P8 = (2/3) · 99A2,2 p8 ≈
8.53 × 10−13 for p = 0.0045. For the same cell locations,
one may also have stopping sets with 10, 11, or 12 errors
but their contribution is essentially negligible. This is because
their multiplicity is basically the same but the extra factor of
p reduces the contribution by 0.0045 ≈ 1/200. There are also
oscillatory decoding failures due to miscorrection with ≥ 9
errors (e.g., 5 errors are required in one row or column).
B. Post Processing
A simple form of post processing can be used to lower
this error floor. When exactly two row codewords and two
column codewords fail to decode, then we can identify the
problematic 2 × 2 block of cells. If all the bits in these cells
are erased, then every column codeword and row codeword
has 6 erasures. Since dmin = 8, every 6 erasure pattern is
correctable and, hence, all the 8 error patterns can be corrected
using an erasure decoder. With this simple post processing, the
minimum stopping set size is increased to 12 and the dominant
event is given by a 3 × 3 block of cells in error (e.g., a is
a circulant matrix with first row (2, 1, 1)). For this block, the
fraction of bits in error is 12/27 = 4/9 and the the overall
bit error probability due to these patterns is given by P12 =
3! 94 39 A3,3 p12 ≈ 3.56 × 10−15 for p = 0.0045. All 12 error
patterns can also be corrected with post processing but this is
not discussed further due to space constraints.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
To evaluate TBBCs for high-speed optical communication,
we have simulated the G.709 compatible construction de-
scribed in Section III-C. A binary symmetric channel model
is used. Fig. 2 shows simulation curves for a variety of
parameters. A sliding window decoder is used that introduces
W blocks of delay (i.e., W n2 code bits or W Kn systematic
bits). After a new block of codewords is received, the decoder
performs I iterations of row/column decodes on the codewords
block of codewords [1].
Results are presented for both the conventional IMP decoder
(denoted by D = 1) and the improved EMP decoder (denoted
 Globecom 2013 - Optical Networks and Systems Symposium

Normalized Coding Gain (dB) for Output BER of 10−15 Normalized Coding Gain (dB) for Output BER of 10−15
9.59 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.19 9.07 8.94 9.5 9.47 9.45 9.43 9.4 9.38 9.35
10−2 10−2
W = 6, I = 6, b = 1, D = 1 W = 4, I = 4, b = 1, D = 1
10−3 W = 6, I = 6, b = 1, D = 2 10−3 W = 4, I = 4, b = 1, D = 2
I.3 W = 5, I = 5, b = 1, D = 1
10−4 I.9 10−4 W = 5, I = 5, b = 1, D = 2
Staircase W = 4, I = 4, b = 3, D = 1
10−5 10−5 W = 4, I = 4, b = 3, D = 2
W = 5, I = 5, b = 3, D = 1
10−6 10−6 W = 5, I = 5, b = 3, D = 2
Output BER

Output BER
10−7 10−7

10−8 10−8

10−9 10−9

10−10 10−10

10−11 10−11

10−12 10−12
5.4 5.2 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 5 4.95 4.9 4.85 4.8 4.75 4.7 4.65 4.6 4.55 4.5 4.45 4.4
Input BER ·10−3 Input BER ·10−3
Figure 2. Simulation results are shown for the proposed codes and compared with I.3, I.9, and staircase codes (using data from [2], [8]).

by D = 2). Due to software simulations, the normalized
coding gain (NCG) at 10−15 BER is estimated by comparing
with other systems whose NCG at 10−15 BER is known from
hardware experiments. The results show that the system with
parameters (W, I, b, D) = (4, 5, 3, 2) achieves roughly 9.36
dB NCG with 1.15 million systematic bits of delay. These
parameters work well for this construction because increasing
either the number of iterations to I = 6 or the number of
blocks to W = 5 (i.e, roughly 1.5 million systematic bits of
delay) provides roughly 0.01 dB of gain. Likewise, the results
show that decreasing number of iterations to I = 4 reduces
the NCG to 9.32 dB. These performance results are similar to
those of Scholten et al. (e.g., NCG of 9.35 dB with a delay
of roughly 1 million systematic bits) in [9]. Comparing with
[8], one finds that staircase codes achieve 9.41 dB NCG with
1.7 million systematic bits of delay.
VI. C ONCLUSION
An FEC scheme for OTNs is described based on TBBCs
with BCH component codes. Simulation results are presented
for the iterative HDD of a code in this family whose pa-
rameters are compatible with the ITU-T G.709 OTN framing
structure. The results show this code achieves an estimated
NCG of 9.36 dB at 10−15 BER with a delay of 1.15 million
bits. The performance of this scheme is competitive with the
best published results in this area [9], [8].
R EFERENCES
[1] A. J. Feltstrom, D. Truhachev, M. Lentmaier, and K. S. Zigangirov,
“Braided block codes,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 55, no. 6, pp.
2640–2658, 2009.
[2] Forward Error Correction for High Bit-Rate DWDM Submarine Sys-
tems, ITU-T Recommedation G.975.1, 2004.
[3] M. Lentmaier, A. Sridharan, D. J. Costello, and K. S. Zigangirov,
“Iterative decoding threshold analysis for LDPC convolutional codes,”
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 5274–5289, Oct. 2010.
[4] S. Kudekar, T. J. Richardson, and R. L. Urbanke, “Threshold saturation
via spatial coupling: Why convolutional LDPC ensembles perform so
well over the BEC,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 57, no. 2, pp.
803–834, 2011.
[5] Y.-Y. Jian, H. D. Pfister, and K. R. Narayanan, “Approaching capacity
at high rates with iterative hard-decision decoding,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Symp. Inform. Theory, 2012, pp. 2696–2700.
[6] J. Justesen, K. J. Larsen, and L. A. Pedersen, “Error correcting coding
for OTN,” IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 70–75, 2010.
[7] J. Justesen, “Performance of product codes and related structures with
iterated decoding,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 407–415,
2011.
[8] B. P. Smith, A. Farhood, A. Hunt, F. R. Kschischang, and J. Lodge,
“Staircase Codes: FEC for 100 Gb/s OTN,” J. Lightwave Technol.,
vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 110–117, 2012.
[9] M. Scholten, T. Coe, and J. Dillard, “Continuously-interleaved BCH
(CI-BCH) FEC delivers best in class NECG for 40G and 100G metro
applications,” in Proc. OFC/NFOEC, San Diego, CA, 2010, pp. 21–25.
[10] P. Elias, “Error free coding,” IRE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 4, no. 4,
pp. 29–37, Sept. 1954.
[11] N. Abramson, “Cascade decoding of cyclic product codes,” IEEE Trans.
Commun. Tech., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 398–402, 1968.
[12] J. Lodge, R. Young, P. Hoeher, and J. Hagenauer, “Separable MAP
“filters” for the decoding of product and concatenated codes,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., vol. 3, 1993, pp. 1740–1745.
[13] R. M. Pyndiah, “Near-optimum decoding of product codes: Block turbo
codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1003–1010, Aug.
1998.
[14] M. Lentmaier and K. S. Zigangirov, “On generalized low-density parity-
check codes based on Hamming component codes,” IEEE Commun.
Letters, vol. 3, pp. 248–250, Aug. 1999.
[15] J. Boutros, O. Pothier, and G. Zemor, “Generalized low density (Tanner)
codes,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., vol. 1, no. 9, June 1999, pp.
441–445.
[16] M. Lentmaier and G. P. Fettweis, “On the thresholds of generalized
LDPC convolutional codes based on protographs,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Symp. Inform. Theory, Austin, TX, 2010, pp. 709–713.
[17] J. Justesen and T. Hoholdt, “Analysis of iterated hard decision decoding
of product codes with Reed-Solomon component codes,” in Proc. IEEE
Inform. Theory Workshop, Sept. 2007, pp. 174–177.
[18] I. B. Djordjevic, O. Milenkovic, and B. Vasic, “Generalized low-density
parity-check codes for optical communication systems,” J. Lightwave
Technol., vol. 23, no. 5, p. 1939, 2005.
[19] Network node interface for the optical transport network (OTN), ITU-T
Recommedation G.709, 2004.
[20] C. Di, D. Proietti, E. Telatar, T. J. Richardson, and R. Urbanke, “Finite-
length analysis of low-density parity-check codes on the binary erasure
channel,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1570–1579,
June 2002.
[21] M. Schwartz, P. H. Siegel, and A. Vardy, “On the asymptotic perfor-
mance of iterative decoders for product codes,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.
Inform. Theory, 2005, pp. 1758–1762.

2381