Performance analysis of LT codes with different degree distribution

Zhu Zhiliang, Liu Sha, Zhang Jiawei, Zhao Yuli, Yu Hai

Software College, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China. College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China

Outline
Introduction Degree distribution of LT codes

Analysis of LT codes
Average degree Degree release probability Average overhead factor

Introduction
The encoding/decoding complexity and error

performance are governed by the degree distribution of LT code. Designing a good degree distribution of encoded symbols [7]
To improve the encoding/decoding complexity and error

performance
In this paper , we analysis
Ideal soliton distribution Robust soliton distribution Suboptimal degree distribution Scale-free Luby distribution

LT process
a1
a2 a3 a4 a5 STATE: covered = { } processed = { } ripple = { } released = { }

c1
c2 c3 c4 c5 c6

ACTION:
4

Init: Release c2, c4, c6

http://www.powercam.cc/slide/21817

LT process
a1
a2 a3 a4 a5 STATE: released = {c2,c4,c6} covered = {a1,a3,a5} processed = { } ripple = {a1,a3,a5}

c1
c2 c3 c4 c5 c6

ACTION:
5

Process a1

LT process
a1
a2 a3 a4 a5 STATE: released = {c2,c4,c6,c1} covered = {a1,a3,a5} processed = {a1} ripple = {a3,a5}

c1
c2 c3 c4 c5 c6

ACTION:
6

Process a3

LT process
a1
a2 a3 a4 a5 STATE: released = {c2,c4,c6,c1} covered = {a1,a3,a5} processed = {a1,a3} ripple = {a5}

c1
c2 c3 c4 c5 c6

ACTION:
7

Process a5

LT process
a1
a2 a3 a4 a5 STATE: released = {c2,c4,c6,c1,c5} covered = {a1,a3,a5,a4} processed = {a1,a3,a5} ripple = {a4}

c1
c2 c3 c4 c5 c6

ACTION:
8

Process a4

LT process
a1
a2 a3 a4 a5 STATE: released = {c2,c4,c6,c1,c5,c3} covered = {a1,a3,a5,a4,a2} processed = {a1,a3,a5,a4} ripple = {a2}

c1
c2 c3 c4 c5 c6

ACTION:
9

Process a2

LT process
a1
a2 a3 a4 a5 STATE: released = {c2,c4,c6,c1,c5,c3} covered = {a1,a3,a5,a4,a2} processed = {a1,a3,a5,a4,a2} ripple = { }

c1
c2 c3 c4 c5 c6

ACTION:
10

Success!

Ideal soliton distribution [6]

Works poor Due to the randomness in the encoding process,

Ripple would disappear at some point, and the

whole decoding process failed.

[6] M. Luby, LT codes, Proc. Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. (Vancouver, Canada), 2002, pp.

Robust soliton distribution [6]

Maximum failure probability of the decoder when encoded symbols are received

Degree distribution of Ideal Soliton Distribution

[6] M. Luby, LT codes, Proc. Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. (Vancouver, Canada), 2002, pp.

Suboptimal degree distribution

Optimal degree distribution is proposed[12]
[12] Zhu H P, Zhang G X, Xie Z D, "Suboptimal degree distribution of LT codes". Journal of Applied Sciences-Electronics and Information Engineering. Jan 2009, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 6-11.

When k is large, the coefficient matrix of optimal degree

distribution is too sick. No solution.

Suboptimal degree distribution:

R is initial ripple size E is the expected number of encoded symbols required to recovery the input

Scale-free Luby distribution [13]

Based on modified power-law distribution
Presenting that scale-free property have a higher chance to

be decoded correctly.
A large number of nodes with low degree A little number of nodes with high degree
P1 : the fraction of encoded symbols with degree-1 r : the characteristic exponent A : the normalizing coefficient to ensure
[13] Yuli Zhao, Francis C. M. Lau, "Scalefree Luby transform codes", International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 22,

Analysis of LT codes
The encoding/decoding efficiency is evaluated by the

average degree of encoded symbols.

Less average degree Fewer times of XOR operations

Encoded symbol should be released until the decoding

process finished
Degree release probability is very important

Less number of encoded symbols required to recovery

the input symbols means less cost of transmitting the original data information.
The overhead should be considered

Average degree Ideal soliton distribution

Can be calculated based on the summation formula of

harmonic progression

r : Euler's constant which is similar to 0.58 Average degree of ideal soliton degree distribution is

Average degree Robust soliton distribution

The complexity of its average degree is

Average degree Suboptimal degree distribution

The complexity of its average degree is

Average degree Scale-free Luby distribution

Based on the properties of Scale-free

The average degree of Scale-free Luby Distribution will

be small

(r-1) is the sum of a p-progression It is obvious that the average degree of SF-LT codes is

smaller

Degree release probability

[6]
[6] M. Luby, LT codes, Proc. Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. (Vancouver, Canada), 2002, pp. 271-282.
1 1 1 (+1) 2

In general, r(L) should be larger than 1 At least 1 encoded symbol is released when an input

symbol is processed.

Degree release probability Ideal soliton distribution [6]

Degree release probability Robust soliton distribution

Degree release probability Suboptimal degree distribution

Using limit theory, it can be expressed as

where Suppose E encoded symbols is sufficient to recovery the k original input symbols. At each decoding step, larger than 1 encoded symbol is

Degree release probability Scale-free Luby distribution

Initial ripple size must be bigger than Robust Soliton

Distributions kP1 is bigger than 1 The complexity is

Degree release probability

Suboptimal degree distribution's degree release

probability is bigger than the others

Average overhead factor

A decreasing ripple size provides a better trade-off

between robustness and the overhead factor [14]

[14] Sorensen J. H., Popovski. P., Ostergaard J., "On LT codes with decreasing ripple size", Arxiv preprint PScache/1011.2078v1.

The theoretical evolution of the ripple size :

Assuming that at each decoding iteration, the input symbols

can be added in to the ripple set without repetition

: the number of degree-i input symbols left L : the size of unprocessed input symbols

Average overhead factor

Conclusion
Robust LT codes, suboptimal LT code and SF-LT code

are capable to recovery the input symbols efficiently. From the overhead factor, SF-LT codes and suboptimal LT codes need much less number of encoded symbols to recovery given number of input symbols. The average degree of SF-LT code is smaller than the others. SF-LT code performs much better probability of successful decoding and enhanced encoding/decoding complexity