1: \section{Introduction}

2: 

3: 

4: 

5: Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) codes receive much attention

6: recently. The advantages of the codes include capacity-approaching

7: performance for many important channels, and highly efficient

8: parallel decoding algorithms.

9: 

10: The {\it protograph based} LDPC codes are a class of LDPC codes

11: constructed by random $N$-lifts of small Tanner graphs

12: \cite{thorpe}. A major advantage of protograph based LDPC codes is

13: that decoding can be efficiently implemented by a semi-parallel

14: hardware structure \cite{lee04}. Several protograph based LDPC code

15: ensembles with low error probabilities are also previously reported,

16: for example, \cite{divsalar05a}, \cite{divsalar05b},

17: \cite{divsalar05c}.

18: 

19: 

20: In this paper, we propose a new LDPC code construction scheme based

21: on a series of random $2$-lifts. The proposed code ensembles are

22: subsets of protograph based code ensembles by $2^n$-lifts, where $n$

23: is a positive integer. As with the protograph based codes, decoding

24: of the proposed codes can be efficiently implemented by the same

25: semi-parallel hardware structure. In addition, the description

26: complexity of the proposed codes is lower than that for conventional

27: protograph based codes.

28: 

29: 

30: It is well known that LDPC codes may exhibit error floors. The error

31: floors are caused by small subgraphs with certain structures in the

32: corresponding Tanner graphs \cite{richardson03}, \cite{mackay03},

33: \cite{di02}, \cite{forney01}. One of the above subgraph structures

34: is the so called {\it stopping set}.

35: 

36: 

37: In order to understand and predict the performance of LDPC codes,

38: previous research has proposed several approaches on approximately

39: calculating stopping set distributions and codeword distributions

40: \cite{burshtein}, \cite{fogal}. These previous approaches determine

41: the exact values of limiting exponents by large deviation

42: principles; in here, exponents are defined as the logarithms of the

43: numbers of codewords or stopping sets with certain relative

44: distances, normalized by the blocklengths.

45: 

46: For properly designed LDPC codes, the limiting exponents with

47: respect to blocklengths are typically negative for low relative

48: distances and zero for vanishing relative distances. In other words,

49: low-weight stopping sets are typically stopping sets with vanishing

50: relative distances; the number of these low-weight stopping sets

51: scales sub-exponentially with respect to blocklength. These

52: potentially existing low-weight stopping sets result in high error

53: floors. It is desirable that these low-weight stopping sets are

54: avoided.

55: 

56: 

57: 

58: 

59: \comment{ However, for LDPC codes with bounded degrees, the

60: exponents of stopping set distributions and codeword distributions

61: with vanishing relative distances are typically zero. In other

62: words, the numbers of stopping sets with low weights grow

63: sub-exponentially with respect to codeword lengths. Knowing

64: exponents along is not sufficient to determine the error probability

65: performance because the sub-exponentially scaling numbers of

66: low-weight stopping sets could have large impacts on the overall

67: error probability performance. Therefore, it is crucial to know the

68: order of the sub-exponential scaling law, with which the numbers of

69: low-weight stopping sets grow. However, to our best knowledge, there

70: is no existing method to address this problem.}

71: 

72: 

73: 

74: 

75: 

76: In this paper, we present an analysis of low-weight stopping set

77: distributions of the proposed codes in terms of graph expansion

78: properties. We show that low-weight stopping sets can be largely

79: avoided if the protograph satisfies certain graph expansion

80: properties. Based on this analysis, we propose design criteria for

81: the proposed $2$-lift based codes to have low error floors. Several

82: numerical examples of code design using the design criteria are

83: presented. The numerical results confirm our theoretical analysis.

84: 

85: 

86: 

87: 

88: 

89: 

90:  The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec_pre},

91:  we introduce notations and backgrounds. The proposed code construction scheme

92:  is shown in Section~\ref{sec_lift}. In Section \ref{sec_weight}, we present the

93: analysis on low-weight stopping set distributions. Remarks and

94: discussions are presented in Section \ref{sec_discussion}. Based on

95: the above discussions, a set of design criteria is presented. The

96: proof is shown in Section \ref{sec_proof}. We present numerical

97: results in Section \ref{sec_numerical}. Conclusions are given in

98: Section \ref{sec_conclusion}.

99: 

100: 

101: 

102: 

103: 

104: 

105: 

106: 

107: 

108: 

109: 

110: 

111: 

112: 

113: 

114: 

115: 

116: 

117: 

118: 

119: 

120: 

121: 

122: 

123: 

124: 

125: 

126: 

127: 

128: 

129: 

130: 

131: %

132: