Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Unequal Error Protection Using Maximum A-Posteriori Probability (MAP) Algorithm, Soft Output Viterbi (SOVA) Algorithm and Modified SOVA

T.Gnanasekaran, R.Raja Ganapathi, S.Uma maheswari, K.Duraiswamy and A.P.Kapilan

BannariAmman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam, TamilNadu, India

Abstract

Turbo decoder uses any one of the decoding

algorithm of Maximum a-posteriori Probability

algorithm (MAP) or Soft Output Viterbi Algorithm

(SOVA).The traditional turbo code system use Equal

Error Protection (EEP).In many applications all the

information don’t need equal importance. So we need

a new method Unequal Error Protection (UEP). By

doing so the important message is more protected

than the other message bits. In this paper BER

performance of UEP in fading channel is analyzed.

BER performance substantially improved for the

important class messages in UEP. In MAP the

important class of message gained 0.4 dB over EEP.

In SOVA and modified SOVA the important class of

message gained 0.6 dB and 0.8 dB over EEP

respectively. Modified SOVA produces a gain of 0.4

dB compared to MAP.

  • 1. Introduction UEP

Turbo

Code

[1]

[2]

is

development

of

traditional Turbo code in practical application. Each

frame of the source signal can be divided into

important and not important information. Better code

scheme can get lower Bit Error Rate (BER) while

decoding to the important information part, and can

get relatively higher BER to the non important

information part.

  • 2. Equal Error Protection Turbo Codes Turbo Code is an outstanding channel code

scheme, proposed by Frenchmen Berrou originally in

1993[3] [4]. In Figure 1 represent a generic Turbo

Encoder with Equal Error Protection. The first block

of data will be encoded by the RSC ENCODER1 (D1)

block. The same block of information bits is

interleaved by the interleaver (INT) [6], and encoded

by RSC ENCODER2 (D2). The code word in framed

by concatenating X K , Y 1K , Y 2K. The main purpose of the

INT is to increase the minimum distance of the turbo

code such that after correction in one dimension the

remaining errors should become correctable error

patterns in the second dimension. This is rate 1/3

turbo code, the output of the turbo encoder being the

triplet (X K , Y 1K , and Y 2K ). This triplet is than modulated

for transmission across the communication channels.

Since the code is systematic,

d K

is

the

input

data at

time k.

Y

1K

and

Y

2K

are the two parity bits at time k.

The output of the encoder C is as shown below:

Each

C

X

K

,

Y

1

K

,

X

K

,

Y

2

K

,

X

K

,

Y

1

K

,

decoder

takes

three

inputs:

1)

The

systematically encoded channel output bits C; 2) the

parity bits transmitted from the associated component

encoder; and 3) the information from the associated

component decoder about the likely values of the bits

Compounding Device Data in d k X K C n Y 1k D1 INT D2 Y
Compounding Device
Data in d k
X
K
C
n
Y
1k
D1
INT
D2
Y
2k

Figure 1 Block diagram of Turbo Encoder

concerned. This information from the other

component decoder is referred to as a-priori

information. The decoding algorithms used are SOVA

proposed by Hagenauer and Hoeher [7], modified

SOVA and the MAP algorithm of Bahl [8]. In

modified SOVA [9], the extrinsic information is

multiplied by the scaling factor which is the empirical

value; which enrich the extrinsic information to the

decoder (DEC1).The soft outputs from the component

decoders are typically represented in terms of the so-

called Log-Likelihood Ratios (LLRs), the magnitude

of which gives the sign of the bit, and the amplitude

the probability of a correct decision. The LLRs are

simply, as their name implies the logarithm of the ratio of two probabilities. For example, the
simply, as their name implies the logarithm
of the
ratio of two probabilities.
For
example,
the
LLR
L u
(
) for the value of decoded bit u
is given by
k
k
P u
(
 
1) 
DEC 1
k
L u
(
)
ln
k
P u
(
 
1)
k
DEC 2
De-INT
X
K
Random
INT
Hard
Decision
De-INT
Y
1k
Random
INT
Y
2k
Demux

Output

Figure 2 The decoder of the Turbo Codes

 

(

Where P u

k

 

1)

is

the

probability

that

the

bit

u

k

(

  1 , and similarly for P u

k

 

1) . Notice that

the two possible values of the bit

u

k

are taken to be +1

and -1, rather than 1 and 0. The decoder operates

iteratively. The error decrease as the number of

iterations increases. When the iteration is finished, the

soft outputs of second decoder are deinterleaved and a

hard decision is made to obtain message bits C. DEC 1 DEC 2 De-INT X SF
hard decision is made to obtain message bits C.
DEC 1
DEC 2
De-INT
X
SF
K
Random
INT
Hard
Decision
Y
De-INT
1k
Random
Figure 3 The decoder of the Turbo Codes with
INT
scaling factor
Y
2k
3. Unequal Error Protection Turbo Code
Output
Demux

The UEP Turbo Codes carry on extra protection to

the important part in information source. The UEP is

implemented by designing a new puncturing matrix

scheme to existing turbo code. Unequal Error

Protection is made up of two same RSC component

encoders and one pseudo-random interleaver. For

being convenient, we can regard a trellis termination

Turbo Codes as a section of systematic block codes [5].

As figure 4 shows, the input arrays turn into parity

bits of Y 1k and Y 2K through two RSC component

encoders and interleavers. We can raise the rate by

puncturing redundant vectors. Vector y (Y 1k and Y 2K )

can be expressed with binary vector Pi. Binary bits 0

and 1 in the vector show puncturing and un-

puncturing in this location of information respectively.

Let w(p) denote Hamming weight then the rate of the

resulting punctured Turbo Codes with trellis

termination is,

R

k

t

k

w

(

p

1

)

w

(

p

2

)

Where t is the number of input symbols necessary for

trellis termination. The parity bits y 1k ,y 2k are through

puncturing matrix y 1k ,y 2k and information bits x k are

formatted as the following form:

 

C

n

X

1

 

Y

1

 

X

 

,

K

1

,

2

,

C

i

,

i

[1,

C

max

]

criterion.

k

i

,

i

[1,

of each Ci class.

C

max

]

Codes

system

 

(EEP)

 

is

 

unequal error

Random

INT

protection

corresponsive.

 

Y

2

K

1

,

X

3

,

Y

1

K

3

,

L

Unequal Error Protection is generated by assuming

the information m=d k of size k are partitioned into

classes, according to importance

Shows the set of the length

The rate in the un-punctured Turbo

Suppose C max =3, the

codes

increase

the

1/3.

turbo

redundant information in C1 and C2 classes. In order

to balance the rate of total turbo codes, it is necessary

to reduce the redundant information of C3

X Data i K D1 P1 X k Y 1k C P2 Random INT D2 P2’
X
Data i
K
D1
P1
X
k
Y
1k
C
P2
Random
INT
D2
P2’
Y
2K

Figure 4 Block diagram of unequal error

protection Turbo encoder

Two puncturing matrix are designed separately (P1,

P2). Parity bits y 1k and y 2k pass one’s own unequal

puncturing matrix P1 and P2, and then are sent to the

compounding device respectively. The binary bit 1 in

the puncturing matrix means keeping the

corresponding bit, while the binary bit 0 means

deleting the corresponding bit. Because the

information passes the interleaver, and is encoded by

the RSC component encoder2, it is necessary to

interleave P2, before puncturing Y 2K . So, the operation

principles of the unequal error protection turbo codes

encoder are as follows: According the structure of

frame to design the puncturing matrix. Firstly: we

must accord the importance of each part of

information and equation (3) to confirm the partial

rate of C i class and Hamming weight of puncturing

matrix P1, P2. Then, we need to design the structure

of puncturing matrix P1 and P2, to confirm the

protection situation of the information bits to be

encoded. The information to be encoded passes two

component encoders and two puncturing matrix, and

then get the parity bits Y 1k , Y 2K . X k , Y 1k and Y 2K are

input to the channel through compounding device.

4. Experiments and Results

In our experiment the generator matrix of Turbo

Codes is (7, 5), the size of the frame to be encoded is

182. We apply EEP and UEP to the information. The

frame is divided into 3 classes according to the

importance. And let k1=28 k2=28 and k3=126. The

Table 1 provides the contrast of EEP and UEP. Turbo

codes and redundancy weight of each class.

TABLE I THE CONTRAST BETWEEN EEP AND UEP

Classes

1

2

3

Symbols

28

28

126

Code rate

EEP

1/2

1/2

1/2

UEP

1/3

1/3

0.64285

Redundancy

EEP

28

28

126

weight

UEP

56

56

70

The partial rate of C1 and C2 in UEP are both 1/3.

The partial rate of C3 is 0.64285. Without loss of

generality, suppose the distribution of important bits in

the information has the following forms:

C

 

1

C

1

2

C

29

3

C

57

.......

.......

.......

1

C

28

2

C

56

3

C

182

(5)

As

we can

see class

1

and

class 2 have kept all

parity information of two component encoders. The

information bits in class 3 have been punctured

according to the Hamming weight of redundancy

vector. Figure 5 shows the simulated result for the

MAP algorithm in AWGN channel. It shows the

simulated BER against Eb/No (dB) for the EEP, and

for UEP turbo codes described above on the AWGN

channel. Class 1 and class 2 messages have lower

BER than EEP. The UEP Turbo Codes achieves a

coding gain over the EEP codes of about 0.6 dB for

class 1 (C1) and class 2 (C2) messages. Figure 6 and 7

shows the simulated result for the SOVA algorithm

modified SOVA in AWGN channel. The UEP Turbo

Codes achieves a coding gain over the EEP codes of

about 0.4dB and 0.6dB for class 1 (C1) and class 2

(C2) messages for SOVA and modified SOVA

respectively.

Figure 8 shows the simulated result for the MAP

algorithm in Rayleigh fading channel. The UEP Turbo

Codes achieves a coding gain over the EEP codes of

about 0.4 dB for class 1 (C1) and class 2 (C2)

messages. Figure 9 and 10 shows the simulated result

for the SOVA and modified SOVA algorithm in

Rayleigh fading channel. The UEP Turbo Codes

achieves a coding gain over the EEP codes of about

0.6dB and 0.8 dB for class 1 (C1) and class 2 (C2)

messages for SOVA and modified SOVA respectively.

4. Experiments and Results In our experiment the generator matrix of Turbo Codes is (7, 5),

Figure 5 Unequal Error Protection using MAP

in AWGN channel

4. Experiments and Results In our experiment the generator matrix of Turbo Codes is (7, 5),

Figure 6 Unequal Error Protection using

SOVA in AWGN channel

4. Experiments and Results In our experiment the generator matrix of Turbo Codes is (7, 5),

Figure 7 Unequal Error Protection using

Modified SOVA in AWGN channel

Figure 8 Unequal Error Protection using MAP in Rayleigh fading channel Figure 9 Unequal Error Protection

Figure 8 Unequal Error Protection using MAP

in Rayleigh fading channel

Figure 8 Unequal Error Protection using MAP in Rayleigh fading channel Figure 9 Unequal Error Protection

Figure 9 Unequal Error Protection using

SOVA in Rayleigh fading channel

Figure 8 Unequal Error Protection using MAP in Rayleigh fading channel Figure 9 Unequal Error Protection

Figure 10 Unequal Error Protection using

Modified SOVA in Rayleigh fading channel

  • 5. Conclusion In this paper we proposed a new Unequal Error

Protection Turbo Codes using modified SOVA. The

experimental results have proved that it not increasing

the system complexity. In AWGN channel, the UEP

Turbo Codes using MAP achieves 0.6 dB coding gain

for class 1 (C1) and class 2 (C2). Where SOVA and

modified SOVA achieve coding gain of 0.4 dB and 0.6

dB over EEP respectively. In Rayleigh fading channel,

the UEP Turbo Codes using MAP achieves 0.4 dB

coding gain for class 1 (C1) and class 2 (C2). Where

SOVA and modified SOVA achieve coding gain of 0.6

dB and 0.8dB over EEP respectively. Modified SOVA

and MAP having same performance in AWGN

channel but modified SOVA have better performance

than MAP in Rayleigh fading channel. Since SOVA

has 1/3 times lesser complexity than MAP, modified

SOVA is better decoding algorithm for both the

AWGN and Rayleigh fading channel. Hence we

recommend modified SOVA for fading and AWGN

channels.

  • 6. References

[1] Zude Zhou; Chao Xu, “An improved Unequal error protection turbo Codes” Communications, Technical Program Conference Record,IEEE International Conference on, vol. VOL NO?, pp. 284-287, 2005. [2] Neri, M.; Vanelli-Coralli, A.; Corazza, G.E., “Unequal error Protection:a turbo multi level coding approach,” Global Telecommunications Conference, 2003.

GLOBECOM ’03. IEEE, vol. 1, pp. 102-106, 1-5 Dec. 2003 [3] Berrou, C.; Glavieux, A.; Thitimajshima, P., “Near Shannon limit error-correcting coding and decoding: Turbo- codes. 1” in Proc.Int. Conf. Communications, 1993. ICC 93. Geneva. TechnicalProgram,Conference Record, IEEE International Conference on, vol. 2, pp. 1064-1070, 23-26 May. 1993 [4] Zhang zongcheng, “The application and principle of Error correction codes,” Beijing, China: publishing house of electronics Industry pp. 246-249, 2003

[5] Blackert, W.J.; Hall, E.K.; Wilson, S.G., “Turbo code termination and interleaver conditions,” Electronics Letters, vol. 31, Issue 24, pp. 2082-2084, 23 Nov. 1995 [6] Caire, G.; Lechner, G., “Turbo codes with unequal error protection,” Electronics Letters, vol 32, Issue 7, pp. 629- 631, 28 March 1996 [7] J.Hagenauer, E.Offer, and L.Papke,”Viterbi algorithm with soft-decision outputs and its applications,” IEEE GLOBECOM, pp. 1680-1686, 1989 [8] L.R Bahl, J.Cocke, F.Jelinek, and J.Raviv, “Optimal decoding of linear codes for minimizing symbol error rate”, IEEE Trans. Inform.Theory, vol. VOL NO?, pp. 284-287 Mar. 1974 [9] Coastas chaikalis, James M.Noras and Felip Riera-Palou “Improving the reconfigurable SOVA /log MAP Turbo coder for 3GPP” university of Bradford, Department of Electronics and Telecommunication,Bradford, West Yorkshire,

BD7,1DP,UK,2005.