1. Advanced Coding Comparison
Month 2000
doc.: IEEE /xxx
Advanced Coding Comparison
March 2005
Date:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom
John Doe, His Company

2. Outline Coding proposals in TGn Advanced FEC Code Requirements for TGn
Month 2000
doc.: IEEE /xxx
March 2005
Outline
Coding proposals in TGn
Advanced FEC Code Requirements for TGn
Comparing Codes
Complexity
Performance
Facts & Recommendations
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom
John Doe, His Company

3. Coding Proposals in TGn (Historical)
Month 2000
doc.: IEEE /xxx
March 2005
Coding Proposals in TGn (Historical)
Partial (13):
Nokia LDPC
Infocomm Research LDPC
ST Micro LDPC
Nortel LDPC
Panasonic LDPC
Hughes LDPC
Inprocomm LDPC
Sharp 7/8 CC
Philips Concatenated RS
Trellisware Hybrid LDPC/TurboCode
France Telecom Turbo Code
Motorola Turbo Code
Wwise Turbo Code
Full:
TGnSync LDPC Optional
Wwise LDPC Optional
MitMot Turbo Code Optional
Qualcomm None
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom
John Doe, His Company

4. Advanced FEC Code Requirements
Month 2000
doc.: IEEE /xxx
March 2005
Advanced FEC Code Requirements
Performance
Much better than a CC
Must have good performance for all possible blocksizes (small and large)
Small blocksize example: VoIP packets (as small as 50 bytes)
Large blocksize example: Streaming HD-Video
Latency
Low, < 6 us
Good performance with a small number of iterations
Implementation
Low Cost – small die size (memory and logic)
Mature, – Chipsets require fast time to market
Should not be held up due to a FEC without a well-defined implementation
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom
John Doe, His Company

5. Complexity Comparison
Month 2000
doc.: IEEE /xxx
March 2005
Complexity Comparison
Chip Area
Number of Gates
Technology used (ex. ASIC 0.13 mm, average density of 222 kgates/mm2)
Degree of Parallelism (relates also to max decoded bit-rate)
Latency < 6 ms
Number of Iterations
Degree of Parallelism
Clock Frequency used (typical Fclk=200 MHz)
Example Comparison Chart
*Estimates from [4] +Estimates from [1]
Code
Max Encoded
Block Size
FclkMHz P
Nit
Total Memory
Decoded Rate(Max)
Max Latency
Area (.13 mm)
Wwise LDPC+
1944 bits
240 ? 12
300 Mbps
6.0 ms
Sync LDPC
1728 bits
Turbo Code* duo-binary
2048 bits
200 8 5
59 kbits
320 Mbps
4.8 ms
1.4 mm2
68 kbits
480 Mbps
3.2 ms
2.0 mm2
200 Mbps
5.12 ms
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom
John Doe, His Company

6. Performance Comparison
Month 2000
doc.: IEEE /xxx
March 2005
Performance Comparison
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom
John Doe, His Company

7. ST-Micro (Wwise)* LDPCC
Month 2000
doc.: IEEE /xxx
March 2005
ST-Micro (Wwise)* LDPCC
SISO AWGN
BPSK+
N=1744 bits
Wwise LDPCC
-972 bits (121.5 bytes)
12i => 600kGates, 6 us
Duo-Binary TC
-976 bits (122 bytes)
8i, P=12 => 2.0 mm2, 5.12 us
TGnSync LDPCC
-Equivalent not found
*Wwise Results from Berlin presentation [1]
+BPSK, R=1/2 proposed as optional mode in Wwise
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom
John Doe, His Company

8. Wwise LDPCC* 2x2 SDM, AWGN 64-QAM, R=3/4 Gains over CC @ 10-2 PER
March 2005
Wwise LDPCC*
2x2 SDM, AWGN
64-QAM, R=3/4
Gains over 10-2 PER
LDPCC: ~2.4 dB
(12 iterations)
TC : ~3.2 dB
(8 iterations)
TC LDPCC CC
*Wwise Results taken from [2]
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom

9. LDPCC from .16e* SISO, AWGN, QPSK, R=1/2 TC Gains over LDPCC@ 10-2 PER
March 2005
LDPCC from .16e*
SISO, AWGN, QPSK, R=1/2
LDPCC - 50 iterations (unrealistic)
TC - 8 iterations (realistic)
TC Gains over 10-2 PER
N=2304: 0.2 dB
N=576 : 0.3 dB
(increase with smaller block size)
TC LDPCC
TC LDPCC
*LDPCC here [3] is slightly different from what is used in TGnSync
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom

10. Facts & Recommendations
Month 2000
doc.: IEEE /xxx
Facts & Recommendations
March 2005
Modularity
Performance of the FEC code is independant of system
Codes proposed can be easily put into WWise and TGnSync
Difficult to compare
From FRCC, code performance seen only in context of full system
Current two proposed specfications differ
Wwise nor TGnSych provided simulation results for their code with other proposal
Codes compared in performance should be of similar complexity
Very little precise complexity results have been seen to this date
Mature code
Enables pre and 1st production devices to ship with advanced coding options.
Action Item?
Re-thinking (creating) an advanced coding selection process will decrease the chances of selecting an advanced coding scheme that is not in the best interest of TGn
Suggestion: Investigate coding options in a separate coding sub-group
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom
John Doe, His Company

11. March 2005
References
[1] IEEE /400r4, " ST Microelectronics LDPCC Partial Proposal for n CFP”, ST Micro, September 2004.
[2] IEEE / n, “WWiSE proposal response to functional requirements and comparison criteria.”
[3] IEEE e-0/006,  " LDPC Coding for OFDMA PHY", January 2005.
[4] IEEE /1382r1, "Turbo Codes: Complexity Estimates", TurboConcept France Telecom R&D, November 2004.
[5]
[6] C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, P. Thitimajshima, "Near Shannon limit error-correcting coding and decoding: Turbo Codes", ICC93, vol. 2, pp , May 93.
[7] C. Berrou, "The ten-year-old turbo codes are entering into service", IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 41, pp , August 03.
[8] C. Berrou, M. Jezequel, C. Douillard, S. Kerouedan, "The advantages of non-binary turbo codes", Proc IEEE ITW 2001, pp , Sept. 01.
John Benko, Marie-Helene Hamon, France Telecom