Spatially Coupled Codes Optimized for Magnetic Recording Applications

Spatially coupled (SC) codes are a class of sparse graph-based codes known to have capacity-approaching performance. SC codes are constructed based on an underlying low-density parity-check (LDPC) code, by first partitioning the underlying block code and then putting replicas of the components together. Significant recent research efforts have been devoted to the asymptotic, ensemble-averaged study of SC codes, as these coupled variants of the existing LDPC codes offer excellent properties. While the asymptotic analysis is important, due to simplifying assumptions and averaging effects, results from the asymptotic domain are not readily translatable to the practical, finite-length setting. Despite this chasm, the finite-length analysis of SC codes is still largely unexplored. In this paper, we tackle the problem of optimized design of SC codes in the context of magnetic-recording (MR) applications. In particular, we identify combinatorial structures in the graphical representation of the code that are detrimental in the MR setting. An intriguing observation is that for the same SC code, the problematic objects for the MR channels are combinatorially different from the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) setting, thus necessitating a careful code design approach for the MR applications. We first demonstrate that the choice of the so-called cutting vector, which guides the code partitioning in the SC code design, directly affects the cardinality of these problematic objects. In particular, we show that the number of problematic objects is the highest—and consequently that the performance is the worst—in the case of the degenerate cutting vector, which precisely corresponds to uncoupled LDPC block codes. We, therefore, show that coupling always improves the performance and that the degree of improvement is dependent on the choice of the cutting vector. We then extend our analysis to different column weights and present SC codes that outperform block codes with unoptimized edge weights by more than 3.5 orders of magnitude and that also outperform both optimized block codes and unoptimized SC codes by more than two orders of magnitude. Through presented examples, we demonstrate high performance of the proposed code design methodology.

[1]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  Absorbing set characterization of array-based spatially coupled LDPC codes , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory.

[2]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  Analysis of Absorbing Sets and Fully Absorbing Sets of Array-Based LDPC Codes , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[3]  Paul H. Siegel,et al.  Windowed Decoding of Spatially Coupled Codes , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[4]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  Non-Binary Protograph-Based LDPC Codes: Enumerators, Analysis, and Designs , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[5]  Alexandre Graell i Amat,et al.  Threshold Saturation for Nonbinary SC-LDPC Codes on the Binary Erasure Channel , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[6]  Xiao Ma,et al.  Performance comparison of non-binary LDPC block and spatially coupled codes , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory.

[7]  Kenta Kasai,et al.  Spatially coupled codes over the multiple access channel , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings.

[8]  Jaekyun Moon,et al.  Pattern-dependent noise prediction in signal-dependent noise , 2001, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[9]  Pablo M. Olmos,et al.  A Scaling Law to Predict the Finite-Length Performance of Spatially-Coupled LDPC Codes , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[10]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  The Cycle Consistency Matrix Approach to Absorbing Sets in Separable Circulant-Based LDPC Codes , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[11]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  Non-Binary LDPC Codes for Magnetic Recording Channels: Error Floor Analysis and Optimized Code Design , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Communications.

[12]  John Cocke,et al.  Optimal decoding of linear codes for minimizing symbol error rate (Corresp.) , 1974, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[13]  William E. Ryan,et al.  Low-Floor Detection/Decoding of LDPC-Coded Partial Response Channels , 2010, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[14]  Pablo M. Olmos,et al.  Improving the finite-length performance of long SC-LDPC code chains by connecting consecutive chains , 2014, 2014 8th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Iterative Information Processing (ISTC).

[15]  Michael Lentmaier,et al.  Iterative Decoding Threshold Analysis for LDPC Convolutional Codes , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[16]  Lin Wang,et al.  Design of Protograph LDPC Codes for Partial Response Channels , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Communications.

[17]  Ali Emre Pusane,et al.  Deriving Good LDPC Convolutional Codes from LDPC Block Codes , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[18]  Amir H. Banihashemi,et al.  An efficient algorithm for finding dominant trapping sets of LDPC codes , 2011, 2010 6th International Symposium on Turbo Codes & Iterative Information Processing.

[19]  Sarah J. Johnson,et al.  Spatially Coupled Repeat-Accumulate Codes , 2013, IEEE Communications Letters.

[20]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  Absorbing set spectrum approach for practical code design , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings.

[21]  Gerhard Fettweis,et al.  Comparison of LDPC block and LDPC convolutional codes based on their decoding latency , 2012, 2012 7th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Iterative Information Processing (ISTC).

[22]  Marc P. C. Fossorier,et al.  Quasi-Cyclic Low-Density Parity-Check Codes From Circulant Permutation Matrices , 2004, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[23]  Daniel J. Costello,et al.  LDPC block and convolutional codes based on circulant matrices , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[24]  Johannes B. Huber,et al.  LDPC codes and convolutional codes with equal structural delay: a comparison , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Communications.

[25]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  A General Non-Binary LDPC Code Optimization Framework Suitable for Dense Flash Memory and Magnetic Storage , 2016, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[26]  Kenta Kasai,et al.  Threshold saturation on channels with memory via spatial coupling , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings.

[27]  David Declercq,et al.  Decoding Algorithms for Nonbinary LDPC Codes Over GF$(q)$ , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Communications.

[28]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  Optimized array-based spatially-coupled LDPC Codes: An absorbing set approach , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT).

[29]  Thomas J. Richardson,et al.  Error Floors of LDPC Codes , 2003 .

[30]  Rudiger Urbanke,et al.  Threshold saturation via spatial coupling: Why convolutional LDPC ensembles perform so well over the BEC , 2010, ISIT.

[31]  E.F. Haratsch,et al.  Quasi-Cyclic LDPC Codes for the Magnetic Recording Channel: Code Design and VLSI Implementation , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.

[32]  Toshiaki Koike-Akino,et al.  Threshold analysis of non-binary spatially-coupled LDPC codes with windowed decoding , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory.

[33]  Kamil Sh. Zigangirov,et al.  Time-varying periodic convolutional codes with low-density parity-check matrix , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[34]  Daniel J. Costello,et al.  Coding with a latency constraint: The benefits of sequential decoding , 2010, 2010 48th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).

[35]  Lara Dolecek,et al.  Analysis and Enumeration of Absorbing Sets for Non-Binary Graph-Based Codes , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Communications.