HAL Id: hal-02974064
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02974064
Submitted on 21 Oct 2020
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Enhanced Turbo Codes for NR: Performance Evaluation
Charbel Abdel Nour
To cite this version:
Charbel Abdel Nour. Enhanced Turbo Codes for NR: Performance Evaluation: R1-167414. [Technical Report] 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #86. 2016. �hal-02974064�
1
3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #86 R1-167414
Gothenburg, Sweden, 22 - 26 August 2016 Agenda item: 8.1.4.1
Source: Orange and Institut Mines-Telecom
Title: Enhanced Turbo Codes for NR: Performance Evaluation Document for: Discussion
1 Introduction
This document describes the error rate performance of the enhanced Turbo Coding scheme proposed in R1-164635 at RAN1#85 meeting and detailed in R1-167413.
The simulation conditions of the decoding process are the following:
– Max-Log-MAP decoding [1-2] of codes C1 and C2 with application of scaling factors to extrinsics: 0.6 for the first decoding iteration, 1.0 for the last decoding iteration, 0.7 for the other iterations;
– Floating-point representation of the LLR (Log-Likelihood Ratio) values;
– 8 decoding iterations (1 iteration = decoding of code C1 + decoding of code C2);
– AWGN transmission channel;
– QPSK or 64-QAM modulation, depending on the figure;
– The lowest points in the curves were obtained with at least 50 erroneous blocks.
2 Performance results in Gaussian channel: optimized Turbo Code for K = 6000
The performance results presented in section 2 were obtained using the puncturing patterns and the interleaving parameters described in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of document R1-167413.
2 2.1 QPSK modulation
Figure 1: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel in terms of BLock Error Rate vs Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 6000 bits (K = 6016 bits for LTE TC), 8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
Enhanced TC, R=1/5 LTE TC, R=1/3 Enhanced TC, R=1/3 LTE TC, R=2/5 Enhanced TC, R=2/5 LTE TC, R=1/2 Enhanced TC, R=1/2 LTE TC, R=2/3 Enhanced TC, R=2/3 LTE TC, R=3/4 Enhanced TC, R=3/4 LTE TC, R=5/6 Enhanced TC, R=5/6 LTE TC, R=8/9 Enhanced TC, R=8/9
3 2.2 64-QAM modulation
Figure 2: Performance evaluation of the improved turbo code in AWGN channel in terms of BLock Error Rate vs Eb/N0.
64QAM modulation, block size K = 6000 bits,
8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
R=1/5 R=1/3 R=2/5 R=1/2 R=2/3 R=3/4 R=5/6 R=8/9
4
2.3 Effect of tail-biting termination on the performance
The following diagram shows the effect of tail-biting termination of the component code trellises on the performance of the enhanced Turbo Code for two coding rates R = 1/3 and R = 8/9.
Tail-biting termination improves the error floor performance at low coding rates.
Figure 3: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code (when using tail bits or tail- biting termination) with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 1/3 and 8/9 in
terms of BLock Error Rate vs Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 6000 bits (K = 6016 bits for LTE TC), 8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, Tail bits Enhanced TC, Tail-biting
R=1/3 R=8/9
5
3 Performance results in Gaussian channel: optimized Turbo Code for K = 8000
The performance results presented in section 3 were obtained using the puncturing patterns and the interleaving parameters described in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.3 of document R1-167413.
3.1 QPSK Modulation
Figure 4: Performance evaluation of the improved turbo code in AWGN channel in terms of BLock Error Rate vs Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 8000 bits (K = 8004 bits for R = 3/4), 8 decoding iterations of the Max-log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
R=1/5 R=1/3 R=2/5 R=1/2 R=2/3 R=3/4 R=5/6 R=8/9
6 3.2 64-QAM modulation
Figure 5: Performance evaluation of the improved turbo code in AWGN channel in terms of BLock Error Rate vs Eb/N0.
64QAM modulation, block size K = 8000 bits (K = 8004 bits for R = 3/4), 8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
R=1/3 R=2/5 R=1/2 R=2/3 R=3/4 R=5/6
7
4 Performance results in Gaussian channel: rate-compatible Turbo Code for K = 96
The performance results presented in this section were obtained using the puncturing patterns and the interleaving parameters described in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.3 of document R1-167413.
The simulations were run in AWGN channel using a QPSK modulation.
Figure 6: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 1/5, 2/5, 8/15, and 4/5 in terms of BLock Error Rate vs
Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 96 bits,
8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, R=1/5 Enhanced TC, R=2/5 Enhanced TC, R=8/15 Enhanced TC, R=4/5
8
Figure 7: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 1/3, 8/19, 4/7, and 8/9 in terms of BLock Error Rate vs
Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 96 bits,
8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, R=1/3 Enhanced TC, R=8/19 Enhanced TC, R=4/7 Enhanced TC, R=8/9
9
Figure 8: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 8/23, 4/9, and 8/13 in terms of BLock Error Rate vs Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 96 bits,
8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, R=8/23 Enhanced TC, R=4/9 Enhanced TC, R=8/13
10
Figure 9: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 4/11, 8/17, and 2/3 in terms of BLock Error Rate vs Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 96 bits,
8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, R=4/11 Enhanced TC, R=8/17 Enhanced TC, R=2/3
11
Figure 10: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 8/21, 1/2, and 8/11 in terms of BLock Error Rate vs Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 96 bits,
8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
5 Performance results in Gaussian channel: rate-compatible Turbo Code for K = 4000
The performance results presented in this section were obtained using the puncturing patterns and the interleaving parameters described in sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.4 of document R1-167413.
The simulations were run in AWGN channel using QPSK modulation.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, R=8/21 Enhanced TC, R=1/2 Enhanced TC, R=8/11
12
Figure 11: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 1/5, 8/23, 8/19, 8/15, and 8/11 in terms of BLock Error
Rate vs Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 4000 bits (K = 4032 bits for LTE TC), 8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, R=1/5 Enhanced TC, R=8/23 Enhanced TC, R=8/19 Enhanced TC, R=8/15 Enhanced TC, R=8/11
13
Figure 12: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 1/3, 2/5, 1/2, and 2/3 in terms of BLock Error Rate vs
Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 4000 bits (K = 4032 bits for LTE TC), 8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, R=1/3 Enhanced TC, R=2/5 Enhanced TC, R=1/2 Enhanced TC, R=2/3
14
Figure 13: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 4/11, 4/9, 4/7, and 4/5 in terms of BLock Error Rate vs
Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 4000 bits (K = 4032 bits for LTE TC), 8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
BLER
Eb/N0 (dB)
LTE TC
Enhanced TC, R=4/11 Enhanced TC, R=4/9 Enhanced TC, R=4/7 Enhanced TC, R=4/5
15
Figure 14: Performance comparison of the improved turbo code with the LTE turbo code in AWGN channel for coding rates 8/21, 8/17, 8/13, and 8/9 in terms of BLock Error Rate vs
Eb/N0.
QPSK modulation, block size K = 4000 bits (K = 4032 bits for LTE TC), 8 decoding iterations of the Max-Log-MAP algorithm, tail-biting termination.
6 Reference
[1] J. A. Erfanian, S. Pasupathy, and G. Gulak, “Reduced complexity symbol detectors with parallel structures for ISI channels," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 42, pp. 1661-1671, Feb./March/Apr.
1994.
[2] P. Robertson, P. Hoeher and E. Villebrun, "Optimal and Sub-Optimal Maximum A Posteriori Algorithms Suitable for Turbo Decoding," European Transactions on Telecommunications, Vol. 8, 1997.
