VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 7 CATEGORY: Education POSTED ON: 10/15/2011 Public Domain
Appendix F Suboptimum Viterbi decoding F.1 Introduction Referring to Chapter 8 results, it can be seen that the delay experienced with the Viterbi decoder can be reduced, but it is desirable to eliminate the delay entirely. From the results obtained in Figures 8.x, it was found that total elimination of the delay cannot be achieved in certain line codes, as these line codes will lose their accuracy when a small values of the delay length is reached. Among the line codes that were found not to lose much accuracy when the length of the Viterbi decoding delay was minimized is the AMI line code. A C++ program to run Viterbi decoding without delay can be found in Appendix G. In the following section, the advantages and disadvantages will be presented, and the possibility of generating this method to other line codes will be investigated. F.2 Viterbi decoding: AMI Figure F.1: AMI trellis diagram 1 Appendix F Suboptimum Viterbi decoding As mentioned in the previous chapter, the Viterbi Algorithm starts decoding only after a time delay, so it is necessary to store the survivor path in a shift register from the start. The delay is generally represented by a shift register, but in our simulation, we used a mathematical formula, which converts binary to decimal and can be described in pseudocode as follows: (F.1) Decimal = Decimal + (int) pow(2 lengt In our example: (F.2) tsp = (int) pow(2 5k) bit + where tsp: temporary survivor path, sp: survivor path. When we use the (sp/2) operation, we can shift the register to the right. Both tsp and sp are binary, and their values will be stored in the memory of the computer. The value of sp is in fact tsp after the selected path has been chosen and this can be done only after the selection of the smallest metric smi from the trellis, as explained before. The values of smi will be the same as tmi after the selection of the smallest value. In the following sub-sections, we try to emphasize the difference between the two variants of Viterbi decoding with and without the survivor path. F.2.1 Viterbi decoding with a survivor path Figure F.2 is a flow chart of Viterbi decoding with a survivor path. Figure F.2: Flow chart of Viterbi decoding with delay From the previous flow chart, it is clear that at each state j, we calculate the temporary smallest metrics to be used in the calculation of the smallest metric. The same will be done with the temporary survivor path as shown in box number 1. After saving the previous results in the memory, we check if the counter of our program reaches the value of the length of the delay. If not, the program repeats the same previous sequences and accumulates the results in the memory. When we reach the delay value, our Viterbi decoder starts decoding (box 2). The first step done by our decoder is the search for the smallest metric between all the states. Then from the data of the survivor path saved in the memory through the mathematical formula, we calculate the decoded value by means of a simple logic AND operation. If our message stream of data does not reach the end, we continue from the beginning as shown in the flow chart. So, as depicted in the flow chart, our Viterbi decoding is formed by three steps, which are: Testing the counter until the length of the delay is reached. Searching for the smallest metric between all states. Logic operation to calculate the selected path. F.2.2 Viterbi decoding without a survivor path 2 Appendix F Suboptimum Viterbi decoding This method was used with AMI, with the idea of having a Viterbi decoder simpler than the one using the delay in decoding. In fact, the elimination of the delay seems to imply that z equals zero. If we use the same program used for decreasing the values of z, and we make z equal to zero, then the Viterbi decoder with the same steps is obtained. But starting from the basic idea that z can be eliminated, we are obliged to change the procedure of the program to make it suitable to our purpose, which is what will be explained next: Figure F.3 is a flow chart of Viterbi decoding without survivor path. Figure F.3: Flow chart of Viterbi decoding without delay It is clear from the flow chart of Viterbi decoding without a survivor path that the main changes compared to the one with delay are in boxes 1 and 2. In the previous method, we stored our survivor path in the memory through the mathematical formula because of the delay length that does not allow us to decode our message at the corresponding time. Now, while we do not have this delay, there is no reason to store it in the memory. What will happen here, as explained in box number 1, is that we calculate and select the smallest metric and we save our path with the right value at the same time. Box number 2 now represents the Viterbi decoding sequences for the new method. It is clear here that we do not use the logic operation to obtain the selected path that is saved in the memory, but just after finding the smallest metric among all the metrics of all states, the decoded value will be the same value chosen at box number 1. We see from our flow chart how short it is compared to the previous one. As depicted in the flow chart, our Viterbi decoding is formed by two steps only, which are: Searching the smallest metric between all states. Calling up the value of hj. F.2.3 Results Both programs for the Viterbi decoding (with and without the delay) where used for the hard and soft decisions. The results are shown in the following figures: Figure F.4 shows the hard- and soft-decision simulations for AMI without delay. Figure F.4: AMI: without delay Figure F.5 shows the hard-decision simulation for AMI with and without delay. Figure F.5: AMI: Hard decision with/without delay Figure F.6 shows the soft-decision simulation for AMI with and without delay. Figure F.6: AMI: Soft decision with/without delay 3 Appendix F Suboptimum Viterbi decoding It can be seen from Figure F.5 that Viterbi decoding for the hard decision is the same for both without and with delay. In view of the precision of the soft decision, we see from Figure F.6 that we lose gain if we decrease the length of the Viterbi decoding. F.3 Implementation of Viterbi decoding on a DSP The advantage of shortening the Viterbi delay and the results of its total elimination for the AMI code, using a high level language, have been observed. It is clear how the advantages of shortening the delay can affect the memory and the speed of Viterbi decoding. To exploit this benefit and investigate it further, we used the TMS320C541 DSP [52], a Texas instrument product, to program our Viterbi decoding with Assembly language and see the mapping of its memory as a result of the shortening of its delay. A program in Assembly was written to compare the two programs of Viterbi decoding for the AMI, with and without delay. The results were very clear from the number of code lines in both programs and the space reserved for the memory to run the Viterbi decoding. The results show how Viterbi decoding without delay has less Assembly instructions and memory spaces used than Viterbi decoding with delay. Hence, the VD without delay will be faster than the VD with delay, as it has less program instructions that lead to shorter execution time (TMS320C541 DSP has 9 ns execution time for each instruction). From this we can deduce that minimizing the number of program instructions will result in a faster decoder. The elimination of certain instructions of read and write also leads us to a reduction of the power used to run our Viterbi decoding. Finally, from our results (more details in Appendix H), it is clear that the elimination or the reduction of the Viterbi decoding delay has the following advantages: • Less memory used by the Viterbi decoding • Speeding up the Viterbi decoding • Less power required to run the Viterbi decoding F.4 Viterbi decoding: HDB3 F.4.1 Problem statement We have chosen the HDB3 line code to study this method because we know it is based on AMI. It is also used in South Africa. Furthermore, it has a much larger number of states than AMI. From the previous results obtained for the HDB3 line code, when we shortened the delay length, we could see the smaller values of z could not be reached. From the previous curve, we saw how the decoder lost its accuracy from z = 6 to z = 1. Thus, it will be difficult to reach the same result as achieved with the AMI. As explained previously with the AMI program, a mathematical inequality test is used to find the smallest metric in the two states of the AMI encoder. The 4 Appendix F Suboptimum Viterbi decoding question here is: does this mathematical test have the same validity and does it yield the same results if we use more than two states? In our case, we are going to use 32 states for HDB3. From a mathematical point of view, whatever we are going to use: a strict inequality or large inequality, we are going to find ourselves jumping many states, which have the same values of metrics but with different paths, as will be explained in the following example: Let us say we have the smallest metric at every state: sm. is the smallest metric at state 0 sm. is the smallest metric at state 1 sm. is the smallest metric at state 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sm31 is the smallest metric at state 31 At time t, we will test all these metrics to find out which is the smallest one among them to select its corresponding path. Suppose that sm0 = sm1 = sm20 = sm30, and those metrics are the smallest among all the others. What is going to happen? From the state diagram of HDB3, we can see which are the corresponding inputs for each state. State 0: the path comes from state 1 and the corresponding input is 0. State 1: the paths come from states 2 and 3, and the corresponding input is 0. State 20: the paths come from states 00, 08, 24 and 25, and the corresponding inputs are 0, 0, 1 and 1. State 25: the paths come from states 26 and 27, and the corresponding inputs are the same: 0. Let us take as an example state 20, and the temporary metrics corresponding to each path are as follows: Path from state 0…………….tm0 Path from state 8…………….tm8 Path from state 24…………….tm24 Path from state 25…………….tm25 After testing the smallest one, we find for example that tm8 is the smallest so the corresponding input that we have to save is related to our program: 1. So when our mathematical inequality test starts comparing them, our test is going to stop at sm0 or sm25, depending on the kind of inequality used: large or strict, and in both results, we skip a result different to what we have, 5 Appendix F Suboptimum Viterbi decoding which is corresponding to input 1. So when we obtain more states as shown for HDB3, we have a greater probability of obtaining incorrect results. This is why incorrect results will be obtained with this method if used with the HDB3 line code. F.4.2 Results The results of our simulations confirmed the expected. The decoder loses its accuracy when we eliminate its delay. Figure F.7 shows the results of the simulation for HDB3 with and without a delay. Figure F.7: HDB3: Soft/hard decision with/without delay F.5 Conclusion We can conclude with the following comparison between the VD with a delay and without a delay. For more details on the use of memories, see Appendix H. Advantages Disadvantages VD without delay No delay in decoding. Not useful for more than Decoding starts at the state diagrams with more than first bit and ends at the two states, like HDB3 (32 last states) 6 Appendix F Suboptimum Viterbi decoding AMI results in hard decisions for VD with or Less precision than VD without delay are with delay in soft decision indistinguishable Less memory spaces Less power use Faster decoder VD with delay In general, more Starts decoding at 5k precision than VD without k: constraint length delay for soft decisions Sends zeros at the end of the input to recover the last input bits Table F.1: Comparison between VD with and without delay 7