950
12, DECEMBER 2009
An Efficient Dynamic Schedule for
Layered Belief-Propagation Decoding of LDPC Codes
Guojun Han and Xingcheng Liu, Member, IEEE
Abstract—An efficient dynamic schedule for layered belief-
propagation (LBP) decoding of low-density parity-check (LDPC)
codes is presented, in which the check nodes connecting to
a variable node with maximum relative message residual are
chosen in each dynamic decoding iteration, and then LBP is
performed for these check nodes. In this schedule we combined
the features of lazy schedule and node-wise residual belief propa-
gation (NWRBP) together while keeping the extra computational
complexity very low. Simulation results show that the new
schedule speeds up the convergence rate and greatly improves
error performance at medium to high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
when compared to the standard LBP decoding algorithm.
Index Terms—LDPC codes, dynamic schedule, layered belief-
propagation (LBP), residual.
I. I NTRODUCTION
L DPC codes can approach the Shannon limit under low-
complexity iterative belief-propagation (BP), or message-
passing, algorithm over the factor graph of the code. The
message passing schedule over the factor graph directly affects
convergence rate, complexity and error performance. The
standard decoding schedules include the flooding schedule [1],
or the simultaneous schedule, in which all the variable nodes,
and subsequently all the check nodes, pass new messages
to their neighbors in each iteration. Besides the flooding
schedule, some different types of non-flooding, or sequential
schedules for iterative BP decoding were proposed earlier,
such as check-node updating schedules ([2]-[4]) and variable-
node updating schedules [5][6]. Studies [5][7] showed that
sequential schedules not only speed up the convergence rate
in terms of number of iterations but also outperform the
traditional flooding schedule for a large number of iterations.
For sequential updating schedule, to find the ordering of
message update that results in the best convergence speed
and/or error performance is a new problem. In order to reduce
the number of iterations needed to converge, Levin et al. [8]
presented a lazy schedule that only the subset of variable
nodes is updated in each iteration. Recently, the informed
dynamic schedules (IDS) were presented [9][10], in which
the differences between the values of the message before and
after an update are used to dynamically update the schedule.
Simulation results show that one of these dynamic schedules,
called the node-wise residual belief propagation (NWRBP),
Manuscript received July 26, 2009. The associate editor coordinating the
review of this letter and approving it for publication was S. Yousefi.
G. Han is with the Department of Electronic and Communications Engi-
neering, Sun Yat-sen University, and with Guangdong University of Technol-
ogy, Guangzhou, 510275, P.R.China (e-mail: gjhan@gdut.edu.cn).
X. Liu (corresponding author) is with the Department of Electronic and
Communications Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275,
P.R.China (e-mail: isslxc@mail.sysu.edu.cn).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LCOMM.2009.12.091555
1089-7798/09$25.00 ⃝
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 13, NO.
requires significantly less iterations, and yields better error
performance than the standard sequential schedules. However,
residual computation for the NWRBP greatly increases the
decoding complexity in each iteration.
In this letter, based on the Layered Belief-Propagation
(LBP) [3], we designed an efficient dynamic schedule, referred
to as the efficient dynamic schedule for LBP (EDS-LBP),
which is derived from the lazy schedule and the NWRBP
while keeping the extra computational complexity much lower
when compared to the NWRBP. The proposed schedule speeds
up the convergence rate and improves the error performance
significantly at medium to high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as
compared with the standard LBP.
II. BACKGROUND
A binary [N, M] LDPC code graph is a bi-partite one com-
posed by N variable nodes 𝑣𝑗 that correspond to the encoded
bits, and M check nodes 𝑐𝑖 that correspond to the parity-
check equations. At the beginning of the decoding process,
each variable node 𝑣𝑗 is initialized with the corresponding
𝑝 (𝑦 ∣𝑣 =1)
soft output 𝐶𝑣𝑗 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔( 𝑝𝑗𝑗 (𝑦𝑗𝑗 ∣𝑣𝑗𝑗 =0) ) from the channel detector,
where 𝑦𝑗 is the received signal. In the BP the messages from
the variable nodes to the check nodes are propagated with:
∑
𝑚𝑣𝑗 →𝑐𝑖 = 𝑚𝑐𝑎 →𝑣𝑗 + 𝐶𝑣𝑗 (1)
𝑐𝑎 ∈𝑁 (𝑣𝑗 )∖𝑐𝑖
where 𝑁 (𝑣𝑗 ) ∖ 𝑐𝑖 denotes the neighbors of variable node 𝑣𝑗
excluding check node 𝑐𝑖 . The messages propagated from the
check nodes to the variable nodes are:
( ∏ ( 𝑚𝑣𝑏 →𝑐𝑖 ))
𝑚𝑐𝑖 →𝑣𝑗 = 2𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ 𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ (2)
2
𝑣𝑏 ∈𝑁 (𝑐𝑖 )∖𝑣𝑗
where 𝑁 (𝑐𝑖 ) ∖ 𝑣𝑗 denotes the neighbors of check node 𝑐𝑖
excluding variable node 𝑣𝑗 . The soft decoding result for each
variable node 𝑣𝑗 is obtained as follows:
∑
𝑚𝑣𝑗 = 𝑚𝑐𝑎 →𝑣𝑗 + 𝐶𝑣𝑗 (3)
𝑐𝑎 ∈𝑁 (𝑣𝑗 )
The sequential message-passing schedules, such as LBP,
update check nodes sequentially according to a predetermined
schedule. The lazy schedule that is derived from the variable-
node sequential updating schedule updates the variable node
message with probability 𝛽(𝑙, 𝑟𝑣 , 𝑡𝑣 ), where 𝑙 is the iteration
number, 𝑟𝑣 is some reliability measure of variable node 𝑣 and
𝑡𝑣 is the number of iterations that have passed since variable
node 𝑣 was updated the last time [8]. Under the same decoding
complexity, the lazy schedule speeds up the convergence when
compared to the standard sequential updating schedule.
c 2009 IEEE
HAN and LIU: AN EFFICIENT DYNAMIC SCHEDULE FOR LAYERED BELIEF-PROPAGATION DECODING OF LDPC CODES 951

The residual belief propagation (RBP) is an IDS strat- 0

10
Flooding
egy that schedules message updates according to the value LBP
of the message residual [9]. The residual is defined to be −1
10 EDS−LBP
NWRBP
the difference between the values of check-to-variable node
message before and after an update. The RBP updates first −2
10
the message with maximum residual. The decoding algorithm

FER
can speed up the convergence rate. However, it degrades the −3
10
error performance in a large enough number of iterations
due to its greediness. The NWRBP resolves this problem −4
10
through generating all the outgoing messages of a check-
node simultaneously [9]. In order to choose which message −5
10
1 1.5 2 2.5 2.75
to be updated, both the RBP and the NWRBP need to Eb/No(dB)
compute several messages that are not really propagated. Such
computation greatly increases the decoding complexity in each Fig. 1. FER performance comparison of Flooding, LBP, EDS-LBP, NWRBP
iteration. In this letter, we proposed an efficient dynamic vs. 𝐸𝑏 /𝑁𝑜 for the 802.16e LDPC code with rate 1/2 and block-length 576
at maximum iteration 30.
schedule, which can greatly reduce the residual computational
complexity while achieving better error performance and faster
convergence rate. where 𝑟(𝑚𝑘 ) denotes relative message residual of variable
node 𝑘 before and after an update, 𝑓 (𝑚𝑘 ) denotes the log-
III. E FFICIENT DYNAMIC S CHEDULE
likelihood-ratio (LLR) of variable node 𝑘 after an update and
Generally speaking, dynamic decoding schedules include 𝑚𝑘 denotes the LLR of variable node 𝑘 before an update. Then
two processes: firstly choosing check nodes or variable nodes EDS-LBP chooses check nodes that connect to the variable
according to the current message state and subsequently node with the maximum 𝑟(𝑚𝑘 ) in each dynamic decoding
running a BP decoding algorithm for these check nodes or iteration. For regular LDPC codes, the number of check nodes
variable nodes. For the EDS-LBP algorithm, the first process updated in each dynamic decoding iteration is the same while
is to choose check nodes and the second is to run the LBP for irregular LDPC codes, it is different. The complete EDS-
decoding algorithm for them. In order to describe clearly, LBP algorithm is described as following:
we define these two consecutive processes as a full dynamic
1: Initialize all 𝑚𝑐→𝑣 = 0
decoding iteration. The EDS-LBP algorithm runs the dynamic
2: Initialize all 𝑚𝑣𝑗 →𝑐𝑖 = 𝐶𝑣𝑗
decoding iteration one by one until stopping rules are satis-
3: Compute all 𝑟(𝑚𝑗 )
fied. The strategy of choosing check nodes during dynamic
4: Find 𝑖 = arg max(𝑟(𝑚𝑗 ))
decoding iteration directly affects the convergence rate, error 𝑗={1,2⋅⋅⋅𝑁 }
performance and extra computational complexity. 5: For every 𝑐𝑘 ∈ 𝑁 (𝑣𝑖 ) do
In order to find an efficient strategy of choosing check 6: For every 𝑣𝑗 ∈ 𝑁 (𝑐𝑘 ) do
nodes, we exploit the following phenomena during the BP 7: Generate and propagate
decoding process: 8: Compute 𝑟(𝑚𝑗 )
1) For BP decoding process, many variable nodes achieve 9: End for
high confidence after very flew iterations. These nodes are 10: End for
not likely to change their signs or polarities in the conse- 11: Set 𝑟(𝑚𝑖 ) = 0
quent decoding iterations. The lazy schedule exploits this 12: If stopping rule is not satisfied then
phenomenon and partially updates the variable nodes based 13: Go back to position 4
on the reliability of the variable nodes message to reduce 14: End if
decoding complexity [8]. When compared to the NWRBP algorithm, the complexity
2) The differences between the messages before and after an
for computating the residual in our proposed EDS-LBP algo-
update become zero as the BP decoding converges. A message
rithm is much lower. The EDS-LBP can combine the excellent
that has a large residual means that it has not converged yet.
characteristics of the lazy schedule and the NWRBP algorithm
Therefore, propagating that message first would speed up the
together. Especially, it can exploit the RBP schedule’s excel-
decoding process. The IDS algorithm [9] is the case that it
lence in conquering trapping sets at medium to high SNR.
exploits this characteristic and speeds up the convergence rate.
Therefore, the proposed schedule can exhibit excellent error
3) According to (2), the reliability of messages from the
performance at medium to high SNR, which is shown in the
check nodes to the variable nodes is mainly dependent on
next section.
the variable node message with less reliability. Therefore, for
the messages with the same residual, propagating the message
with less reliability first would speed up the convergence rate. IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
Based on these phenomena, the check nodes choosing To compare the performance among the EDS-LBP, the
strategy associated with the new schedule can be described Flooding, the standard LBP and the NWRBP, simulations are
as following. Firstly, we compute the residual performed on rate 1/2, length 576 and 1152 LDPC codes
 𝑓 (𝑚 ) − 𝑚  based on the IEEE 802.16e standard [11] over BIAWGN
 𝑘 𝑘
𝑟(𝑚𝑘 ) =   (4)
𝑓 (𝑚𝑘 ) + 𝑚𝑘 channel using BPSK modulation. Fig.1 shows the frame-
952 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 13, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2009

0
10 maximum number of iterations 5. It is shown that the EDS-
Flooding
LBP
LBP exhibits excellent error performance at medium to high
−1
10 EDS−LBP SNR at a very few number of iterations.
NWRBP

−2
10 V. C ONCLUSION
FER

An efficient dynamic schedule for LBP decoding of LDPC

−3
10 codes is presented. It chooses the check nodes that connect
to the variable node with the maximum relative message
−4
10 residual in dynamic decoding iteration. Since this suggested
schedule combines the excellent characteristics of the lazy
−5
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 schedule and the NWRBP algorithm together, it speeds up
Number of iterations
the convergence rate and achieves better error performance
Fig. 2. FER performance comparison of Flooding, LBP and EDS-LBP,
as compared with the standard LBP algorithm. The extra
NWRBP vs. number of iterations for the 802.16e LDPC code with rate 1/2 computational complexity keeps much lower as compared with
and block-length 576 at 𝐸𝑏 /𝑁𝑜 =2.75𝑑𝐵. the NWRBP algorithm. Simulation results show that the EDS-
LBP exhibits excellent error performance at a medium to high
0
10 SNR.

−1
10 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
−2
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers
10
for their helpful comments. The work was supported by the
FER

−3
10
Flooding
−4
10 LBP
EDS−LBP
NWRBP
−5
10
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Eb/No(dB)
Fig. 3. FER performance comparison of Flooding, LBP, EDS-LBP, NWRBP
vs. 𝐸𝑏 /𝑁𝑜 for the 802.16e LDPC code with rate 1/2 and block-length 1152
at maximum iteration 5.
error-rate (FER) performance of the different BP implemen-
tations for block-length 576 LDPC codes with a maximum
number of iterations 30. As compared with standard LBP,
it can be seen that the EDS-LBP greatly improves the error
performance at medium to high SNR. This can be explained
with the fact [9] that as SNR increases, the trapping sets
errors become dominant, and RBP can delay and conquer
trapping sets due to its greedy iteration decoding. Fig.2 shows
the FER performance of different BP implementations for
block-length 576 LDPC codes as the number of iterations
increases at 𝐸𝑏 /𝑁𝑜 = 2.75𝑑𝐵. It is shown that the EDS-LBP
outperforms the standard LBP and the NWRBP in terms of
the convergence rate and error performance at high SNR. Fig.3
shows the frame-error-rate (FER) performance of different BP
implementations for block-length 1152 LDPC codes with a
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
60673086, 60970041).
R EFERENCES
[1] F. R. Kschischang and B. J. Frey, “Iterative decoding of compound
codes by probability propagation in graphical models,” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 219-230, Feb. 1998.
[2] M. M. Mansour and N. R. Shanbhag, “High-throughput LDPC de-
coders,” IEEE Trans. VLSI Systems., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 976-996, Dec.
2003.
[3] D. Hocevar, “A reduced complexity decoder architechture via layered
decoding of LDPC codes,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop on Signal Process-
ing Systems, Oct. 2004, pp. 107-112.
[4] E. Sharon, S. Litsyn, and J. Goldberger, “An efficient message-passing
schedule for LDPC decoding,” in Proc. 23rd IEEE Convention of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Tel-Aviv, Israel, Sep. 2004, pp.
223-226.
[5] H. Kfir and I. Kanter, “Parallel versus sequential updating for belief
propagation decoding,” Physica A, vol. 330, pp. 259-270, Sep. 2003.
[6] J. Zhang and M. Fossorier, “Shuffled belief propagation decoding,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 2, no. 53, pp. 209-213, Feb. 2005.
[7] E. Sharon, S. Litsyn, and J. Goldberger, “Efficient serial message-
passing schedule for LDPC decoding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.
53, no. 11, pp. 4076-4091, Nov. 2007.
[8] D. Levin, E. Sharon, and S. Litsyn, “Lazy scheduling for LDPC
decoding,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 70-72, Jan. 2007.
[9] A. Casado, M. Griot, and R. D. Wesel, “Informed dynamic scheduling
for belief-propagation decoding of LDPC codes,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. on Commun, Glasgow, Scotland, June 2007, pp. 932-937.
[10] A. Casado, M. Griot, and R. D. Wesel, “Improving LDPC decoders
via informed dynamic scheduling,” in Proc. IEEE Information Theory
Workshop, Lake Tahoe, CA, USA, Sep. 2007, pp. 208-213.
[11] LDPC coding for OFDMA PHY, IEEE C802.16e-05/066r3.