84
1, JANUARY 2009
A Unified Approach to the Construction of Binary
and Nonbinary Quasi-Cyclic LDPC Codes Based
on Finite Fields
Shumei Song, Bo Zhou, Member, IEEE, Shu Lin, Life Fellow, IEEE, and Khaled Abdel-Ghaffar, Member, IEEE
Abstract— A unified approach for constructing binary and
nonbinary quasi-cyclic LDPC codes under a single framework is
presented. Six classes of binary and nonbinary quasi-cyclic LDPC
codes are constructed based on primitive elements, additive
subgroups, and cyclic subgroups of finite fields. Numerical results
show that the codes constructed perform well over the AWGN
channel with iterative decoding.
Index Terms— Base matrix, dispersion, finite field, LDPC
codes, location-vector, quasi-cyclic.
I. I NTRODUCTION
L DPC codes, first discovered by Gallager in 1962 [1], were
rediscovered and shown to form a class of Shannon-limit
approaching codes in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s [2]–[7].
Ever since their rediscovery, a great deal of research effort
has been expended in the design and construction of these
codes. However, most of the effort has been focused on the
design and construction of binary LDPC codes, very little on
the design and construction of nonbinary LDPC codes.
Nonbinary LDPC codes and their iterative decoding using
the sum-product algorithm (SPA) were first investigated by
Davey and MacKay in 1998 [8], [9]. Since their work, very lit-
tle progress has been made in either construction or decoding
of nonbinary LDPC codes. Most recently, some encouraging
research works started to emerge in decoding [10], [11], code
construction [12]–[14], and analysis [15],[16].
Many structured binary LDPC codes presented in the lit-
erature have a quasi-cyclic (QC) structure. Encoding of QC-
LDPC codes can be implemented using simple shift-registers
with linear complexity [17] in contrast to the quadratic com-
plexity involved in computer-generated random-like LDPC
Paper approved by F. Fekri, the Editor for LDPC Codes and Applications
of the IEEE Communications Society. Manuscript received March 2, 2006;
revised April 20, 2007, January 22, 2008, and April 11, 2008.
This research was supported by NASA under the Grants NNG05GD13G
and NNX07AK50G, NSF under the Grants CCF-0727478 and ECS-0121469,
and gift grants from Intel and Northrop Grumman Space Technology.
S. Song was with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616 USA. She is now
with Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA (e-mail:
ssong@marvell.com).
B. Zhou was with the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616 USA.
He is now with Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA 92121, USA (e-mail:
bzhou@qualcomm.com).
S. Lin and K. Abdel-Ghaffar are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616
USA (e-mail: shulin@ece.ucdavis.edu; ghaffar@ece.ucdavis.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCOMM.2009.0901.060129
0090-6778/09$25.00 
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO.
codes [18]. These codes also have advantages in integrated
circuit (IC) decoder implementation due to their quasi-cyclic
symmetry that results in simple regular wiring and modular
structure.
In this paper, a unified approach for constructing both binary
and nonbinary QC-LDPC codes under a single framework
based on finite fields is presented. The constructed codes are
shown to perform well over the AWGN channel using either
the binary SPA [3], [4], [6], [7], [19], [20] or the Fast Fourier
Transform based q-ary SPA (FFT-QSPA) given in [9]–[11].
The construction is based on a base matrix over some finite
field that satisfies certain constraints. The elements in this
matrix are then replaced by binary or nonbinary circulants to
form parity-check matrices of binary or nonbinary QC-LDPC
codes, respectively. It should be noted that some of the known
constructions of QC-LDPC codes follow from this framework,
e.g., [21], [22]. In [23] the same construction methods are used
to yield binary codes. However, since the rows and columns of
the circulants in the parity-check matrices in our constructions
have weight one, constructions in which the rows and columns
have weight two or larger, such as in [17], [24], [25], are not
covered by our framework.
The organization of this paper is as follows: Section II gives
a brief introduction to binary and nonbinary LDPC codes;
Section III presents a general construction method of binary
and nonbinary QC-LDPC codes based on the concepts of
location-vectors, dispersion, and base matrices; Sections IV, V,
and VI give techniques to construct such base matrices using
primitive elements, additive subgroups, and cyclic subgroups
of finite fields, respectively; and Section VII concludes the
paper.
II. LDPC C ODES
Let GF(q) be a finite field with q elements where q is a
power of a prime. A q-ary regular LDPC code C is given by
the null space over GF(q) of a sparse parity-check matrix H =
[hi,j ] over GF(q) that has the following structural properties:
1) each row has weight ρ; 2) each column has weight γ.
We further impose the following additional structural property
which is enforced in most LDPC constructions: 3) no two rows
(or two columns) have more than one place where they both
have nonzero components. Such a parity-check matrix is said
to be (γ, ρ)-regular and the code given by its null space is
called a (γ, ρ)-regular LDPC code. If q = 2, C is a binary
c 2009 IEEE
SONG et al.: A UNIFIED APPROACH TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF BINARY AND NONBINARY QUASI-CYCLIC LDPC CODES BASED ON FINITE FIELDS
LDPC code. Structural property 3), is a constraint on the rows
and columns of the parity-check matrix H and is referred to as
the row-column (RC)-constraint. If the columns and/or rows
of H have varying weights, then the null space of H gives an
irregular LDPC code. A q-ary QC-LDPC code is given by the
null space of an array of sparse circulants over GF(q) of the
same size.
The RC-constraint on the rows of the parity-check matrix
H of an LDPC code ensures that: 1) the minimum distance
of the LDPC code given by the null space of H is at least
γ + 1[7], [20]; and 2) the Tanner graph [26] of the code is
free of cycles of length 4 and hence its girth is at least 6.
For an LDPC code to perform well with iterative decoding,
its Tanner graph should not contain short cycles. The shortest
cycles that affect the code performance the most are those of
length 4. Therefore, cycles of length 4 should be prevented in
code construction. This is the case for almost every method
of constructing LDPC codes that has been proposed.
III. A G ENERAL C ONSTRUCTION BASED ON F INITE
F IELDS
This section presents a general method for constructing both
binary and q-ary QC-LDPC codes under a single framework
based on replacing the elements of a matrix over GF(q)
with sparse matrices that possess a circulant structure. The
construction is based on the concepts of location-vectors,
dispersion, and base matrices.
A. Binary and q-ary Location-Vectors
Let α be a primitive element of the Galois field GF(q).
Then the powers of α, α−∞  0, α0 = 1, α, . . . , αq−2 , give
all the elements of GF(q) and αq−1 = 1. For each nonzero
element αi in GF(q) with 0 ≤ i < q − 1, we form a (q − 1)-
tuple over GF(2), zb (αi ) = (z0 , z1 , . . . , zq−2 ), where the ith
component zi = 1 and all the other components are equal
to zero. The subscript “b” stands for binary. The weight of
zb (αi ) is equal to one. This (q − 1)-tuple over GF(2) is called
the binary location-vector of αi . The binary location-vector
of the 0-element of GF(q) is defined as the zero (q − 1)-tuple,
zb (0) = (0, 0, . . . , 0).
We also define the q-ary location-vector of an element
of GF(q). The q-ary location-vector of a nonzero element
αi in GF(q) is defined as the (q − 1)-tuple, zq (αi ) =
(z0 , z1 , . . . , zq−2 ), over GF(q), where zi = αi and all the
other components are equal to zero. The subscript “q” stands
for q-ary. The q-ary location-vector of the 0-element is again
defined as the zero (q − 1)-tuple.
B. Binary and q-ary Dispersion of Field Elements
Let δ be an element of GF(q). Then the binary location-
vector zb (αδ) of the field element αδ is the right cyclic-shift
(one place to the right) of the binary location-vector zb (δ) of
δ. Form a (q − 1) × (q − 1) matrix Ab (δ) over GF(2) with the
binary location-vectors of δ, αδ, · · · , αq−2 δ as its consecutive
rows. Each row (or each column) of Ab (δ) is either the zero
vector if δ = 0, or it contains one and only one 1-component
if δ = 0. Hence, if δ = 0, then Ab (δ) is the (q − 1) × (q − 1)
85
zero matrix. If δ = 0, then Ab (δ) is a (q−1)×(q−1) circulant
permutation matrix, i.e., a permutation matrix where each row
is the right cyclic-shift of the row above it and the first row
is the right cyclic-shift of the last row.
Similarly, we define the (q −1)-fold q-ary matrix dispersion
of δ, Aq (δ), to be the (q − 1) × (q − 1) matrix over GF(q)
with the q-ary location-vectors of δ, αδ, · · · , αq−2 δ as its
consecutive rows. Each row (or each column) of Aq (δ) is
either the zero vector if δ = 0, or it contains one and only
one nonzero component if δ = 0. Hence, if δ = 0, then Ab (δ)
is the (q − 1) × (q − 1) zero matrix. If δ = 0, then Aq (δ) is a
(q − 1) × (q − 1) matrix in which each row is the right cyclic-
shift of the row above it multiplied by α and the first row is
the right cyclic-shift of the last row multiplied by α. We call
Aq (δ) a q-ary α-multiplied circulant permutation matrix. The
matrix Aq (δ) is referred to as the (q − 1)-fold q-ary matrix
dispersion of δ.
C. Base Matrices
Again let α be a primitive element of GF(q). We begin with
an m × n matrix W over GF(q),
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
w0 w0,0 w0,1 ··· w0,n−1
⎢ w1 ⎥ ⎢ w1,0 w1,1 ··· w1,n−1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
W= ⎢ .. ⎥=⎢ .. ⎥,
⎣ . ⎦ ⎣ ··· ··· . ··· ⎦
wm−1 wm−1,0 wm−1,1 ··· wm−1,n−1
(1)
which has the following structural properties: 1) for 0 ≤ i < m
and 0 ≤ k, l < q − 1 and k = l, αk wi and αl wi differ in
at least n − 1 places, i.e., their Hamming distance is at least
n − 1, or equivalently, αk wi and αl wi agree in at most one
place; 2) for 0 ≤ i, j < m, i = j and 0 ≤ k, l < q − 1, αk wi
and αl wj differ in at least n − 1 places. Structural properties
1 and 2 are constraints on the rows of W and are referred
to as the α-multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2, respectively.
The following result gives conditions on W that guarantee
the satisfaction of the α-multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2.
A version of this result appears in [24].
Lemma 1: The α-multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2 hold
if every row in W has at most one zero element and every
2 × 2 submatrix in W is nonsingular, respectively.
Proof: Since αk wi,s = αl wi,s , where 0 ≤ i < m, 0 ≤
k, l < q−1, and k = l, if and only if wi,s = 0, the α-multiplied
row-constraint 1 holds if and only if each row of W has at
most one 0-element. If the α-multiplied row-constraint 2 does
not hold then αk wi,s = αl wj,s and αk wi,t = αl wj,t , where
0 ≤ i, j, < m, i = j, 0 ≤ k, l < q − 1, 0 ≤ s, t < n, and
s = t. Hence, αk wi,s · αl wj,t = αl wj,s · αk wi,t , which implies
that wi,s · wj,t − wi,t · wj,s = 0, i.e., W has a 2 × 2 singular
submatrix.
Notice that the condition “every row in W has at most one
zero element” holds if the condition “every 2 × 2 submatrix
in W is nonsingular” holds. In particular, it suffices to check
that the second condition is satisfied in order to conclude that
the α-multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2 hold.
The matrix W satisfying the α-multiplied row-constraints
1 and 2 is referred to as the base matrix in our constructions
of binary and q-ary QC-LDPC codes as explained next.
86
D. Construction of Binary and q-ary QC-LDPC Codes
Replacing each entry wi,j of the m×n base matrix W given
in (1) by its (q − 1)-fold binary matrix dispersion, Ab (wi,j ),
we obtain an m × n array Hb :
⎡ ⎤
B0,0 B0,1 · · · B0,n−1
⎢ B1,0 B1,1 · · · B1,n−1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Hb = ⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥, (2)
⎣ . . . . ⎦
Bm−1,0 Bm−1,1 · · · Bm−1,n−1
where Bi,j = Ab (wi,j ), for 0 ≤ i < m and 0 ≤ j < n. Bi,j
is a (q − 1) × (q − 1) matrix over GF(2) which is either zero
if wi,j = 0 or a circulant permutation matrix if wi,j = 0.
Similarly, replacing each entry wi,j of the m×n base matrix
W given in (1) by its (q − 1)-fold q-ary matrix dispersion,
Aq (wi,j ), we obtain an m × n array Hq array:
⎡ ⎤
Q0,0 Q0,1 ··· Q0,n−1
⎢ Q1,0 Q1,1 ··· Q1,n−1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Hq = ⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥, (3)
⎣ . . . . ⎦
Qm−1,0 Qm−1,1 · · · Qm−1,n−1
where Qi,j = Aq (wi,j ), for 0 ≤ i < m and 0 ≤ j < n. Qi,j
is a (q − 1) × (q − 1) matrix over GF(q) which is either zero
if wi,j = 0 or an α-multiplied circulant permutation matrix if
wi,j = 0.
Hb and Hq are both m(q − 1) × n(q − 1) matrices over
GF(2) and GF(q), and are called the (q − 1)-fold binary and q-
ary dispersions of the base matrix W, respectively. For q > 4,
the (q − 1) × (q − 1) matrices Bi,j and Qi,j are sparse and
consequently Hb and Hq are sparse matrices.
Since W satisfies the α-multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2,
both matrices Hb and Hq satisfy the RC-constraint as shown
in the following result.
Lemma 2: If the base matrix W satisfies the α-multiplied
row-constraints 1 and 2, then Hb and Hq satisfy the RC-
constraint.
Proof: Suppose that Hb does not satisfy the RC-
constraint. Since Hb as given in (2) is an array of circulant
permutation matrices, there are integers i, j, s, t, k, and l, such
that 0 ≤ i, j < m, 0 ≤ s, t < n, 0 ≤ k, l < q − 1, s = t,
and if i = j then k = l, for which the following is true: 1)
the kth row of Bi,s and the lth row of Bj,s are identical,
i.e., zb (αk wi,s ) = zb (αl wj,s ), and 2) the kth row of Bi,t and
the lth row of Bj,t are identical, i.e., zb (αk wi,t ) = zb (αl wj,t ).
Since distinct elements in GF(q) have distinct location-vectors,
it follows that αk wi,s = αl wj,s and αk wi,t = αl wj,t . These
two equations violate the α-multiplied row-constraint 1 if
i = j and the α-multiplied row-constraint 2 if i = j. This
proves the lemma for Hb . The proof for Hq is similar.
For any pair of integers, γ and ρ, with 1 ≤ γ ≤ m and
1 ≤ ρ ≤ n, let Hb (γ, ρ) and Hq (γ, ρ) be γ × ρ subarrays of
Hb and Hq , respectively. Hb (γ, ρ) and Hb (γ, ρ) are γ(q −
1) × ρ(q − 1) matrices over GF(2) and GF(q), respectively,
and they satisfy the RC-constraint. The null space over GF(2)
of Hb (γ, ρ) gives a binary QC-LDPC code Cb . Similarly, the
null space over GF(q) of Hq (γ, ρ) gives a q-ary QC-LDPC
code Cq . The subscripts, b and q of Cb and Cq stand for
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009
binary and q-ary, respectively. Both codes, Cb and Cq , are of
length (q − 1)ρ. Their Tanner graphs have girths of at least 6.
If the base matrix W has constant row and constant column
weights, both Hb (γ, ρ) and Hq (γ, ρ) have constant row and
constant column weights and the codes Cb and Cq are regular.
Otherwise, they may be irregular.
The above constructions of binary and q-ary QC-LDPC
codes are based on (q − 1)-fold binary and q-ary dispersions
of a base matrix W over GF(q) whose rows satisfy the two
α-multiplied row-constraints. The question now is how to
construct the base matrix W. This will be answered in the
next three sections.
IV. C ONSTRUCTION BASED ON THE P RIMITIVE E LEMENTS
OF F INITE F IELDS
For 0 < u < q − 1, a nonzero element αu of GF(q) is
a primitive element if and only if u and q − 1 are relatively
prime. The number of primitive elements, K, in GF(q) is given
k
by Euler’s totient function φ(q − 1) = (q − 1) i=1 (1 − p1i ),
where p1 , p2 , . . . , pk are the distinct prime factors of q−1 [27].
Let {αu1 , αu2 , · · · , αuK } be the set of primitive elements of
GF(q) and u0 = 0. We form the following (K + 1) × (K + 1)
matrix W(1) over GF(q):
⎡ ⎤
w0
⎢ w1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
W(1) = ⎢ .. ⎥
⎣ . ⎦
⎡ wuK −u ⎤
α 0 0 − 1 αu1 −u0 − 1 · · · αuK −u0 − 1
⎢ αu0 −u1 − 1 αu1 −u1 − 1 · · · αuK −u1 − 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ .. .. . .. ⎥.
⎣ . . . . . ⎦
αu0 −uK − 1 αu1 −uK − 1 · · · αuK −uK − 1
(4)
From (4), we can readily see that matrix W(1) has the
following structural properties: 1) all the entries of a row
are distinct elements in GF(q); 2) each row (or each column)
contains one and only one zero element; 3) any two rows differ
in every position; 4) any two columns differ in every position;
and 5) the K + 1 zero elements lie on the main diagonal of
the matrix.
Proposition 1: The matrix W(1) satisfies the α-multiplied
row-constraints 1 and 2.
Proof: The proof is based on Lemma 1. The determinant
of the 2 × 2 submatrix of W(1) , whose elements belong to
the ith and i th rows and the jth and j  th columns, where
0 ≤ i, i , j  , j  ≤ K, i = i , and j = j  , equals
(αuj −ui − 1)(αuj −ui − 1) − (αuj −ui − 1)(αuj −ui − 1) =
(αui − αui )(αuj − αuj )
,
αui +ui
which is nonzero. Hence, W(1) satisfies the α-multiplied row-
constraints 1 and 2.
Hence W(1) can be used as the base matrix for (q − 1)-fold
dispersion to form both binary and q-ary QC-LDPC codes as
described in Section III. Although Proposition 1 holds even
if the αui ’s are not necessarily primitive elements of GF(q),
simulation studies show that this restriction leads to good
codes.
SONG et al.: A UNIFIED APPROACH TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF BINARY AND NONBINARY QUASI-CYCLIC LDPC CODES BASED ON FINITE FIELDS 87

A. A Class of Binary QC-LDPC Codes 10

0

If we disperse W(1) given in (4) using the (q − 1)-fold −1

BER(Iterations=50)
WER(Iterations=50)
(1) 10
binary dispersion, we obtain a (K +1)×(K +1) array Hb = Shannon Limit

(1) (1) (1)

[Bi,j ], where Bi,j = Ab (αuj −ui − 1), 0 ≤ i, j ≤ K. Bi,j is 10
−2

a (q − 1) × (q − 1) matrix over GF(2) which is zero if i = j −3

(1) 10
and a circulant permutation matrix if i = j. Hence, Hb is

error probability
a (K + 1)(q − 1) × (K + 1)(q − 1) matrix over GF(2) with 10
−4

both column and row weights K. Since W(1) satisfies the α- −5

10
multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2, it follows from Lemma 2
(1)
that Hb satisfies the RC-constraint. 10
−6

For a pair of integers, γ and ρ, with 1 ≤ γ, ρ ≤ K + 1, −7

(1) (1) (1) 10
let Hb (γ, ρ) be a γ × ρ subarray of Hb . If Hb (γ, ρ)
(1)
lies either above or below the main diagonal of Hb , it is 10
−8

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

a γ(q − 1) × ρ(q − 1) matrix over GF(2) with column and Eb/N0(dB)

row weights γ and ρ, respectively. It also satisfies the RC-

(1)
constraint. The null space of Hb (γ, ρ) over GF(2) gives a Fig. 1(a). The performance of the binary (2331, 2007) QC-LDPC code
(1) given in Example 1.
binary (γ, ρ)-regular QC-LDPC code Cb of length ρ(q − 1),
rate at least (ρ − γ)/ρ, and minimum distance at least γ + 1,
whose Tanner graph has a girth of at least 6. Any codeword 0
10
(1) (1) BER(Iterations=50)
in Cb is in the null space of Hb (γ, ρ) and, therefore, also WER(Iterations=50)
(1) BER(Estimated Error Floor)
in the null space of any row of the array Hb (γ, ρ) which is WER(Estimated Error Floor)
a 1 × ρ array of (q − 1) × (q − 1) matrices over GF(2). Since −5
10

these (q − 1) × (q − 1) matrices are permutation matrices,

and therefore each column has a single one, it follows that
error probability

(1)
every codeword in Cb has even weight. Consequently, the −10
10
(1)
minimum distance of Cb is at least γ +2 for even γ and γ +1
(1)
for odd γ [20]. If Hb (γ, ρ) contains some but not all the zero
(1)
matrices on the main diagonal of Hb , then it may have two
−15
10

different column weights γ − 1 and γ and two different row

weights ρ − 1 and ρ. In this case, the null space over GF(2) of
(1)
Hb (γ, ρ) gives a near-regular binary QC-LDPC code. The −20
10
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
minimum distance of this irregular QC-LDPC code is at least Eb/N0(dB)

γ for even γ and γ + 1 for odd γ.

In the following, we use two examples to illustrate the
construction of binary QC-LDPC codes based on the primitive
elements of finite fields. In these examples, as well as others,
we assume BPSK transmission over an AWGN channel. For
decoding of constructed codes, we use the SPA and set the
maximum number of iterations to 50.
Example 1: Let GF (26 ) be the code construction field.
This field has K = 36 primitive elements. Based on these
(1)
elements, we can construct a 37 × 37 array Hb of 63 × 63
circulant permutation and zero matrices over GF(2). The zero
(1)
matrices lie on the main diagonal of Hb . Choose γ = 6
(1)
and ρ = 37. Take the first six rows of Hb to form a 6 × 37
(1)
subarray Hb (6, 37) which is a 378×2331 matrix over GF(2)
with row weight 36 and two column weights 5 and 6. Its null
space gives a (2331, 2007) binary QC-LDPC code of rate
0.861. The performance of this code is shown in Fig. 1(a).
At the BER (bit-error rate) of 10−6 , it performs 1.5 dB from
the Shannon-limit. The error-floor of this code is estimated,
using the method given in [28], to be below the BER of 10−16
(or below the WER (word-error rate) of 10−14 ), as shown in
Fig. 1(b). The decoding of this code also converges fast as
shown in Fig. 1(c). At the BER of 10−6 , the performance gap
between 5 and 50 iterations is less than 0.4 dB.
Example 2: Let GF (28 ) be the code construction field.
Fig. 1(b). The estimated error-floors of the bit- and word-error rates of the
binary (2331, 2007) QC-LDPC code given in Example 1.
This field has 128 primitive elements. Based on these ele-
(1)
ments, we construct a 129×129 array Hb of 255×255 circu-
lant permutation and zero matrices. Choose γ = 4 and ρ = 32.
(1) (1)
Take a 4 × 32 subarray Hb (4, 32) from Hb , avoiding the
(1) (1)
zero matrices on the main diagonal of Hb . Hb (4, 32) is
a 1020 × 8160 matrix with column and row weights 4 and
32, respectively. Its null space gives a regular (8160, 7159)
binary QC-LDPC code of rate 0.8773. The performance of
this code is shown in Fig. 2. At the BER of 10−6 , it performs
0.95 dB from the Shannon-limit. Also included in the figure
is the performance of a (8160, 7159) random MacKay LDPC
code constructed by computer search whose Tanner graph has
no cycles of length four. We see that the (8160, 7159) binary
QC-LDPC code and the (8160, 7159) random MacKay LDPC
code have almost identical performance. 
B. A Class of q-ary QC-LDPC Codes
If we disperse W(1) given in (4) using the (q−1)-fold q-ary
(1) (1)
 dispersion, we obtain a (K +1)×(K +1) array Hq = [Qi,j ],
(1) (1)
where Qi,j = Aq (αuj −ui − 1), 0 ≤ i, j ≤ K. Qi,j is a
88 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009

−1
10
construction of q-ary QC-LDPC codes based on the primitive
BER(iterations = 3) elements of finite fields. In decoding q-ary codes in these
BER(iterations = 5)
−2
10 BER(iterations = 10) two and later examples, we use the FFT-QSPA [10], [11].
BER(iterations = 50)
Shannon Limit The computational complexity per iteration for a regular q-
−3
10 ary LDPC code whose parity-check matrix has J rows of
weight ρ is O(Jρq log q). Furthermore, for each constructed
error probability

−4
10
code, we compare its word error performance with the word
−5
error performance of a (shortened) Reed-Solomon (RS) code
10
of the same length and rate decoded with the hard-decision
−6
10
Berlekamp-Massey (BM) algorithm [29],[30] and/or the al-
gebraic soft-decision Koetter-Vardy (KV) algorithm [31]. We
−7
10 also assume BPSK transmission over the AWGN channel
where each symbol in GF(q) is represented as log2 q bits if q is
a power of 2. One could also compare the constructed LDPC
−8
10
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Eb/N0(dB)
codes with concatenated coding schemes with an outer RS
code, an interleaver, and an inner convolutional code. These
Fig. 1(c). The rate of decoding convergence of the binary (2331, 2007) schemes have many parameters which we need to choose
QC-LDPC code given in Example 1.
arbitrarily such as the convolutional code itself. This makes
the comparison inconclusive. Definitely, for a specific practical
0
10 application, the comparison is valuable. However, this is not
QC−LDPC BER
QC−LDPC WER
the scope of the present paper.
−1
10 Random−LDPC BER
Random−LDPC WER The KV algorithm for decoding an RS code consists of three
−2
Shannon Limit
steps: multiplicity assignment, interpolation and factorization
10
[31]. The major computational complexity to carry out the KV
algorithm comes from the interpolation step and is O(λ4 n2 ),
error probability

−3
10
where n is the length of the code and λ is a complexity param-
−4
10 eter that is determined by the interpolation cost of the multi-
plicity matrix formed at the multiplicity assignment step [31]-
−5
10 [33]. The performance/complexity trade-off is controlled by
−6
the complexity parameter λ which is called the interpolation
10
complexity coefficient [33]. As λ increases, the performance of
−7
10
the KV algorithm improves and the computational complexity
2 2.5 3 3.5
Eb/N0(dB)
4 4.5 5
also increases. As λ approaches infinity, the performance of
the KV algorithm reaches its limit.
Fig. 2. The performance of the binary (8160, 7159) QC-LDPC code given Example 3: Let GF (26 ) be the code construction field
in Example 2 and a (8160, 7159) random MacKay LDPC code. which is the same field as given in Example 1. This field
has K = 36 primitive elements. Based on these primitive
(1)
elements, we construct a 37 × 37 array Hq of α-multiplied
(q − 1) × (q − 1) matrix over GF(q) which is zero if i = j 63 × 63 circulant permutation and zero matrices over GF (26 ).
and an α-multiplied circulant permutation matrix if i = j. (1)
Choose γ = 4 and ρ = 16. Take a 4 × 16 subarray Hq (4, 16)
(1)
Hence, Hq is a (K + 1)(q − 1) × (K + 1)(q − 1) matrix (1)
from Hq , avoiding the zero matrices on the main diagonal
over GF(q) with both column and row weights K. Since W(1) (1) (1)
of Hq , say taking the first 4 rows of Hq and deleting the
satisfies the α-multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2, it follows (1)
(1) first 4 and the last 17 columns. Hq (4, 16) is a 252 × 1008
from Lemma 2 that Hq satisfies the RC-constraint.
matrix over GF (26 ) with column and row weights 4 and 16
For any pair of integers, γ and ρ, with 1 ≤ γ, ρ ≤ K + 1,
(1) (1) (1) respectively. The null space over GF (26 ) of this matrix gives
let Hq (γ, ρ) be a γ × ρ subarray of Hq . If Hq (γ, ρ) lies
(1) a (1008, 771) QC-LDPC code over GF (26 ) of rate 0.7649.
above or below the main diagonal of Hq , it is a regular The word-error rate (WER), symbol-error rate (SER), and bit-
γ(q − 1) × ρ(q − 1) matrix over GF(q) with column and row error rate (BER) of this code decoded with the FFT-QSPA
weights γ and ρ, respectively. The null space over GF(q) of are shown in Fig. 3. For comparison, we also include the
(1)
Hq gives a (γ, ρ)-regular QC-LDPC code over GF(q) whose performance of a (1008, 771, 238) shortened RS code over
(1)
Tanner graph has a girth of at least 6. If Hq (γ, ρ) contains GF (210 ) decoded with hard-decision BM and algebraic soft-
(1)
some but not all the zero matrices on the diagonal of Hq , decision KV algorithms. At the WER of 10−5 , the (1008, 771)
(1)
then Hq (γ, ρ) has two column weights, γ − 1 and γ, and QC-LDPC code over GF(26 ) outperforms the RS code over
may have two row weights, ρ − 1 and ρ. Then the null space GF(210 ) decoded with hard BM decoding by 2.3 dB and
(1)
over GF(q) of Hq (γ, ρ) gives a near-regular QC-LDPC code outperforms the RS code decoded with the KV algorithm with
over GF(q). The above construction gives a class of q-ary QC- λ = 4.99 and λ = ∞ by 1.9 dB and 1.7 dB, respectively.
LDPC codes. This coding gain is achieved at the expense of a larger
In the following, we use two examples to illustrate the computational complexity. However, we must note that the
SONG et al.: A UNIFIED APPROACH TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF BINARY AND NONBINARY QUASI-CYCLIC LDPC CODES BASED ON FINITE FIELDS 89

0 0
10 10
LDPC BER LDPC BER
−1 LDPC SER LDPC SER
10 LDPC WER
−1
10 LDPC WER
RS WER (KV λ= 4.99) RS BER (Hard)
−2 RS WER (KV λ = ∞) RS SER (Hard)
10
RS BER (Hard) −2
10 RS WER (Hard)
RS SER (Hard)
−3
10 RS WER (Hard)
error probability

error probability
−3
10
−4
10
−4
10
−5
10
−5
−6
10
10

−6
−7
10 10

−8 −7
10 10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Eb/N0(dB) Eb/N0(dB)

Fig. 3. The performance of (1008, 771) QC-LDPC code over GF(26 ) given Fig. 4. The performance of the (2016, 1779) QC-LDPC code over GF(26 )
in Example 3 and the (1008, 771, 238) RS code over GF(210 ) decoded with given in Example 4 and the (2016, 1779, 238) RS code over GF(211 )
hard decision and the KV algorithm with λ = 4.99 and λ = ∞. decoded with hard decision.

symbol size of the RS code is 16 times larger than that of ci,0 α0 + ci,1 α + · · · + ci,t−1 αt−1 with ci,j ∈ GF(p). Let G2 =
the 64-ary QC-LDPC code. In terms of bits, the RS code is {λ0 = 0, λ1 , · · · , λpm−t −1 } be the additive subgroup of GF(q)
longer than the 64-ary QC-LDPC code by 4032 bits. This consisting of all linear combinations of αt , αt+1 , · · · , αm−1 ,
example, as well as other examples in this paper, show that i.e., λi = ci,t αt + ci,t+1 αt+1 + · · · + ci,m−1 αm−1 with
the KV algorithm cannot achieve a performance close to that ci,j ∈ GF(p). It is clear that G1 ∩ G2 = {0}.
of the FFT-QSPA, no matter how the interpolation complexity Form the following pm−t × pt matrix over GF(q):
coefficient λ is increased. 
(1) ⎡ ⎤
Example 4: Consider the 37×37 array Hq of α-multiplied w0
63 × 63 circulant permutation and zero matrices constructed ⎢ ⎥ w1
⎢ ⎥
based on the primitive elements of GF (26 ) as given in Exam- W(2) =⎢ ⎥ ..
⎣ ⎦ .
ple 3. Suppose we choose γ = 4 and ρ = 32. Take a 4 × 32
(1) (1)
subarray Hq (4, 32) from Hq , avoiding the zero matrices ⎡wpm−t −1 ⎤
(1) (1) 0 β1 ··· βpt −1
on the main diagonal of Hq . Hq (4, 32) is a 252 × 2016 ⎢ λ1 ⎥
⎢ λ1 + β1 ··· λ1 + βpt −1 ⎥
matrix over GF (26 ) with column and row weights 4 and 32, =⎢ .. ⎥.
(1)
respectively. The null space over GF (26 ) of Hq (4, 32) gives ⎣ ··· ··· . ··· ⎦
a (4, 32)-regular (2016, 1779) QC-LDPC code over GF (26 ) λpm−t −1 λpm−t −1 + β1 · · · λpm−t −1 + βpt −1
of rate 0.8824. The performance of this code decoded with (5)
the FFT-QSPA is shown in Fig. 4 which also includes the Since the rows of W(2) list the distinct cosets of G1 , any
performance of a (2016, 1779, 238) shortened RS code over two rows of W(2) differ in every place and every element of
GF (211 ) decoded with hard-decision BM algorithm. We see GF(q) appears once and only once in W(2) .
that at the BER of 10−6 , the 64-ary QC-LDPC code achieves a Proposition 2: The matrix W(2) satisfies the α-multiplied
1.85 dB coding gain over the shortened RS code. The symbol row-constraints 1 and 2.
size of the shortened RS code is 32 times larger than that of the Proof: The proof is based on Lemma 1. The determinant
64-ary QC-LDPC code. We did not include the performance of the 2 × 2 submatrix of W(2) , whose elements belong to
of the KV algorithm for decoding the RS code over GF (211 ) the ith and i th rows and the jth and j  th columns, where
as it is computationally difficult to simulate.  0 ≤ i, i < pm−t 0 ≤ j, j  < pt , l1 = l2 , and j = j  , equals
(λi +βj )(λi +βj  )−(λi +βj  )(λi +βj ) = (λi −λi )(βj  −βj ),
V. C ONSTRUCTION BASED ON A DDITIVE S UBGROUPS OF
F INITE F IELDS which is nonzero. Hence, W(2) satisfies the α-multiplied row-
constraints 1 and 2.
Let q = pm where p is prime and m is a positive integer. W(2) can be used as the base matrix for (q − 1)-fold
Consider the Galois field GF(q) which is an extension field dispersion to form both binary and q-ary QC-LDPC codes
of GF(p). Let α be a primitive element of GF(q). Then as shown next.
α0 = 1, α, · · · , αm−1 are linearly independent elements over
GF(p). Each element in GF(q) can be expressed as a linear
combination, c0 α0 +c1 α+· · ·+cm−1 αm−1 , of α0 , α, ..., αm−1 A. A Class of Binary QC-LDPC Codes
with cj ∈ GF(p). For 1 ≤ t < m, let G1 = {β0 = If we apply the (q−1)-fold binary dispersion to W(2) given
(2)
0, β1 , · · · , βpt −1 } be the additive subgroup of GF(q) consist- in (5), we obtain a pm−t × pt array Hb = [Bi,j ] of q − 1
ing of all linear combinations of α0 , α, ..., αt−1 , i.e., βi = binary (q − 1) × (q − 1) circulant permutation matrices and a
90 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009

(2) (2)
single zero matrix B0,0 in the upper left corner of Hb . Hb 0
10
is a pm−t (q − 1) × pt(q − 1) matrix over GF(2). Except for the (8160,7142) QC−LDPC BER 500 itr
(8160,7142) QC−LDPC WER 500 itr
first q − 1 columns and the first q − 1 rows, each column of (8160,7142) QC−LDPC BER 50 itr
(2) (2)
Hb has weight pm−t and each row of Hb has weight pt . −2
(8160,7142) QC−LDPC WER 50 itr
10 (8160,7159) QC−LDPC BER 50 itr
The weights of the first q − 1 columns and first q − 1 rows of (8160,7159) QC−LDPC WER 50 itr
Shannon Limit
(2)
Hb are pm−t − 1 and pt − 1, respectively. Since the rows of

error probability
(2) −4

W(2) satisfy the α-multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2, Hb 10

satisfies the RC-constraint.

For any pair of integers, γ and ρ, with 1 ≤ γ ≤ pm−t −6
10
(2) (2)
and 1 ≤ ρ ≤ pt , let Hb (γ, ρ) be a γ × ρ subarray of Hb .
(2)
Then Hb (γ, ρ) is a γ(q − 1) × ρ(q − 1) matrix over GF(2).
(2)
Hb (γ, ρ) also satisfies the RC-constraint. Its null space over
−8
10
(2)
GF(2) gives a binary (γ, ρ)-regular QC-LDPC code Cb . The
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
above construction gives a class of binary QC-LDPC codes. Eb/N0 (dB)

Example 5: Let GF (28 ) be the code construction field.

Choose t = 5. Then there exist two additive subgroups G1
and G2 in GF(28 ) with 32 and 8 elements, respectively, and
G1 ∩ G2 = {0}. Based on these two additive subgroups of
(2)
GF(28 ), we construct an 8 × 32 array Hb of 255 binary
255 × 255 circulant permutation matrices and a single zero
matrix. Suppose we choose γ = 4 and ρ = 32. Take the second
(2) (2)
to the fifth rows of Hb to form a 4×32 subarray Hb (4, 32)
(2) (2)
of Hb . Then Hb (4, 32) is a 1020×8160 matrix over GF(2)
with column and row weights 4 and 32, respectively. Its null
space over GF(2) gives a binary (8160, 7159) QC-LDPC code
with rate 0.8773. The performance of this code is shown in
Fig. 5. At the BER of 10−6 , it performs 0.98 dB from the
Shannon-limit. For comparison, we also included in Fig. 5
the performance of a (8160, 7142) random QC-LDPC code
provided by Fossorier using the method presented in [21]. The
parity-check matrix of this code has column weight 3 and row
weight 24. It is composed of 340 × 340 circulants. The Tanner
graph of the code has girth 8. The code is decoded using SPA
with 50 and 500 iterations. We see that the (8160, 7159) QC-
LDPC code constructed using our method and the random QC-
LDPC code decoded with 500 iterations have almost identical
performance in spite of the fact that the girth of the Tanner
graph for our code, 6, is smaller and the number of iterations,
50, is much less. Notice also that one of the codes is a
(4, 32)-regular LDPC code and the other is a (3, 24)-regular
LDPC code. Decoded with 50 iterations, the (8160, 7142)
random QC-LDPC code shows an error-floor around the BER
of 2 × 10−7 . 
Fig. 5. The performance of the binary (8160, 7159) QC-LDPC code given
in Example 5 decoded using 50 iterations and a binary (8160, 7142) random
QC-LDPC code constructed using the method in [21] decoded using 50 and
500 iterations.
Example 6: Let GF(26 ) be the code construction field.
Choose t = 4. Then there exist two additive subgroups G1
and G2 of GF(26 ) with 16 and 4 elements, respectively, and
G1 ∩ G2 = {0}. Based on these two subgroups of GF(26 ), we
(2)
can construct a 4 × 16 array Hq = [Qi,j ] of 63 α-multiplied
63 × 63 circulant permutation matrices over GF(26 ) and a
single zero matrix. Let γ = 4 and ρ = 12. Take a 4 × 12
(2) (2)
subarray Hq (4, 12) from Hq , avoiding the zero submatrix
(2)
Q0,0 , say taking the 2nd to the 13th columns of Hq to form
(2) 6 (2)
Hq (4, 12). The null space over GF(2 ) of Hq (4, 12) gives
a (756, 519) QC-LDPC code over GF(26 ) of rate 0.6852. The
performance of the 64-ary (756, 519) QC-LDPC code is shown
in Fig. 6. Also included in the figure is the performance of a
(756, 519, 238) shortened RS code over GF(210 ) decoded with
hard-decision BM and algebraic soft-decision KV algorithms.
At the WER of 10−5 , the (756, 519) QC-LDPC code over
GF(26 ) outperforms the RS code over GF(210 ) decoded with
hard BM decoding by 2.5 dB and outperforms the RS code
decoded with the KV algorithm with interpolation complexity
coefficients λ = 4.99 and λ = ∞ by 2.1 dB and 1.8 dB,
respectively. 

B. A Class of q-ary QC-LDPC Codes

If we apply the (q − 1)-fold q-ary dispersion to W(2) given
(2) VI. C ONSTRUCTION BASED ON C YCLIC S UBGROUPS OF
in (5), we obtain a pm−t × pt array Hq of q − 1 α-multiplied
F INITE F IELDS
(q − 1) × (q − 1) circulant permutation matrices over GF(q)
and a single zero matrix in the upper left corner of the array.
(2)
Hq is a pm−t (q − 1) × pt (q − 1) matrix over GF(q). Since
(2)
W(2) satisfies the α-multiplied row-constraint 1 and 2, Hq Suppose q − 1 is not a prime. Let β = αk and δ =
satisfies the RC-constraint. For any pair of integers, γ and ρ, m
α , where k and m are relatively prime factors such that
(2)
with 1 ≤ γ ≤ pm−t and 1 ≤ ρ ≤ pt , let Hq (γ, ρ) be a γ × ρ km = q − 1. Then B = {β 0 = 1, β, · · · , β m−1 } and
(2) (2)
subarray of Hq . The null space over GF(q) of Hq (γ, ρ) D = {δ 0 = 1, δ, · · · , δ k−1 } form two cyclic subgroups of
(2)
gives a q-ary QC-LDPC code Cq . The above construction the multiplicative group of GF(q) and B ∩ D = {1}. Form the
gives a class of q-ary LDPC codes. following k × (m + 1) matrix over GF(q):
SONG et al.: A UNIFIED APPROACH TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF BINARY AND NONBINARY QUASI-CYCLIC LDPC CODES BASED ON FINITE FIELDS 91

0 0
10 10
LDPC BER LDPC(4080,3093) BER
−1 LDPC SER LDPC(4080,3093) WER
10 LDPC WER
−1
10 LDPC(12750,11553) BER
RS WER (KV λ=4.99) LDPC(12750,11553) WER
−2 RS WER (KV λ= ∞) Shannon Limit(4080,3093)
10
RS BER (Hard) −2
10 Shannon Limit(12750,11553)
RS SER (Hard)
−3
10 RS WER(Hard)
error probability

error propability
−3
10
−4
10
−4
10
−5
10
−5
−6
10
10

−6
−7
10 10

−8 −7
10 10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Eb/N0(dB) Eb/N0(dB)

Fig. 6. The performance of (756, 519) QC-LDPC code over GF(26 ) given Fig. 7. The performance of the binary (4080, 3093) and (12750, 11553)
in Example 6 and the (756, 519, 238) RS code over GF(210 ) decoded with QC-LDPC codes given in Example 7.
hard decision and the KV algorithm with λ = 4.99 and λ = ∞.

⎡ ⎤
w0
⎢ ⎥ w1
⎢ ⎥
W(3) =⎢ ⎥ ..
⎣ ⎦ .
⎡wk−1
0 β−1 ···
⎢ δ−1
⎢ δβ − 1 ···
=⎢ .. ..
⎣ ..
. .
δ k−1 − 1 δ k−1 β − 1 · · · δ k−1 β m−1 − 1 −1
(6)
W(3) has the following structural properties: 1) any two
different rows differ in exactly m places; 2) any two columns
differ in every position; 3) all the k elements in a column
(except the last column) are different; 4) all the elements in a
row are different; and 5) except for the element “−1" in the
last column, every other element of GF(q) appears once and
only once.
Proposition 3: The matrix W(3) satisfies the α-multiplied
row-constraints 1 and 2.
Proof: The proof is based on Lemma 1. Consider a 2 × 2
submatrix of W(3) whose elements belong to the ith and i th
rows and the jth and j  th columns, where 0 ≤ i, i < k and
0 ≤ j, j  ≤ m. Since the elements in each column, except the
last, are different, the determinant of this submatrix is nonzero
if either j = m or j  = m. If neither j nor j  equals m, then
the determinant equals
   
(δ i β j − 1)(δ i β j − 1) − (δ i β j − 1)(δ i β j − 1) =
 
(δ i − δ i )(β j − β j ),
which is nonzero. Hence, W(3) satisfies the α-multiplied row-
constraints 1 and 2.
A. A Class of Binary QC-LDPC Codes
We disperse matrix W(3) given in (6) using (q − 1)-fold
(3)
binary dispersion. This results in a k × (m + 1) array Hb
of k(m + 1) − 1 binary circulant permutation matrices and a
(3)
single zero matrix in the upper left corner of the array. Hb
is a k(q − 1) × (m + 1)(q − 1) matrix over GF(2). Since
(3)
W(3) satisfies the α-multiplied row-constraints 1 and 2, Hb
satisfies the RC-constraint.
(3) (3)
Let Hb (γ, ρ) be a γ × ρ subarray of Hb with 1 ≤ γ ≤ k
and 1 ≤ ρ ≤ m + 1. Its null space over GF(2) gives a binary
⎤ (3)
QC-LDPC code Cb whose Tanner graph has a girth of at
β m−1 − 1 −1
least 6. The above construction gives a class of binary QC-
δβ m−1 − 1 −1⎥ ⎥
.. .. ⎥ . LDPC codes.
. . . ⎦ Example 7: Consider the field GF(28 ). We find that 28 −
1 = 255 can be factored as the product of k = 5 and m = 51
which are relatively prime. Then the multiplicative group of
GF(28 ) contains two cyclic subgroups B and D of orders of 51
and 5, respectively, such that B∩D = {1}. Based on these two
cyclic subgroups of GF(28 ), we can construct a 5 × 52 array
(3)
Hb of 259 binary 255 × 255 circulant permutation matrices
and a single zero matrix. Choose γ = 4 and ρ = 16. Take a
(3) (3)
4 × 16 subarray Hb (4, 16) from Hb , avoiding the single
(3) (3)
zero matrix of Hb . Hb (4, 16) is a 1020 × 4080 matrix over
GF(2) with column and row weights 4 and 16, respectively. Its
null space over GF(2) gives a binary (4080, 3093) QC-LDPC
code of rate 0.758. The performance of this code decoded
with the SPA with 50 iterations is shown in Fig. 7. At the
BER of 10−6 , it performs 1.4 dB from the Shannon-limit.
(3)
Suppose we remove the first and the last columns of Hb . This
(3)
results in a 5 × 50 subarray Hb (5, 50) which is a 1275 ×
12750 matrix over GF(2) with column and row weights 5
and 50, respectively. Its null space over GF(2) gives a binary
(12750, 11553) code of rate 0.9061. The performance of this
code is also shown in Fig. 7. At the BER of 10−6 , it performs
0.9 dB from the Shannon-limit. 
B. A Class of q-ary QC-LDPC Codes
Dispersing W(3) given in (6) using (q − 1)-fold q-ary
(3)
dispersion results in a k × (m + 1) array Hb of k(m + 1) − 1
α-multiplied circulant matrices and a single zero matrix in
(3)
the upper left corner of the array. Hq is a k(q − 1) × (m +
1)(q − 1) matrix over GF(q) that satisfies the RC-constraint.
92 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 57, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009

0
10
Experimental results show that the codes constructed perform
LDPC BER well over the AWGN channel with iterative decoding. The
LDPC SER
−1
10 LDPC WER nonbinary QC-LDPC codes constructed in this paper may be
RS WER(KV,λ=4.99)
−2 RS WER(KV, λ=∞)
used to replace RS codes in some applications.
10
RS BER(Hard)
RS SER(Hard)
−3
10 RS WER(Hard)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
error probability

−4
10 The authors would like to thank Marc Fossorier for provid-
−5
ing them with the (8160, 7124) code of Example 5 and the
10
reviewers for their careful reading and constructive comments.
−6
10

−7
10
−8
10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Eb/N0(dB)
Fig. 8. The performance of (567, 333) QC-LDPC code over GF(26 ) given
in Example 8 and the (567, 333, 235) RS code over GF(210 ) decoded with
hard decision and the KV algorithm with λ = 4.99 and λ = ∞.
(3) (3) (3)
Let Hq (γ, ρ) be a γ × ρ subarray of Hq . Hq (γ, ρ) is a
γ(q−1)×ρ(q−1) matrix over GF(q). Its null space over GF(q)
gives a QC-LDPC code over GF(q). The above construction
gives a class of QC-LDPC codes over GF(q).
Example 8: Consider the field GF(26 ). We can factor 26 −
1 = 63 into two relatively prime factors k = 7 and m = 9.
(3)
Then we can construct a 7 × 10 array Hq = [Qi,j ] of
69 α-multiplied 63 × 63 circulant permutation matrices over
GF(26 ) and a single 63 × 63 zero matrix Q0,0 . Choose γ = 4
(3) (3)
and ρ = 9. We take a 4 × 9 subarray Hq (4, 9) from Hq ,
avoiding the zero matrix Q0,0 , say taking the first 4 rows of
(3) (3)
Hq and deleting the first column. Hq (4, 9) is a 252 × 567
matrix over GF(26 ) with column and row weights 4 and 9,
(3)
respectively. The null space over GF(26 ) of Hq (4, 9) gives
(3)
a 64-ary (567, 333) QC-LDPC code Cq of rate 0.5873. The
performance of this code decoded with the FFT-QSPA is
shown in Fig. 8. Also included in Fig. 8 is the performance of a
(567, 333, 235) shortened RS code over GF(210 ) decoded with
hard-decision BM and algebraic soft-decision KV algorithms.
At the WER of 10−5 , the (567, 333) QC-LDPC code over
GF(26 ) outperforms the RS code over GF(210 ) decoded with
hard BM decoding by 2.7 dB and outperforms the RS code
decoded with the KV algorithm with interpolation complexity
coefficients λ = 4.99 and λ = ∞ by 2.2 dB and 1.8 dB,
respectively.

VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper we have presented a general approach to
the construction of binary and nonbinary QC-LDPC codes
under a single framework. The proposed approach is based
on dispersing a base matrix over a finite field that satisfies
two specific row-constraints. This results in a sparse matrix
whose associated Tanner graph has a girth of at least 6.
Based on this general approach, three specific methods for
constructing binary and nonbinary QC-LDPC codes have been
presented. Three classes of binary QC-LDPC codes and three
classes of nonbinary QC-LDPC codes have been constructed.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. G. Gallager, “Low Density Parity-check codes,” IRE Trans. Inform.
Theory, vol. IT-8, no. 1, pp. 21–28, Jan. 1962.
10
[2] D. J. C. MacKay and R. M. Neal, “Near Shannon limit performance
of low density parity-check codes,” IEEE Electron. Lett., vol. 32, pp.
1645–1646, Aug. 1996.
[3] D. J. C. MacKay, “Good error-correcting codes based on very sparse
matrices,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 399–432, Mar.
1999.
[4] T. J. Richardson and R. L. Urbanke, “The capacity of low-density parity-
check codes under message-passing decoding,” IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 599–618, Feb. 2001.
[5] T. J. Richardson, M. A. Shokrollahi, and R. L. Urbanke, “Design
of capacity-approaching low-density parity-check codes,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 619–637, Feb. 2001.
[6] S.-Y. Chung, T. J. Richardson, and R. L. Urbanke, “Analysis of sum-
product decoding of low-density parity-check codes using Gaussian
approximation,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 657-
670, Feb. 2001.
[7] Y. Kou, S. Lin, and M. P. C. Fossorier, “Low density parity-check codes
based on finite geometries: a rediscovery and new results,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 2711-2736, Nov. 2001.
[8] M. C. Davey and D. J .C. Mackay, “Low density parity check codes over
GF(q),” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 2, no. 6, pp. l65–167, June 1998.
[9] D. J .C. Mackay and M. C. Davey, “Evaluation of Gallager codes for short
block length and high rate applications,” in Codes, Systems and Graphical
Models, ser. IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, B.
Marcus and J. Rothenthal, eds. New York: Springer, 2000, vol. 123, pp.
113-130.
[10] L. Barnault and D. Declercq, “Fast decoding algorithm for LDPC over
GF(2q ),” in Proc. ITW2003, Mar.–Apr. 2003, pp. 70–73.
[11] D. Declercq and M. Fossorier, “Decoding algorithms for nonbinary
LDPC codes over GF(q),” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 55, no. 4, pp.
633–643, Apr. 2007.
[12] L. Zeng, L. Lan, Y. Y. Tai, and S. Lin, “Dispersed Reed-Solomon codes
for iterative decoding and construction of q-ary LDPC codes,” in Proc.
IEEE GLOBECOM 2005, Nov.–Dec. 2005, pp. 1193–1198.
[13] L. Zeng, L. Lan, Y. Y. Tai, B. Zhou, S. Lin, and K. A. S. Abdel-Ghaffar,
“Construction of nonbinary cyclic, quasi-cyclic and regular LDPC codes:
A finite geometry approach,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 56, no. 3, pp.
378–387, Mar. 2008.
[14] L. Zeng, L. Lan, Y. Y. Tai, S. Song, S. Lin, and K. Abdel-Ghaffar,
“Constructions of nonbinary quasi-cyclic LDPC codes: a finite field
approach,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 545–554, Apr. 2008.
[15] X. -Y. Hu and E. Eleftheriou, “Cycle Tanner-graph codes over GF(2b ),”
in Proc. Int. Symposium Inform. Theory, June–July 2003, p. 87.
[16] A. Bennatan and D. Burshtein, “Design and analysis of nonbinary LDPC
codes for arbitrary discrete-memoryless channels,” IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 549–583, Feb. 2006.
[17] Z. W. Li, L. Chen, L. Zeng, S. Lin, and W. H. Fong, “Efficient encoding
of quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 71–81, Jan. 2006.
[18] T. J. Richardson and R. L. Urbanke, “Efficient encoding of low-density
parity-check codes,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 638–
656, Feb. 2001.
[19] F. R. Kschischang, B. J. Frey, and H.-A. Loeliger, “Factor graphs and
the sum-product algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2,
pp. 498–519, Feb. 2001.
[20] S. Lin and D. J. Costello, Jr., Error Control Coding: Fundamentals and
Applications, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004.
[21] M. P. C. Fossorier, “Quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check codes from
circulant permutation matrices,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 50, no.
8, pp. 1788–1793, Aug. 2004.
SONG et al.: A UNIFIED APPROACH TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF BINARY AND NONBINARY QUASI-CYCLIC LDPC CODES BASED ON FINITE FIELDS
[22] R. M. Tanner, D. Sridhara, A. Sridharan, T. E. Fuja, and D. J. Costello,
Jr., “LDPC block and convolutional codes based on circulant matrices,”
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 2966–2984, Dec. 2004.
[23] L. Lan, L. Zeng, Y. Y. Tai, L. Chen, S. Lin, and K. Abdel-Ghaffar,
“Construction of quasi-cyclic LDPC codes for AWGN and binary erasure
channels: A finite field approach,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 53,
no. 7, pp. 2429–2458, July 2007.
[24] R. Smarandache and P. O. Vontobel, “On regular quasi-cyclic LDPC
codes from binomials,” in Proc. Int. Symposium Inform. Theory, June–
July 2004, p. 274.
[25] L. Chen, J. Xu, I. Djurdjevic, and S. Lin, “Near-Shannon-limit-quasi-
cyclic low-density parity-check codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 52,
no. 7, pp. 1038–1042, July 2004.
[26] R. M. Tanner, “A recursive approach to low complexity codes,” IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-27, no. 5, pp.533–547, Sep. 1981.
[27] J. Riordan, An Introduction to Combinatorial Analysis. New York:
Wiley, 1958.
[28] T. J. Richardson, “Error floors of LDPC codes,” in Proc. Allerton Conf.
Commun., Control and Computing, Oct. 2003, pp. 1426–1435.
[29] E. R. Berlekamp, Algebraic Coding Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1968.
[30] J. L. Massey, “Shift-register synthesis and BCH decoding,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 122–127, Jan. 1969.
[31] R. Koetter and A. Vardy, “Algebraic soft-decision decoding of Reed-
Solomon codes,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol 49, no. 11, pp. 2809–
2825, Nov. 2003.
[32] M. El-Khamy and R. McEliece, “Iterative algebraic soft-decision list
decoding of Reed Solomon codes,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol.
24, no. 3, pp. 481–490, Mar. 2006.
[33] W. J. Gross, F. R. Kschischang, R. Koetter, and G. G. Gulak, “Appli-
cations of algebraic soft-decision decoding of RS codes,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 1224–1234, July 2006.
Shumei Song was born in Henan, China. She
received the B.S.E.E. degree from Tsinghua Uni-
versity, Beijing, China, in 2000, and the M.S.E.E
degree from Peking University, Beijing, China, in
2003, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from the University of California, Davis, in 2007.
She is currently a senior engineer with Marvell
Semiconductor, Inc., Santa Clara, CA.
Her research interests include error-control coding
for digital communications and digital signal pro-
cessing for data storage.
93
Bo Zhou (S’02-M’08) received the B.E. and M.E.
degrees in electrical engineering from Shanghai
Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China, in 2001 and
2004, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical
and computer engineering from the University of
California, Davis, in 2008.
He is currently with Qualcomm Incorporated,
San Diego, CA as a senior engineer. His research
interests include error control coding and signal
processing for digital communications and magnetic
recording channels.
Shu Lin (S’62-M’65-SM’78-F’80-LF’00) received
the B.S.E.E. degree from National Taiwan Univer-
sity, Taipei, Taiwan, in 1959, and the M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in electrical engineering from Rice Univer-
sity, Houston, TX, in 1964 and 1965, respectively.
In 1965, he joined the Faculty of the University
of Hawaii, Honolulu, as an Assistant Professor of
Electrical Engineering. He became an Associate
Professor in 1969 and a Professor in 1973. In 1986,
he joined Texas A&M University, College Station,
as the Irma Runyon Chair Professor of Electrical
Engineering. In 1987, he returned to the University of Hawaii. From 1978
to 1979, he was a Visiting Scientist at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research
Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, where he worked on error control protocols
for data communication systems. He spent the academic year of 1996-1997 as
a Visiting Professor at the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
He retired from University of Hawaii in 1999 and he is currently an Adjunct
Professor at University of California, Davis. He has published numerous
technical papers in IEEE Transactions and other refereed journals. He is the
author of the book, An Introduction to Error-Correcting Codes (Englewood
Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970). He also co-authored (with D.J. Costello) the
book, Error Control Coding: Fundamentals and Applications (Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1st edition, 1982, 2nd edition, 2004), and (with
T. Kasami, T. Fujiwara, and M. Fossorier) the book, Trellises and Trellis-
Based Decoding Algorithms, (Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic, 1998). His
current research areas include algebraic coding theory, coded modulation,
error control systems, and satellite communications. He has served as the
Principle Investigator on 36 research grants.
Dr. Lin is a Member of the IEEE Information Theory Society and the
Communication Society. He served as the Associate Editor for Algebraic Cod-
ing Theory for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NFORMATION T HEORY from
1976 to 1978, the Program Co-Chair of the IEEE International Symposium
of Information Theory held in Kobe, Japan, in June 1988, and a Co-Chair
of the IEEE Information Theory Workshop held in Chengdu, China, October
2006. He was the President of the IEEE Information Theory Society in 1991.
In 1996, he was a recipient of the Alexander von Humboldt Research Prize
for U.S. Senior Scientists, a recipient of the IEEE Third-Millennium Medal,
2000, and a recipient of the IEEE Communications Society 2007 Stephen O.
Rice Prize in the Field of Communication Theory.
Khaled Abdel-Ghaffar (M’94) received the B.Sc.
degree from Alexandria University, Alexandria,
Egypt, in 1980, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from
the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
CA, in 1983 and 1986, respectively, all in electrical
engineering.
In 1988, Dr. Abdel-Ghaffar joined the University
of California, Davis, where he is now a Professor
of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He did
research at the IBM Almaden Research Center,
San Jose, CA, Delft University of Technology, The
Netherlands, University of Bergen, Norway, and Alexandria University, Egypt.
His main interest is coding theory.
From 2002 to 2005, he served as an Associate Editor for Coding Theory for
the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NFORMATION T HEORY. He is a co-recipient
of the IEEE Communications Society 2007 Stephen O. Rice Prize paper
award.