Bit Level Implementation of the PTA Algorithm for
Reed-Solomon Codes
Yuval Genga∗ , Olutayo Oyerinde† ,
School of Electrical & Information Engineering,
University of the Witwatersrand,
Private Bag 3, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa
Email: ∗ Yuval.Genga@students.wits.ac.za
† Olutayo.Oyerinde@wits.ac.za
Abstract—The Parity check Transformation Algorithm (PTA)
is a symbol level decoder that was recently developed for
Reed-Solomon (RS) codes. The algorithm is a soft decision
iterative decoder that uses the reliability information to decode
by transforming the parity check matrix based on the same soft
information. The PTA algorithm has been shown in literature
to outperform widely used RS decoders like the Berlekamp-
Massey algorithm and Koetter-Vardy algorithm. Work done in
this paper investigates the effect of the PTA algorithm working on
a sparse matrix by implementing it on a bit level. Modifications
are made to the algorithm, to suit the bit level implementation,
that significantly improve the overall performance. Simulations
run show that the algorithm compares favorably to the high
performance Adoptive Belief Propagation (ABP) decoder, that
also works on a bit level, while providing a significant gain when
compared to the symbol level implementation of the PTA.
Index Terms—Reed Solomon codes, Soft decision decoding,
Iterative decoding
I. I NTRODUCTION
Reed-Solomon (RS) codes [1] are a class of high perfor-
mance error correction codes due to their favorable algebraic
properties. As a result of their good performance, these codes
have a wide range of applications in telecommunications
and storage devices. A lot of the research on these popular
class of codes has been applied to the development of high
performance decoding schemes.
In literature, decoding of RS codes can be done on two
levels; it can either be done on a symbol level or on a bit
level. Most well known decoders for RS codes work on a
symbol level. Such decoders include hard decision decoding
algorithms, like the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm [2][3][4]
and the Euclidean algorithm [5]. The Koetter-Vardy (KV)[6]
algorithm is an example of a widely used soft decision symbol
level decoder used for RS codes. Work done in [7][8][9]
presents literature on some examples of bit-level decoding
algorithms based on RS soft decision techniques. The most
famous example of a soft decision RS decoder working on a
bit level is the Adoptive Belief Propagation (ABP) algorithm
[7]. This is largely due to its impressive error correcting
capabilities.
The ABP algorithm is based on the Belief propagation
algorithm for Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) codes [10].
The ABP algorithm was designed to apply the Belief Prop-
agation algorithm on linear block codes defined by a parity
978-1-5386-1098-5/17/$31.00 2017
c IEEE
39
Jaco Versfeld
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
Stellenbosch University,
Private Bag X1, 7602, Matieland, South Africa
Email: djjversfeld@sun.ac.za
check matrix, H, with a dense structure. Application of Belief
Propagation is made possible by performing a binary image
expansion on the dense H matrix to make it sparse by
converting it into its binary form [7], hence working on a
bit level. The ABP algorithm works by adopting the bit level
H matrix based on the received LLR bit reliabilities. This
adoption of the H matrix is done iteratively so as to prevent
the decoder from getting stuck at pseudo-equilibrium points
[7]. The ABP was shown in [7] to significantly outperform
other widely used RS decoders, including the KV algorithm.
This is largely attributed to the fact that the algorithm works
with a sparse binary H matrix obtained from working at a bit
level.
The Parity check Transformation Algorithm (PTA) is an
iterative soft decision symbol level decoder for RS codes that
was recently developed in [11]. The PTA algorithm works
by transforming the H matrix iteratively based on the values
of the soft reliability information that is outputted from the
channel. The reliability values change for every iteration due to
corrections made based on values obtained from the syndrome
check. The PTA algorithm has also been shown to outperform
the widely used KV algorithm [11], and shows a lot of promise
as an alternative decoder for RS codes.
Work presented in this paper focuses on the implementation
of the the PTA algorithm on a bit level. The PTA algorithm
does not utilize any of the algebraic properties possessed by
RS codes, thus the expectation that a bit level implementation
is possible just like the case of the ABP algorithm. This work
is done so as to determine if the PTA algorithm can take
advantage of the sparse structure of the H matrix exhibited at
the bit level to yield an improved error correction performance.
This performance will be determined through a Symbol Error
Rate (SER) comparison between a bit level implementation
versus a symbol level implementation of the PTA algorithm.
A performance comparison will also be done on the bit level
PTA with the ABP algorithm acting as a benchmark, so as to
give a fare comparison with bit level decoders.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section II
gives a summary of how the PTA algorithm works. The
implementation of the the PTA algorithm on a bit level will
be explained in Section III. Results obtained from simulations
will be discussed in Section IV and Section V will conclude
the work done in this paper.
II. T HE PARITY CHECK T RANSFORMATION A LGORITHM
The PTA algorithm is a symbol wise soft decision decoder
that utilizes the reliable information from the channel to
transform the H matrix by performing row operations. The
PTA decoder works iteratively by repeatedly correcting the
reliability values to obtain the decoded message.
To better comprehend how the PTA works we shall first
establish notation. Consider an (n, k) RS codeword c. The
symbols of c are transmitted over a noisy channel based on
a selected modulation scheme. At the output of the channel
the vector r is received. This vector r is then used to obtain
the reliability matrix, β, as shown in [11]. The PTA algorithm
then decodes the received message by working iteratively on
the matrix β. For each iteration, the PTA algorithm carries out
the following steps.
• The sorting reliability step: A reliability vector V is
obtained as shown in (1).
V = argmax(βj ), (1)
where 1 ≤ j ≤ n and βj represents each column of
the matrix β. The values of V are then sorted from
the least to the highest, while still noting the original
positions (indices) of the reliabilities during the switch.
These rearranged indices of the sorted reliabilities are
recorded in the vector l and are noted as
l = [l1 , l2 , ..., ln ]. (2)
The k highest reliabilities are considered to be the most
reliable and the matching indices are put in the vector R.
The remaining indices are assumed to match the (n − k)
least reliable symbols, and are stored in the vector U and
can be expressed as
U = [l1 , l2 , ..., l(n−k) ],
(3)
R = [l(n−k)+1 , .., ln ].
• The H transformation step: This step involves row re-
duction operations being used to transform the H matrix
into a partial systematic structure. The transformation is
considered to be partially systematic because the row
reduction operations are done in a way such that the
(n − k) indices of U match the identity submatrix and
the k indices of R match the parity submatrix, as shown
in [11]. The row reduction operation can be done in a
computationally efficient way using the approach shown
in [12].
• The syndrome check step: In this step a syndrome check
is done by finding the dot product of the hard decision
received vector ( r), obtained from β, and each of the
(n−k) rows of the transformed parity check matrix (H  ).
This computation can be presented as
Si = r · Hi , (4)
where 1 ≤ i ≤ (n − k) and is used to denote each row
of H  and each value of the syndrome vector, S.
40
• The correction step: This step involves performing cor-
rections on V based on each of the values, Si , of the
syndrome vector . These corrections on the reliabilities
can be considered to work in the form of a reward
system. The PTA ‘rewards’ the participating reliabilities
indexed by U and R by adding a predetermined cor-
rection factor, δ and δ/2, to their values respectively
whenever the Si = 0. This reinforces the hard decision
selection of these values for the next iteration. If Si = 0,
the participating reliabilities indexed by U and R are
‘penalized’ by subtracting δ and δ/2 respectively from
their values. This is done to reduce the chances of these
indices being selected during the hard decision step for
the next iteration. These corrections are done for each
syndrome check and can be summarized as
⎧
⎪
⎪ VUi + δ if Si = 0,
⎪
⎪
⎨ VR + δ/2,
Vj = (5)
⎪
⎪
⎪ V Ui − δ
⎪ if Si = 0.
⎩
VR − δ/2,
The new values of the reliabilities in V indexed by U
and R are then updated to their original positions in the
β matrix.
• The stopping condition: The above steps are repeated
iteratively until all of the Si values are equal to 0 or
until a negative value is updated to the β matrix.
III. B IT LEVEL I MPLEMENTATION OF THE PTA
A LGORITHM
In this section, the bit level implementation of the PTA is
discussed with regards to modifications in the H transforma-
tion step and the size of δ used during the correction step. For
purposes of notation, the PTA algorithm implemented at the
bit level is denoted to as PTAbl .
It is also important to note that a symbol level H matrix
with dimensions m × n will have the dimension of M × N
(where M = mb and N = nb and b represents the number
of bits in the field) in its binary state after a binary image
expansion has been done.
A. Modifications in the H transformation step
As seen in Section II, the PTA decodes by performing
corrections to the reliabilities in the matrix β. Therefore, the
algorithm does not directly utilize the algebraic properties of
the RS code. However, it does take advantage of the structural
properties of the H matrix. This is because the H matrix of
an (n, k) RS code has a set of (n − k) independent columns
regardless of the order of columns selected [12] [13]. This
helps during the transformation step of the PTA decoding
process. After a binary image expansion is done, the binary H
matrix losses this property. However the matrix still possess
a full row rank. This means that for the binary H matrix,
with the dimensions M × N , there exists a total number
of M independent columns which can be obtained through
row reduction. However, there is no guarantee that these M
columns will run consecutively to form an exact identity
matrix after the row reduction is done. With this regard, the
modification to the H transformation step can be summarized
as follows:
• The received vector is first converted into its bit form
based on a selected modulation scheme. The β matrix is
now constructed with only 2 rows to represent either a
0 or a 1 for the hard decision detection. To ensure that
each column in β adds up to one as in the case of [11],
we scale the value of the reliabilities as shown in (6)
βq,j
βq,j(scaled) = , (6)
βj
where 1 ≤ q ≤ 2, 1 ≤ j ≤ N and βq,j denotes the entry
in q th row and the j th column of β. The vector V is
obtained in the same way shown in (1). V is then sorted
in ascending order. The rearranged indexes are noted as
well and stored in the vector l.
• The binary H matrix is then transformed based on the re-
arranged indices in the vector l. The independent columns
in the binary H matrix will be represented by the columns
that match the identity submatrix after the transformation.
These columns will now be used to represent U indexes
and the remaining indexes are used to represent the R
indexes.
B. Modifications to the correction step
Working at a bit level means working with a binary parity
check matrix that is more sparse than a regular H matrix for an
RS code. The symbol level PTA algorithm addresses the issue
of working with a H matrix that has a very sparse identity
submatrix and a completely dense parity submatrix, when its
in the partial systematic transformed state, by using different
values of δ in the correction step for each submatrix as shown
in (5). For the case of working at a bit level, the binary H
matrix can be considered to be sparse in both the identity and
parity submatrices in its transformed state.
With this regard, the PTAbl is implemented using a single δ
value to correct the indices of the reliabilities that match both
the sparse identity and the sparse parity submatrices during
each iteration of the decoding process. The correction step is
now defined as
⎧ 10 -2
IV. R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
In this section, simulation results are presented for the
PTAbl algorithm. This simulations are done to obtain optimum
performance conditions of the algorithm. The performance of
the PTAbl is also tested against the high performance ABP
algorithm, which serves as the benchmark algorithm for this
work.
A. Algorithm Analysis
We first investigate the performance analysis of the PTAbl
algorithm based on the new implementation using a single δ
to correct the reliabilities. The performance of this implemen-
tation will be compared to the original case when different
δ values are used to correct the reliabilities matching the
participating U and R indices in each syndrome check. A
(15, 7) RS code is used in this simulation, with the symbols
being transmitted through an Additive White Gaussian Noise
(AWGN) Channel using a 16QAM modulation scheme. A
value of δ = 0.001 is used with both PTAbl implementations.
Results for this simulation are shown in Fig. 1.
From Fig. 1 it can be seen that the single δ implementation
performs better than the original implementation that requires
different δ values for correcting the U and R indices. This
result supports the hypothesis that, to obtain an optimum
performance, a single δ value is required to correct the
reliabilities due to the sparse nature of the binary H matrix.
A further investigation on the performance of the PTAbl
based on the value of δ is conducted. A similar test is done
in [11] for the symbol level PTA. This is done to study the
effect that the size of δ has on the case of the sparse binary
H matrix. A (15, 7) RS code is again transmitted through an
AWGN channel using a 16QAM modulation scheme. These
results are seen in Fig. 2.
PTAbl (different δ = 0.001)
PTAbl (Single δ = 0.001)
10 -1
Symbol Error Rate

⎪
⎪ VUi + δ if Si = 0,
⎪
⎪ V
⎨ Rt + δ,
Vj = (7) 10 -3
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ V Ui − δ if S i =
 0.
⎩
VRt − δ,
10 -4
where t represents the participating bits indexed by R in the
ith (for 1 ≤ i ≤ M ) syndrome check and can be denoted as
(8) 10 -5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t = {N : HM,N = 1}. (8) Es/No, dB

HM,N represents the entry in the M th row and the N th Fig. 1: Performance comparison of the PTAbl based on the
column of the binary parity check matrix. different δ implementations.

41
 10 -1 10 -1

10 -2 10 -2
Symbol Error Rate

Symbol Error Rate

10 -3 10 -3

PTAbl (Single δ = 0.001)

PTAbl (Single δ = 0.0025)
10 -4 10 -4
PTAbl (Single δ = 0.005)
PTAbl (Single δ = 0.0075) ABP(α = 0.5)
PTAbl (Single δ = 0.01) ABP(α = 0.12)
PTAbl (Single δ = 0.025) ABP(α = 0.05)
10 -5 PTAbl (Single δ = 0.05) 10 -5 Symbol Level PTA (δ = 0.001)
PTAbl (Single δ = 0.075) PTAbl (Single δ = 0.01)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Es/No, dB Es/No, dB

Fig. 2: Performance comparison of the PTAbl based on the Fig. 3: Performance of the PTAbl compared to the PTA and
value of δ used. the ABP for a half rate code

Fig. 2 shows that values of δ less than 0.01 all yield a
very similar performance. This gives a different result when
compared to the symbol level implementation in [11], which
shows smaller values of δ outperforming the larger values. The
reason why larger values of δ, for the bit level case, work the
same as the optimum value of 0.001 shown in [11] is once
again due the sparse structure of the binary H matrix. For
the symbol level PTA, all the indices matching R participate
in every check, due to the complete dense structure of the
parity submatrix. This means that the R indices are corrected
accordingly, regardless if they are right or wrong, depending
on the value of the syndrome check for every row in every
iteration. Therefore, a smaller value of δ is required for the
correction step to give a more accurate result. This is not the
case for a binary H matrix, as its sparse structure ensure that
not all the indices matching R take part in every syndrome
check calculation. This means that only the participating R
indices are corrected during each syndrome check. Thus larger
value of δ, not exceeding 0.01, can be used for the PTAbl . This
proves to be advantageous as larger values of δ enable the PTA
to decode with less iterations [11].
B. Performance Analysis
Half Rate codes
Now a performance comparison is done for the PTA algo-
rithm when implemented on a bit level and symbol level. In
the same test, the PTAbl is also benchmarked against the ABP
algorithm to give a fair comparison with decoders that work
on on a bit level. The same simulation parameters are used
as in the case for Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The PTAbl is run with
a correction factor of δ = 0.01 while the symbol level PTA
is implemented with a correction factor of δ = 0.001 as used
in [11]. The ABP algorithm is implemented using a damping
factor, α, of 0.05, 0.12 and 0.5 as done in [7]. The maximum
number of iterations of the ABP algorithm is set to 50. The
results of the simulation are shown in Fig. 3.
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that a significant gain is
experienced when the PTA is implemented on a bit level
compared to the symbol level implementation. The PTAbl
algorithm outperforms the symbol level PTA by well over
4dB at a SER of 10−4 . Working at a bit level means working
with a larger H matrix than the case of a symbol level. This,
therefore, increases the complexity of the PTA algorithm at
a bit level compared to that of a symbol level. However, the
significant performance gain more than justifies the use of the
PTAbl compared to the symbol level PTA whenever a tradeoff
is required.
Fig. 3 also shows that the PTAbl algorithm yields a slight
gain, just within the range of 0.5dB at a SER of 10−4 , when
compared to the ABP algorithm with α = 0.12 and 0.05. A
more significant gain of over 1.5dB is seen in the comparison
for the ABP with α = 0.5 at the same SER value.
High Rate codes
An additional simulation is done to test the performance
of the PTAbl algorithm under high rate conditions. For this
simulation, a (15, 11) RS code is once again transmitted using
a rectangular 16 QAM modulation scheme through an AWGN
channel. The PTAbl is still corrected using a single value of
δ = 0.01, while being benchmarked against the ABP running
under the same conditions as those used for the half rate codes.
The results for this simulations are presented in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 suggests that the PTAbl algorithm yields a similar
performance to that of the ABP with α = 0.12 and 0.05
algorithm for high rate RS codes. The PTAbl algorithm still
only slightly outperforms the ABP with α = 0.5. This
indicates that the performance gain attained by the PTAbl
compared to the ABP algorithm diminishes as the rate of the
code increases.

42
 [8] A. Vardy and Y. Be’ery, “Bit-level soft-decision decoding of reed-
10 -1 solomon codes,” Communications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 39, no. 3,
pp. 440–444, Mar 1991.
[9] O. Ur-rehman and N. Zivic, “Soft decision iterative error and erasure
decoder for Reed-Solomon codes,” Communications, IET, vol. 8, no. 16,
pp. 2863–2870, 2014.
10 -2
[10] D. MacKey and R. M. Neil, “Near Shannon limit performance of low
density parity check codes,” Electro. Lett, 1996.
Symbol Error Rate

[11] O.O. Ogundile, Y.O. Genga and D.J.J. Versfeld, “Symbol level iterative
soft decision decoder for Reed-Solomon codes based on parity-check
10 -3 equations,” Electronics Letters, vol. 51, no. 17, pp. 1332–1333, Aug.
2015.
[12] D.J.J. Versfeld, J.N. Ridley, H.C. Ferreira and A.S.J. Helberg, “On Sys-
tematic Generator Matrices Reed-Solomon codes,” Information Theory,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2549–2550, June 2010.
10 -4
[13] D. J. J. Versfeld, H. C. Ferreira, and A. S. J. Helberg, “Efficient packet
ABP(α = 0.5)
ABP(α = 0.12) erasure decoding by transforming the systematic generator matrix of an
ABP(α = 0.05) rs code,” in 2008 IEEE Information Theory Workshop, May 2008, pp.
PTAbl ( δ = 0.01) 401–405.
10 -5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Es/No, dB

Fig. 4: Performance of the PTAbl compared to the PTA and

the ABP for a high rate code

V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, the bit level implementation of the PTA
algorithm is presented. The algorithm compares favorably
against the high performance ABP algorithm for both cases
of half rate and high rate codes. The bit level implementation
also significantly outperforms the symbol level PTA algorithm.
This comes at the cost of an increased complexity due to the
PTAbl working with a larger H matrix as a result of the binary
image expansion. However, the large performance gain of the
PTAbl over the symbol level PTA justifies its use in a case
where a performance-complexity tradeoff is required.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS :
The financial assistance of National Research Foundation
(NRF) of South Africa towards this research is hereby ac-
knowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at,
are those of the authors and are not necessarily to be at-
tributed to the NRF. The financial support of the Centre
for Telecommunication Access and Services (CeTAS), the
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
is also acknowledged.
R EFERENCES
[1] I. S. Reed and G. Solomon, “Polynomial Codes over Certain Finite
Fields,” J. Soc.Ind. Appl. Maths., 1960.
[2] J. Massey, “Shift-register synthesis and BCH decoding,” Information
Theory, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 122–127, Jan 1969.
[3] J. G. Proakis and M. Salehi, Digital Communications, 5th ed. McGraw-
Hilll Higher Education, Nov 2007.
[4] E. R. Berlekamp, Algebraic Coding Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1968.
[5] Y. Sugiyama, M. Kasahara, S. Hirasawa, and T. Namekawa, “A method
for solving key equation for decoding Goppa codes,” Information and
Control, 1975.
[6] R. Koetter and A. Vardy, “Algebraic Soft-Decision Decoding of Reed-
Solomon Codes,” Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, 2003.
[7] J. Jiang and K. Narayanan, “Iterative Soft-Input Soft-Output Decoding
of Reed Solomon Codes by Adapting the Parity-Check Matrix,” Infor-
mation Theory, IEEE Transactions on, 2006.

43