320 IEEE TRANSACTIOIJS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 40, NO.
2, MARCH 1994
An Efficient Maximum-Likelihood-Decoding
Algorithm for Linear Block Codes with Algebraic
Decoder
Toshimitsu Kaneko, Toshihisa Nishijima, Member, IEEE,
Hiroshige Inazumi, and Shigeichi Hirasawa, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract- A new soft decoding algorithm for linear block
codes is proposed. The decoding algorithm works with any
algebraic decoder and its performance is strictly the same as
that of maximum-likelihood-decoding(MLD). Since our decod-
ing algorithm generates sets of different candidate codewords
corresponding to the received sequence, its decoding complexity
depends on the received sequence. We compare our decoding
algorithm with Chase algorithm 2 and the Tanaka-Kakigahara
algorithm in which a similar method for generating candidate
codewords is used. Computer simulation results indicate, for some
signal-to-noiseratios (SNR),that our decoding algorithm requires
less average complexity than those of the other two algorithms,
but the performance of ours is always superior to those of the
other two.
Index Tenns-Maximum-likelihood-decoding, soft decision de-
coding, generalized minimum distance decoding, linear block
codes.
I. INTRODUCTION
S OFT decision decoding is a decoding method to im-
prove the reliability of coding systems by using more
information than that of hard decision decoding. It is well
known that maximum-likelihood-decoding (MLD) is the best
method in the sense of minimizing the probability of not
decoding correctly under the assumption that all codewords
are transmitted with the same probability. However, since the
complexity required for performing MLD grows exponentially
with the code length n, studies on decoding methods for
reducing the complexity of MLD have been developed 111.
Manuscript received March 16, 1992. Some of results in this paper were
presented at the IEICE, Technical Group on IT, Kobe, Japan, July 1991
and some were presented at the Symposium on Information Theory and Its
Applications, Ibusuki, Japan, December 1991.
T. Kaneko was with the Department of Industrial Engineering and Man-
agement, School of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Shinjuku,
169 Japan. He is now with the Communication and Information System
Laboratory, R&D Center, Toshiba Corporation, Kawasaki, 210 Japan.
T. Nishijima was with Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
Kanagawa Institute of Technology, Atsugi, 243-02 Japan. He is now with the
Department of Industrial and System Engineering, College of Engineering,
Hosei University, Koganei, 184 Japan.
H. Inazumi was with Department of Information Science, Shonan Institute
of Technology, Fujisawa, 251 Japan. He is now with the Department of
Industrial and Systems Engineering, Aoyama-gakuin University, Setagaya,
157 Japan.
S. Hirasawa is with the Department of Industrial Engineering and Man-
agement, School of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Shinjuku,
169 Japan.
IEEE Log Number 9400603.
0018-9448/94$04.00 0 1994 1EE.E
Authorized licensed use limited to: Southeast University. Downloaded on April 22,2021 at 12:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
On the other hand, studies of decoding methods which trade
a slight degradation in performance for reducing the decoding
complexity have been reported 121-161. These decoding meth-
ods are approximations of MLD with less complexity. The
generalized minimum distance (GMD) decoding proposed by
G. D. Forney [2] is in the class of decoding methods satisfying
the property that an algebraic decoder is used to generate
a number of candidate codewords and these codewords are
compared to the received sequence by the likelihood measure.
Chase algorithms [4] are also in this class. GMD decoding and
Chase algorithms are asymptotically optimum for high signal-
to-noise ratio (SNR), but their performances are inferior to that
of MLD for low SNR or practical code length. It has been said
that the central problem is to find an efficient technique that
can generat,: a set of codewords that will contain with high
probability the codeword that is most likely.
In this paper, we propose a new decoding algorithm, which
is in the class of decoding methods described above and
works with any algebraic decoder for linear block codes. The
probability that the most likely codeword is contained in the set
of candidatc: codewords generated by our decoding algorithm
is always (:qual to 1 strictly. So our decoding algorithm
is MLD. Our decoding algorithm generates a larger set of
candidates when a noisy sequence is received, and a smaller
set of Candidates when a clean sequence is received, and
thus reduces the average decoding complexity without loss
of performance for MLD. The decoding complexity required
for this algorithm depends on the property of a received
sequence.
We first issume that the binary linear block codes are used.
In Section [I, we show one of the sufficient conditions that
the codeword is most likely. In Section 111, extending the
results of Section 11, we derive the sufficient condition that
a set of codewords includes all the codewords that are more
likely than a given codeword. We try to find out a set of
smaller number of candidate codewords which are enough
to perform MLD. In Section IV, we propose a new MLD
algorithm. We compare the performance of this algorithm with
similar decoding algorithms, though they are not MLD, by
computer s mulations assuming the additive white Gaussian
noise (AWGN) channel. As a result, we conclude that for
some value; of SNR, less average complexity is required for
performing MLD by the proposed algorithm. We also discuss
on extension into q-ary ( q > 2) linear block codes.
KANEKO ef a/.: MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD-DECODING ALGORITHM FOR LINEAR BLOCK CODES 32 1

11. DECISION
CRITERIA FOR THE MOSTLIKELYCODEWORDS arbitrary codeword such that z' # z.Then from the fact that
~ H ( z ' , z) 2 d, we have
Let C be a binary linear block code of length n,dimension
IC and minimum distance d, denoted by (n, k, d ) code. The
codeword which is the output of the encoder is denoted by
hi + hz 2 d (5)

z = (21, 2 2 , . . . ,z,) E C , where 5 ; is an element of GF(2).
Each z; is transmitted over the AWGN channel.
At the receiver, the demodulator generates the reliability
sequence a = (cq,a2,. . . , cy,) from the received sequence
y = (y1, yz , . . . ,y,), where yi is a received signal when z; is
transmitted. The reliability cy; matched to the AWGN channel
is the bit-log-likelihood ratio
where ~ H ( ub), denotes the Hamming distance between a
and b. Let 7740 = IlS&II assuming z' # 20. Since there
are m - h2 t hl positions which satisfy y y # z: and
d ~ ( z '2,0 ) 2 d , we have also
m - h2 + hi + WLO 2 d. (6)
From (5) and (6), following inequality is derived.

where K is an arbitrary positive constant and p(y;)z;) is the where 1. denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to
probability of receiving y; when z; is transmitted. Then we can a. Since llS:,I) 2 IlS, flS:, 11, (7) is one of the lower bounds
get the hard decision sequence yH = (y,", y y , . . . , y,") of y, of Il%f II.
Next, we represent the reordered elements s k ) in the set
S,. as
I 1 3 v )I I la3?)I I ' . . i la3p-m)1. (8)
where /ail indicates the reliability of y?.
We now define the sets of positions, U, S,, and S:. Let U be Then from tht: above discussions,
the set of all positions of a codeword, i.e., U = { 1, 2, . . . , n}. &I" +-I +m
And we divide the set U into S, and S: by the codeword z.
If z; = y y then the position i belongs to S,, otherwise the
l(Y, 2') 2 IQ1 (9)
.'#=I3 i=l
position i belongs to S:, i.e., S, = {ilzc,= y?, i E U} and
S; = { i ( z i #
,:y i E U}. Obviously, U = S, +
'9:. is derived. This leads to the following lemma immediately.
Then, the maximum-likelihood metric of a codeword z, Lemma 1: If the codeword z satisfies
denoted by L(y, z),can be presented as d- 1-1

l(Y, z)< Ia3pI, (10)

iES, i€S$
i€U i€SZ
Since the term Icy;I is independent of z,L(y, z)depends
only on
(4)
aES;
So our purpose is to find the codeword z from y which
minimizes the value of l(y, z).When l(y, z) is given for
an arbitrary codeword z,we are interested in the smallest
value of I(y, z') for all z' # z.If there exists z such that
l(y, z) < l(y, z'),then we can determine that z is
most likely, and can terminate the algorithm. We can never
know, however, the value of min,,+,l(y, 2 ' ) . Minimizing
IlSe,ll and selecting the smallest Inz/,we derive a lower bound
on it, where llSll denotes the cardinal number of S .
First, we derive the minimum value of ~ ~ from
S the~
minimum distance d of the code. Since we select yH as the
first input sequence of the algebraic decoder for the proposed
decoding algorithm described later, assume that we already
know both z and 2 0 , where zo is the output of the algebraic
decoder when yH is the input sequence.
Let m = llS;ll, h 1 = IIS, n Se,ll, 0 5 hl 5 TL - 7n
and hz = 1 1s: n Szfll, 0 5 h2 5 m, where z' is an
2=1
then there is no codeword which is more likely than z.
P r m ~Iri the case z # z o , Lemma 1 is valid from above
discussions. So we prove in the case z = ZO. m = m0. From
d ~ ( z ' 2, 0 ) 2 d, we have
IlS:,II + mo > d. (1 1)
One of the lower bounds of llS~,llin the case z = zo is
Ils;,II 2 d - mo. (12)
+
Replacing m by m o , d - mo and d - [(mo m)/2] are the
same. Thus, Lemma 1 is also given when z = zo. 0
Lemma 1 gives a decision criterion that a codeword is most
likely. We can stop searching codewords when we find a
codeword which satisfies (10).
Here, we must consider that we cannot always get the
codeword zo.That is the case in which the algebraic decoder
fails to find a codeword zo which satisfies dH(yH, zo) I
L(d- ~ ~In this case, however, (10) still becomes a decision
, 1)/2].
criterion as long as we replace r r ~ oby m.
The criterion in Lemma 1 can be derived from ideas similar
to those used io derive the criterion in [6].The latter is, with
notation used here, given by
d-m

Authorized licensed use limited to: Southeast University. Downloaded on April 22,2021 at 12:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
322
+
From the fact that m 2 [(mo m)/2J, the criterion in Lemma
1 is superior to that in [6]. Moreover, the former works in the
region m < 2d - mo, where the criterion in [6] works in the
region m < d. So our criterion also extends the region in
which the criterion works. The reason is that in the former the
condition d H (z’, zo) > d is also considered while in the latter
, > d is considered. However,
only the condition d ~ ( z ’ z)
when we use the criterion with the codeword z 0 and when we
cannot obtain z o , i.e., m = mO,both are exactly the same.
111. GENERATING
METHODFOR THE! SET OF CANDIDATES
If we generate the set of candidates by algebraic decoder,
which codeword is chosen as an element of the set depends
on which sequence is selected as the input of the algebraic
decoder. We assume that the input sequence of the algebraic
decoder is the sum of the hard decision sequence yH and
an error sequence e = ( e l , e a , . . . , e , ) estimated at the
+
receiver, i.e., yH e. In the following, we call e’s estimated
error sequences. We now discuss the set of estimated error
sequences e’s which are enough to perform MLD.
Let C, to be the set of codewords which are more likely than
z.Then C, is enough to perform MLD, however, we cannot
generate C, exactly without referring to all codewords. So we
define, instead, the set of codewords L, as follows. We select
all sequences as the estimated error sequences e’s which have
any combination of l’s, which are located in the i positions
~ . define a set L, to be the set
with the lowest value of ~ u ,Then,
of codewords that are outputs of the algebraic decoder when
+
yH e are inputs. We represent the reordered elements U(’)
in the set U, as
IQI,(1) I5 l%(2) I I. . . I lad4 I. (14)
To generate L,, we select the estimated error sequences
e’s, whose components e,(l), eu(2),. . . , e,(%)are 0 or 1 and
e,(,+l), . . . ,e,(,) are 0. Thus, there are 2, patterns of e and
the algebraic decoder is used for 22 times.
From the definition, L, satisfies
Lo & L1 g L2 g ... c_ L , (15)
where LO = ( 2 0 ) . Denoting the error collecting capability
of the code by t, the fundamental lemma for the proposed
algorithm described later is as follows.
Lemma 2: If j E U satisfies
z=1 2=1
then C, c L,.
Proof: At the beginning, we note that the set L, satisfies
(15). First, we show that the codeword z’which is an element
of L,+I - L, satisfies x:(3+l) # y$J+l) and must have t
positions which satisfy &,) # yz,) for i > j + 1. If z’is
an element of L,+1, there must be at most t positions which
satisfy T : ( % #
)~5%) +
for i > j 1. And if z’is not an element
of L,, there must be at least t +
1 positions which satisfy
x:(%) # y z t )for i > j . These two facts lead to the condition
above.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Southeast University. Downloaded on April 22,2021 at 12:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 40, NO. 2, MARCH 1994
Next, using (7) and the similar manner in Lemma 1, a lower
bound on niin,rELJ+l--L, E(y, 2‘). where z’satisfies the above
condition, IS given by
d-1 1-t-1
t+l
i= 1
If z satitfies (16), then 5 is more likely than codewords in
L,+l - L, consequently, (L,+l - L 3 )n C, = 4. Moreover,
since the light-hand side of (17) is monotonic increasing
with j , (L.,+2 - L,+1) n c, = 4, (L,+3 - L,+2) n C, =
4, . . . , ( L , - L , _ , ) n C , = 4 also hold. Since L , = C, C, c
L, when ( 1 6) holds. 0
If z is known, Lemma 2 clarifies whether L, is enough
to perform MLD or not. If we want to generate a set with
a smaller number of candidates, such a set is given by LT
where T is the smallest value of j which satisfies (16). Since
the right-hand side of (16) is monotonic increasing with j , we
can find thc value of T by replacing j by 0, 1, 2, . . . ,n - t - 1,
where the first value which satisfies (16) is equal to T.
IV. DECODING
ALGORITHM
In this section, we introduce Chase algorithm 2 and the
Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm in which a similar method for
generating a set of estimated error sequences to our proposed
algorithm I S used. After that, we propose a new decoding
algorithm.
Chase algorithm 2 [4]: For this algorithm, only error se-
quences with no more than [ ( d - 1)/2J errors located outside
of the set of Ld/2J positions with the lowest value of la21
are considered. A set of estimated error sequences required by
Chase algorithm 2 is given by letting e have any combination
of 1’s which are located in the Ld/2] positions with the lowest
value of 1(i21ri.e., all binary sequences whose components
e,(’), e u ( 2 ) , .. . , e,([d/~l) . . . ,e,(%)
are 0 or 1 and e,([d/21+1),
are 0.
Tanaka- Kakigahara algorithm 151: A set required by
Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm is given by letting e have any
combination of 1’s which are located in the positions in
which the value of la2lis smaller than the arbitrary positive
threshold 6. This algorithm can be considered as an adaptive
Chase algorithm 2, and the performance of this decoding
algorithm changes with the value of threshold 8. It should be
noted that in this algorithm for a fixed value of 8 there is no
terminating cnterion maintaining MLD.
Proposed algorithm: We assume an arbitrary codeword zis
known. To find the codeword z’which minimizes l(y, 2’). we
search only codewords in C,. Unfortunately, it is impossible
to generate a set C, without examining all codewords, so
we search the codewords in LT which includes C,. If we
can find thle codeword z‘which satisfies E(y, 5’) < E(y, z)
in LT, then we search only candidates in the set L p which
includes Ccl.Note that C,! is the subset of C, and L T ~is the
subset of LT, i.e., T’ 5 T. If we can find the codeword z“
which satisfies E(y, z”)< l(y, 2’) in L p , then we search only
KANEKO ef al.: MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD-DECODINGALGORITHM FOR LINEAR BLOCK CODES 323

candidates in the set LT" which includes Cxff.Note again that Theorem 1: The decoding algorithm described above per-
Czft is the subset of Cx!and LTU is the subset of LT,, i.e., forms strictly MLD.
T" 5 T'. We repeat these procedures. Thus, we replace LT Example I : Letting code C be the (7, 4, 3) code, and as-
by the subset L T I ,and next replace L p by the subset LT", suming that a = (-0.2, -1.0, 1.2, -0.4, -0.1, -0.7, -1.6)
and so on. We terminate this procedure when there are no is received. Then we have yH = (0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0).
remaining codewords to search. Finally, the set of codewords First, we choose the estimated error sequence
to search becomes L p , where T* is the smallest value of e(') = (0, 0. 0, 0, 0, 0, 0). We decode yH e(") = yH +
j which satisfies (16) when z is the most likely codeword. using algebraic decoder and obtain a codeword
We can also terminate when the candidate is determined to z o = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0). Then, Z(y, 20) = 1.2. Since
minimize Z(y, z) by Lemma 1. mo = m = 1, right-hand-side of (10) is 1-0.11+1-0.21 = 0.3,
Since the set of codewords to search is replaced by LT and (10) does not hold because 1.2 # 0.3. Thus, it cannot
having smaller T and Li holds the relation (lo), we decide be determined that zo is most likely. Replacing j by
the order of search as LO,L1 - LO, L2 - L 1 , .. -. Defining 0, 1, 2 , . . . , the value of right-hand side of (16) takes
ordered estimated error sequence e(i) = ( e r ) , e t ) , . . . ,e?)),
0.3, 0.6, 1.1, 1.7,. . .. Since the minimum value of j
i = 0, 1,. . . , 2n - 1 satisfying satisfying (16) is 3, T = 3 and e = (*, 0, 0, *, *, 0, 0)
n
is selected as the estimated error sequences, where *
Cep-l
j=1
= 2, e[4 E (0, 1) (18)
is 0 or 1. rhe ordered estimated error sequences are
e(') = (0, 0,0, 0, I, 0, o), e(') = (1,0, 0, 0, 0, 0, o),
e@) = (1, 0, (1, 0, 1, 0 , ~),---,e(')= (I, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0).
the algebraic decoder generates the set Lj by selecting y+e(i), +
Second, we decode yH e(') using algebraic decoder and
z = 0, 1 , . . . , 2j - 1 as inputs. Selecting e(i) in order i = obtain a codeword z1 = (0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0). z 1 is more likely
0, 1, 2;.. is equivalent to searching codewords in order than z o because l(y, 20)= 0.8. From m = 2, right-hand side
Lo,L1 - Lo, LZ - Ll,... . +
of (10) is I - 0.21 I - 0.41 = 0.6 0.8 # 0.6, it cannot be
Thus, the decoding algorithm proposed in this paper is determined that z1 is most likely. Since T = 2 for a codeword
described as follows. 2 1 , e = (*, 0, 0, 0, *, 0, 0) is selected as the estimated error

procedure Decoding Algorithm sequences. Tht: ordered estimated error sequences are e(') and
begin e ( 3 ) only.
+
Third, we decode yH e(') using algebraic decoder and
i : = 0; obtain 2 2 = :1, 0 , 1, 1, 0, 0, 0). Since Z(y, 2 2 ) = 0.6, z 2
T : = n; is more likely than zl. Right-hand side of (10) is I - 0.11 +
Z(y, 3):= 0 ; I - 0.71 = O h and 0.6 < 0.8, we can decide that z 2 is the
while i < 2T - 1 do most likely codeword from Lemma 1. Thus, we select 2 2 as
an output and terminate the algorithm.
begin
In this example, Chase algorithm 2, and the Tanaka-
+
Decode yH e ( i ) using algebraic de- Kakigahara algorithm with 0 = 0.15 select e =
coder; (0, 0, 0, 0, *, 0, 0) as the estimated error sequences and
if the algebraic decoder successes to find fail to find the most likely codeword 2 2 . Tanaka-Kakigahara
a codeword z and algorithm with 0 = 0.3 selects e = (0, *, 0, 0, 0, *, 0) and
Z(y, z)< I(y, 3) then can find z2 using the algebraic decoder 4 times.
Example 2: Letting code C be the (7, 4, 3) code, and
begin assuming that a = (-1.0, -1.1, 0.2, -0.4, -1.1, -0.5,
z:=2; -1.4) is received. Our decoding algorithm decodes yH e(O) +
if z satisfies (10) then Halt first and gets zo = ( 0 , 0 , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ) . Since 20 holds
(an estimate of codeword is Lemma I, we can terminate with the first decoding step, while
3); Chase algorithm 2 and the Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm
Calculate T (=the smallest with 0 = 0.15 select e = (0, 0, 0, 0, *, 0. 0) as estimated
value of j satisfying (16) with error sequences and decode yH +
e using algebraic decoder
3); twice. The Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm with 0 = 0.3 selects
e = (0, 0, *, 0, *, 0, 0) as estimated error sequences and
end; decodes them using the algebraic decoder 4 times.
2: = 2 + 1;
end; V. COMPUTER RESULTS
SIMULATION
Halt (an estimate of codeword is 3); In this section, we compare by computer simulations the
performances cif the various decoding algorithms for binary an-
end; tipodal signals over the AWGN channel, using the (23, 12, 7)
Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 lead to the following theorem Golay code and three BCH codes of code length 15, where the
without proof. number of samples for these simulations are 100 000. On this

Authorized licensed use limited to: Southeast University. Downloaded on April 22,2021 at 12:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
~
324
rh CdBl
(C)
Fig. 1. Comparisons of performance over the AWGN channel.
condition, the received signal yi is given by y; = zia+
when xi = 0 and y; = -a+ zi when xi = 1, where
E, is the energy per bit of the channel input and zi is
identically distributed Gaussian random variables with mean 0
and variance a2 = N0/2, and NO is the noise spectral density.
The SNR for the channel is y = E,/No and the SNR per
transmitted information bit is yb = y . n / k .
We compare three decoding algorithms, our decoding algo-
rithm, Chase algorithm 2, and the Tanaka-Kakigahara algo-
rithm. The reason why we compare our decoding algorithm
with these algorithms, though they are not MLD, in that these
algorithms use similar methods for generating the estimated
error sequences. The performance of the Tanaka-Kakigahara
algorithm changes with the value of threshold 8. So we
evaluate it with different values of 8.
The performances of these algorithms are shown in Fig. I .
Our algorithm gives the smallest block error probability of
the three. This is obvious because our decoding algorithm is
MLD and others are not.
Before we discuss on the complexity required by these
algorithms, we must define a measure of the complexity. Most
of the complexity required by decoding algorithms in the class
that uses algebraic decoder to generate a set of candidate
codewords is the computational complexity performed by the
algebraic decoder. We define the decoding complexity to be
Authorized licensed use limited to: Southeast University. Downloaded on April 22,2021 at 12:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 40, NO. 2, MARCH 1994
10
16'
-
._
Y
.
3t
&. lo-2
i;
3
s
10.~
JO-#o 1 2 3 4
T L [dB1
~
the number of decoding times for which the algebraic decoder
is used.
Fig. 2 shows the performances of average complexity re-
quired by the three decoding algorithms. Our algorithm re-
quires less average complexity than both Chase algorithm
2 and the Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm over yb = 1 2 N
dB. In this range of SNR, our decoding algorithm gives the
smallest block error probability and simultaneously requires
the least average complexity. These results show that our
decoding algorithm can generate sets of small number of
candidate codewords which include the most likely codeword.
In the range under 'yb = 1 2 dB, our decoding algorithm
N
requires more complexity than that of Chase algorithm 2 or
the Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm. By increasing the value of
8, the Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm improves performance
while requiring more complexity without guaranteeing the
performance of MLD. Since our decoding algorithm guaran-
tees MLD, as SNR becomes lower and lower, our decoding
algorithm is closer and closer to conventional MLD.
Next, we consider the performance with limited complexity.
That is, in the case that the number of decoding times by
the algebraic decoder is truncated by some value. This is
of practical meaning because the decoding delay tolerable in
the coding system is taken into account. Denote the case in
which the algebraic decoder performs at most 2i times by
KANEKO et al.: MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD-DECODING ALGORITHM FOR LINEAR BLOCK CODES 325

4- T-K [ 06.377)

zoo
(23.12.7) GolW

I 1
(Me

3' 4'
T (15.5.7) Bnl Cmie
T-K ( 8=0.276)

\
7 b [dB1

25

24-

2,
Y

T-K ( 8=0.276)

( 15,7,5) 001 code

zoo 1 T I >[dB1
; 6
(C)
Fig. 2. Comparisons of average decoding complexity over the AWGN channel.

limit, = 1:. The performance of our decoding algorithm with
such limited complexity is shown in Fig. 3. With the limitation
limitT = 0, our decoding algorithm gives obviously the
same block error probability as hard decision decoding. And
with the limitation limitT = [ d / 2 J , our decoding algorithm
gives the same block error probability as Chase algorithm
2. However, our decoding algorithm requires less average
complexity than Chase algorithm 2 because our decoding
algorithm generates 2 Ld/21 estimated error sequences or less
and algebraic decoder is used for 2Ldl2j times or less while
Chase algorithm 2 always generates 2Ld/21 estimated error
sequences and algebraic decoder is always used for 2Ld/'J
times.
To evaluate the proposed algorithm, we also simulated for
more long codes, the (128, 64, 22) extended BCH code and
the (256, 139, 32) extended BCH code, where the number
of samples for these simulations are 50 OOO. The results are
shown in Tables I and I1 where Naveis the average number
of decoding times the algebraic decoder is used.
Discussion: We have discussed only time complexity as
decoding complexity, but space complexity must be also
considered. Our decoding algorithm always requires, as space
complexity, only one code word to be stored on list.
Recently, another approach to perform MLD with small
average Complexity was reported [7]. This decoding algorithm
requires few codewords to compare their metrics in low SNR,
while it requires many codewords to be stored on list.
In addition, we show the maximum number of times for
which the algebraic decoders are used to decode y during
the computer simulations in Tables 111-V where N,, is the
maximum number of decoding times the algebraic decoder is
used. This result is just one example because the probability
that adaptive decoding algorithms generate all codewords is
not 0.
INTO Q-ARYLINEARCODES
VI. EXTENSION
We represent the reliability sequence a for q-ary codes, as
a = (a1,a2,-..,an), (19)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Southeast University. Downloaded on April 22,2021 at 12:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
326 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 40, NO. 2, MARCH 1994

IOOL
TABLE I
AVERAGE
DECODING
COMPLEXITY FOR THE (128, 64, 22) CODE
Tb = 0 [dB1
SNR [dBI 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
. rb = 1 [dB1 iv,,, 283.13 4.48 1.08 1.00 1.00

7'0 = 2 [dB1
TABLE I1
AVERAGE
1)ECODING COMPLEXITY FOR THE (256, 139, 32) CODE
Yb = 3 [dB1
SNR [dB] 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Nab e 76.21 1.02 1.00 1.00

Tb =.4 [dB1
TABLE I11
MAXIMUM DECODING
COMPLEXITY FOR THE (23, 12, 7) CODE
IC3 : (23.12.7) Colav Code
I I I I I I I SNR [dB] 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "ax 1024 1024 512 256 256
Iimitr
(a)
TABLE IV
MAXIMUM
DECODING
COMPLEXITY FOR THE (128, 64, 22) CODE

SNR [dBI 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

"ax 2097152 32768 1024 5 1

TABLE V
MAXIMUM
DECODING
COMPLEXITY FOR THE (256, 139, 32) CODE

SNR [tlB] 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

2097152 1024 1 1

We now derive the lower bound of min,/+,l(y, 5') where

z' is an arbitrary codeword such that 2' # z by the same way
in binary case. For q-ary codes, (5) and (6) are not always
Iimitr true. This is because in the q-ary case, the error value is not
(b) unique (in the binary case, the error value must be 1). From
Fig. 3. Performance with the limited complexity. d ~ ( z ' zo)
, 2: d, we have

ai,j = K . In P(Yild
1 E (0, l , - . . , q - 1) (21)
IIs;,II + mo > d . (25)
'
Cl+JP(YiI~)
Then we derive one of the lower bounds on IlS;,II,
where q is a prime power and c y i , j indicates the reliability
of the symbol j at the position i. Denote the component of Ils:JII L d - mo. (26)
ai which is greatest by adSt,and the component which is
second greatest by cyHnd. Then the maximum-likelihood metric Here, we no,e that
L(y, z)for q-ary codes is calculated as

So L(y, z)depends, as in the binary case, only on We represent the reordered element s?) in Sx as

This definition includes the binary case. Indeed, in the binary Then One Of the lower bounds is derived as
case, d-mn

holds when position i belongs S;. This corresponds to the

definition of the binary case. The lemma for q-ary codes similar to Lemma 1 is as follows.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Southeast University. Downloaded on April 22,2021 at 12:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KANEKO et al.: MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD-DECODING
ALGORITHM FOR LINEAR BLOCK CODES
Lemma 1’: If the codeword z satisfies
d-mo
qy, z)< (a:!) - a:?)
i=l
then there is no codeword which is more likely than z.
Next, we must define the set Li for q-ary codes. We select
all sequences as the estimated error sequences e which have
any combination of elements of GF(q), which are located
in the i positions with the lowest value of atst -
Then, as in the binary case, define a set Li to be the set
of codewords that are outputs of the algebraic decoder when
yH + e are inputs. To generate Li for q-ary codes, we
select all sequences e, as the estimated error sequences whose
elements e,(l), e u ( 2 ) ,. . . , eU(%)
are the elements of G F ( q ) and
. . . , e,(%) are 0. So there are qi patterns of e, hence
the algebraic decoder is used qi times.
Lemma 2 for q-ary codes is as follows.
Lemma 2’: If j E U satisfies
d-mo-t-1
i=l
t+l
+ cb::;+
i=l
4
-I)%
then C , C Lj.
Thus, the decoding algorithm for q-ary codes is given by
replacing (10) and (16) by (30) and (31), respectively. The
components of the ordered estimated error sequence e(‘), i =
0, 1,.. . , qR - 1 are given so that
n
VII. CONCLUSION
The new MLD algorithm proposed in this paper is in the
class of decoding methods in which the algebraic decoder
Authorized licensed use limited to: Southeast University. Downloaded on April 22,2021 at 12:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
327
is used to generate a number of candidate codewords.
This decoding algorithm uses a method to generate can-
(30) didate codewords similar to Chase algorithm 2 and the
Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm. One of the differences between
these algorithms is that our decoding algorithm generates a set
of candidate codewords in which the most likely codeword
must be included. Consequently our decoding algorithm is
MLD while others are not. Another difference is that our
decoding algorithm and the Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm are
adaptive while Chase algorithm 2 is not. The complexity of an
adaptive decoding algorithm depends on a received sequence.
We show, by computer simulations, that our decoding
algorithm requires less average complexity than Chase algo-
rithm 2 and the Tanaka-Kakigahara algorithm for some SNR,
though the block error probability of ours is always superior
to others. However, it is not avoidable that the complexity
of these decoding algorithms increases exponentially with
the code length n. Further investigations for this research
include calciilating computational complexity of this proposed
algorithm analytically.
REFERENCES
(31) [ l ] J. K. Wclf, “Efficient maximum likelihood decoding of block codes
using a trellis,’’ IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-24, pp. 7 6 8 0 , Jan.
1978.
[2] G. D. Fomey, Jr., “Generalized minimum distance decoding,” IEEE
Truns. I j b r m . Theory, vol. IT-12, pp. 125-131, Apr. 1966.
[3] -, Concatenated Codes, MIT research monograph No.
37. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1966.
[4] D. Chase, “A new class for decoding block codes with channel mea-
surement information,” IEEE Truns. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-18, pp.
170-182, Jan. 1972.
[SI H. Tanaka and K. Kakigahara, “Simplified correlation decoding by
selecting possible codewords using erasure information,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. IT-29, pp. 743-748, Sept. 1983.
[6] D. J. Taipale and M. B. hrsley, “An improvement to generalized-
minimum-distance decoding.” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 37, pp.
167-172, Jan. 1991.
[7] Y. S. Hsn and C. R. P. Hartmann, “Designing efficient maximum-
likelihood soft-decision decoding algorithmsfor linear block codes using
algorithm A* ,” private communication, 1992.