The document discusses turbo codes, a type of forward error correction code. Turbo codes use parallel concatenated convolutional encoders with pseudorandom interleaving and iterative decoding. This structure allows turbo codes to achieve error correction performance very close to the theoretical limit defined by the Shannon capacity. Some key advantages of turbo codes are their remarkable power efficiency and ability to support delivery of multimedia services through design tradeoffs. However, turbo codes also have long latency and poor performance at very low bit error rates.
3. Error correction
• The key idea of FEC is to transmit enough
redundant data to allow receiver to recover
from errors all by itself. No sender
retransmission required.
• The major categories of FEC codes are
– Block codes,
– Cyclic codes,
– Reed-Solomon codes,
– Convolutional codes,
– Turbo codes.
4. m r
Channel
encoder
• Input message m contains k symbols.
• Encoded message r contains n symbols.
• n > k where extra bits are redundant bits in the codeword.
• The code rate is k/n
5. Channel capacity
• The channel capacity C of a continuous channel with
bandwidth B Hertz can be perturbed by additive
Gaussian white noise of power spectral density N0/2,
provided bandwidth B satisfies
C Blog 1 / sec
bits ond
P
2
N B
0
Where P is transmitted power
6. Turbo codes
• Turbo codes were proposed by Berrou and Glavieux in
the 1993 International Conference in Communications.
• Performance close to the Shannon Limit.
• Mix between Convolutional and Block codes.
• The best code among FEC codes.
8. Concatenated encoding
• Some times single error correction codes are not good
enough for error protection
• Concatenating two or more codes will results more
powerful codes
• Types of concatenated codes
1. Serial concatenated codes
2. Parallel concatenated codes
9. Parallel concatenated code
input Systematic output
RSC
Encoder 1
RSC
Encoder 2
Interleaver
Parity 1
Systematic output
Parity 2
One systematic and two parity bits are generated from the message stream
11. Recursive convolutional encoder
mi
• An RSC encoder can be
constructed from a standard
convolutional encoder by
feeding back one of the
outputs.
• In coded system
performance is dominated
by low weight code words.
12. • A good code will causes low weight output with low
probability
• RSC will produces low weight and low probability
output
13. Need of interleaver
• Shannon showed that large block-length random codes
achieve channel capacity
• Only a small number of low-weight input sequences
are mapped to low-weight output sequences
• Make the code appear random, while maintaining
enough structure to permit decoding
• The interleaver ensures that the probability that both
encoders have inputs that causes low weight output is
very low.
15. Decoding
• Turbo codes get their name because the decoder uses
feedback, like a turbo engine.
• Each decoder estimates the a posteriori probability
(MAP) of each data bit.
• Decoding continues for a set number of iterations.
16. • Performance generally improves from iteration to
iteration, but follows a law of diminishing returns
• Information exchanged by the decoders must not be
strongly correlated with systematic info or earlier
exchanges.
17. APPLICATION
• Wireless multimedia
– Data: use large frame sizes
• Low BER, but long latency
– Voice: use small frame sizes
• Short latency, but higher BER
• Combined equalization and error correction decoding.
• Combined multiuser detection and error correction
decoding.
18. Pros and cons
• Pros
– Remarkable power
efficiency in AWGN
and flat-fading
channels for
moderately low BER.
– Deign tradeoffs
suitable for delivery
of multimedia
services.
• Cons
– Long latency.
– Poor performance at
very low BER.
– Because turbo codes
operate at very low
SNR, channel
estimation and
tracking is a critical
issue.