Code Design for Dependable Systems

Chapter 9.4.3 - Evaluation

9.4.3   Evaluation

Code Length   Figure 9.9 illustrates the relation between the information-bit length and
the check-bit length of the SEC-Se/8EL codes for e = 2 and 6. In the figure the lower
bounds are those obtained by Theorems 9.12 and 9.13. For comparison, the cases of
SEC codes, SEC-DED-S8ED codes, and S8EC codes are also shown. Note that the codes
are close to the bounds for smaller values of e and for larger information-bit lengths.
Therefore they are very efficient under some code parameters. Note also that the SEC-
S2/8EL codes have larger check-bit lengths than the SEC codes by almost one bit.
Although not indicated in the figure, they have almost the same check-bit lengths as the
SEC-DED codes. The maximal SbEC codes [HONG72] and the efficient SEC-eED
codes—meaning the BCH codes with Hamming distance e + 2 for b < 1000 and
(e + 2) < b/2, the Hamming SEC-DED codes for e = 2, and the repetition codes
[MCWL77] for e = b − 2 should then provide the efficient SEC-Se/bEL code.


Figure 9.9 Check-bit lengths comparedwithinformation-bit lengths of the SEC-Se=8EL codes.

Figure 9.10 gives an example of the (72, 64) SEC-S2/4EL codes that is a shortened version
of the original (132, 124) SEC-S2/4EL codes.

Next we find the restriction on e existing in the SEC-Se/bEL codes, which we obtain by
the tensor product of two codes.

Lemma 9.3   An (n, n − r) binary linear code with minimum Hamming distance d does
not exist under the following condition of the parameters, d and n:

 

Proof   For d = n, the code is a repetition code and includes only two codewords. For
0 < dn/2, it is apparent that the code includes at least four codewords.


Figure 9.10 Example of (72, 64) SEC-S2=4EL codes. Source: [KITA95]. 1995 IEICE Japan.

Next we consider the case for n/2 < d < n. Assume that there exist more than two
nonzero distinct codewords in the (n, n r) linear code. Let c1 and c2, where c1c2, be
codewords of the linear code. In this case we can choose c1 and c2 that satisfy the
following conditions

  1. wH(c1) = wH(c2) = d.
  2. There exist no 0’s in the same bit positions in c1 and c2.

Here wH(c) means the Hamming weight of c. Let f be the number of bit positions having
the same value of 1 between c1 and c2. Then the Hamming weight of c1 + c2 is expressed
by wH(c1 + c2) = n − f . Since c1 + c2 is another codeword of the code, the following
relation holds:

 

Under d > n/2, the code length n (bits) can be expressed as

 

From Eq. (9.8) we have f = 2d − n. Substituting this relation into (9.7) leads to

 

For the remaining region of d (i.e., (2/3)n < d < n) the number of codewords in
the (n, n − r) linear code is less than or equal to 2. The code length of the code
having two codewords must be less than n because each codeword has larger than or
equal to one ‘0’. This contradicts the code that we now consider whose code length
has n bits.

We can conclude in this case that an (n, n − r) binary linear code with minimum
Hamming distance d does not exist for the condition that

 

Theorem 9.15   The SEC-Se/bEL codes based on the tensor product of the SbEC codes
and the (b, b − b') SEC-eED codes exist under the following condition:

 

Proof   For e = b, the SEC-Se/bEL codes are equivalent to the SbEC codes, and
therefore they do not exist. For e = b 1, the SEC-eED codes do not exist because
minimum distance of the code is e + 2. By Lemma 9.3, the SEC-eED codes whose
code length is b bits also do not exist for (2/3)b < d = e + 2 < b, that is, for
(2/3)b 2 < e < b 2.

TABLE 9.2 Rate of Decoding Cases in (72, 64) SEC-S2=4EL Code

From the above, the SEC-Se/bEL codes exist under the following condition:

 

By Theorem 9.15, for example, the SEC-eED codes with e = 4 and 5, for b = 8, do not
exist. This is why Figure 9.9 does not include codes with these values of e.

Error Detection Capabilities   The SEC-Se/bEL codes do not always detect random
double-bit errors and random double-byte errors, and these codes also do not always indicate
the correct location of an erroneous byte with larger than e bits errors. These errors
sometimes engage the five decoding cases mentioned in Subsection 9.3.4.

Table 9.2 lists the rate of the decoding cases expressed by percentage of the shortened
(72, 64) SEC-S2/4EL code shown in Figure 9.10 for random double-bit errors, double-byte
errors, and random 3- or 4-bit errors in a byte that are beyond the original error control
capability of the code.

 

UNLIMITED FREE
ACCESS
TO THE WORLD'S BEST IDEAS

SUBMIT
Already a GlobalSpec user? Log in.

This is embarrasing...

An error occurred while processing the form. Please try again in a few minutes.

Customize Your GlobalSpec Experience

Category: Error Correction Chips
Finish!
Privacy Policy

This is embarrasing...

An error occurred while processing the form. Please try again in a few minutes.