Telecommunication Systems

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-019-00630-3

A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks

Komal Arora1,2 · Jaswinder Singh3 · Yogeshwar Singh Randhawa4

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Although 4G (fourth generation) i.e. LTE (long term evolution) systems are now in use world-wide. But today’s 4G systems
have some challenges left such as spectrum scarcity and energy efficiency. The prime objectives of near-by-future 5G (fifth
generation) wireless communications are reliability, higher data rate, higher bandwidth, high spectrum efficiency, higher
energy efficient and that too at lower latency. Channel coding tend to increase the reliability of the wireless communications
system by adding extra bits in a controlled fashion and is considered to be most persuasive element of communication system.
4G LTE Turbo Codes have already been replaced by LDPC (low density parity check) Codes in many of the standards includ-
ing mMTC (massive machine type communication), D2D (device to device communication) and URLLC (ultra-reliable low
latency reliable communications). LDPC Codes and Polar Codes are securing much more observation because of their inher-
ent advantages of excellent bit-error-rate performance, fast encoding and decoding procedures; which make them the strong
contenders for 5G Channel Codes too. This paper provides the broad survey and comparison of the LDPC and Polar Codes
along with their advantages and drawbacks which will aid in further improvement of the next generation wireless networks. In
order to enlighten future research possibilities in this direction, issues addressed by distinct researchers have been explored too.

Keywords  LDPC · Polar · Channel coding · 5G

Abbreviations NTT Nippon telegraph and telephone

LTE Long term evolution TACS Total access communications system
IoT Internet of things IS-95 Interim standard 95
LDPC Low density parity check PDC Pacific digital cellular systems
SNR Signal to noise ratio GPRS General packet radio service
FEC Forward error correction EDGE Enhanced data rate for GSM evolution
mMTC Massive machine type communication UMTS Universal mobile telecommunication
D2D Device to device communication systems
URLLC Ultra-reliable low latency reliable HSPA High speed packet access
communications CDMA code division multiple access
AMPS Advanced mobile phone systems BSC Base station controller
RNC Radio network controller
* Komal Arora
TDMA Time division multiple access
komal03may@gmail.com GSM Global system for mobile
Jaswinder Singh
FDMA Frequency division multiple access
j_singh73@rediffmail.com WCDMA Wideband code division multiple access
Yogeshwar Singh Randhawa
UMTS Universal mobile telecommunication system
ysrandhawa@hotmail.com HSPA High speed packet access
EvDO Evolution data optimized
1
IKG Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, India QPSK Quadrature phase shift keying
2
Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Landran, Mohali, India OFDMA Orthogonal frequency division multiple
3
BCET (Affiliated to IKG Punjab Technical University), access
Gurdaspur, India SC-FDMA Single carrier frequency division multiple
4
Lyallpur Khalsa College (Affiliated to IKG Punjab Technical access
University), Jalandhar, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 K. Arora et al.

S-OFDMA Scalable orthogonal frequency division mul- 1 Introduction

tiple access
BDMA Beam division multiple access In today’s life, intelligent systems are flourishing in enor-
FBMC Filter bank multiple carrier multiple access mous fields and aid in resolving difficulties that arise in
BCH Bose–Chaudhuri–Hocquenghem Codes diverge areas related to environment cleanliness like waste
LT Luby transform codes management, smart roads, air pollution control, forest fire
UWB Ultra wide band communications detection; security purposes like smart phone detection,
SE Spectral efficiency earth quake early detection and many more. Innovative
NBLC Non-binary LDPC codes Wireless Networks are the prime foundation behind these
PCM Parity check matrix trending applications and their exertion in these systems
BG Bi-partite graph are greatly influenced by emanating technologies i.e. IoTs
RLDPC Regular LDPC codes (Internet of things) and are an integral part of 5G. The main
IRLDPC Irregular LDPC Codes challenge these systems are facing is the energy manage-
CP Closed path ment [1, 2]. As most of the energy is wasted to retransmit
CG Connected graph the corrupted packets, one solution is to use variable size
SG Sub graph of frames. If the medium of transmission is not good (i.e.
ISG Induces sub-graph fading effects are very prone), then larger frames are used
TC Trapping cycle else smaller frames can be utilized as smaller frames have
ETC Elementary trapped cycle less tendency of error. Another effective solution is the use
ML Maximum likelihood of highly efficient error-correction-codes [1–5].
LR Likelihood ratio Channel coding is considered to be the most essential but
LLR Log likelihood ratio crucial component of today’s wireless communication sys-
AWGN Additive white Gaussian noise tems [1]. The prominent Channel Coding theorem by Shan-
BDC Binary discrete channels non affirms the feasibility of codes that can led the reliable
SC Successive cancellation transmission of information via a clattery channel if and
SSC Simplified successive cancellation only if the transmission rate is less than or equal to channel
LSC List successive cancellation capacity. The significant facts that came out of this theorem
CRC​ Cyclic redundancy check include: 1. Codes need to be selected in a random fashion. 2.
MPA Message passing algorithm Joint equipartition property should be defined amidst trans-
AMA Addition–multiplication algorithm mitted and receiving sequences. 3. Decoding Algorithm
MS Min–sum algorithm needs to be optimum or sub-optimum so as to minimize the
WB Weighted bit-flicking probability of error [3]. Codes (Turbo and LDPC codes)
BS Boot-strapping devised in previous two decennaries, promised to fulfill this
WC Weighing-coefficient channel coding criterion. Achieving channel capacity that
QAMA Q-ary addition–multiplication algorithm too with lower encoder-decoder intricacy is the prime chal-
EMSA Elongated minimum–sum algorithm lenge of channel coding techniques. Turbo Codes were dis-
TEMSA Trellis-based-EMSA covered to be a capacity-approaching code by Glavieux et al.
DP Deviation paths [4] but these codes had very high encoding and decoding
FPMSA Fixed path minimum sum algorithm intricacies. The exemplary realization of Turbo codes made
GF Galois field them the main contenders of FEC (Forward Error Correc-
BER Bit error rate tion) Codes for LTE and other 4G standards. LDPC Codes
RW Re-weighing re-devised by Mackay et al. [5, 6] as a capacity-achieving
RS Re-scheduling code with better performance that too with lower decod-
RBPA Residual-belief-propagation-algorithm ing intricacy via parallel decoding-structure implementa-
NBPA Node-wise-belief-propagation-algorithm tions [7, 8]. Main drawback of LDPC Code is its encoding
LBPA Layered-belief-propagation-algorithm intricacy which is further eradicated by the aid of several
DSOC Deep Space optical communications design methods [8–10].In addition to the above advantages
HSC Helicopter satellite communications of LDPC Codes; optimization in this field is carried out by
PPMBPC PPM based Poisson channel the density-evolution-methods [7, 11] and external-informa-
QC-LDPC Quasi-cyclic LDPC Codes tion-transfer functions [12–14] and LDPC has come out as
MCS Mobile-satellite communication system one of the major channel coding contender for 5G.
MIMO Multiple input multiple output

13
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks
The near-by-future technologies i.e. 5G demand for
higher reliability, higher data rates (about 1000 times as
compared with 4G) which has led to the requirement of
more-efficient channel coding techniques. Till now, LDPC
(Low density Parity Check) Codes have replaced turbo codes
in the upcoming wireless technologies such as mMTC (mas-
sive machine type communication) [15], D2D (device to
device communication), URLLC (ultra-reliable low latency
reliable communications) [16] etc. Some advancements are
still required in the designing of LDPC Codes in terms of
variable block lengths and rates so as to make them more
felicitous for 5G. Further, the emergence of polar codes
[3, 17–19] in this field introduces new dignified perimeter
known as polarization so as to attain channel capacity in dis-
crete binary channels without memory. This process involves
the use of polarization transform that converts the independ-
ent channels into variable-reliability channels. Iterative use
of this transform shows an eloquent change in the reliability
of these channels which make the already-reliable channel
to become ‘more-reliable’ and clattery channel to become
further ‘less-reliable’. So, the data-bits are send over ‘more-
reliable’ channels and rest-bits (frozen bits) are send over
‘less-reliable’ channels.
1.1 Expedition from 1G to 5G
Marconi et al. [20] an electrical engineer, disengaged the
path of wireless communications through the invention
of wireless telegraphy in 1880s. Furthermore, H. Hertz
proved the wave nature of radio waves. These inventions
led to the deployment of first wireless voice transmission
set-up in 1915. First generation cellular systems were ini-
tially established in 1980s. AMPS (advanced mobile phone
systems) technology was firstly deployed by Bell Labs in
1970s. Other systems supported by 1G were Japanese NTT
(Nippon Telegraph and Telephone), European TACS (Total
Access communications system). These systems faced sev-
eral drawbacks including security threats, severe distortions,
imperfect hand-overs, huge phones, inferior voice quality
and poor capacity. These systems used analog modulation
schemes (Frequency modulation) and do not incorporate any
type of FEC coding schemes. In 1990s, 2G systems aimed
to support good quality voice calls were devised and these
systems work on digital technologies. These systems incor-
porate the ethical features of less battery power consump-
tion, improved voice quality, lesser noise, good security and
better error correction-detection capabilities. These systems
used convolutional codes and parity check codes as their
channel codes. Amongst 2G systems, GSM (Global System
for Mobile) systems) are dominant and in use world-wide.
Other 2G systems were IS-95 (Interim standard), IS-136 and
PDC (Pacific Digital Cellular systems). The need to sup-
port data-services has led to deployment of 2.5G (GPRS
(General Packet Radio Service)) systems. EDGE(Enhanced
Data Rate for GSM Evolution) technology (2.75G) further
geared up the data rates up to 200 kbps. The research on
3G started in 1980s and continued for 15 years. 3G systems
revolutionized the wireless technology by combining mobile
phone, laptop PC and TV. 3G features included global roam-
ing, sending/receiving e-mails, high speed web, navigation,
video conferencing and TV streaming. UMTS (Universal
Mobile Telecommunication systems), HSPA (High speed
Packet Access), CDMA2000, EvDO (Evolution data opti-
mized) are amongst 3G standards. 4G systems relied upon
adaptive digital signal processing and smart antenna tech-
nologies. The salient features of 4G include variable band-
widths, enormously high data rates, reduced delay (as there
is no BSC (Base station controller) or RNC (Radio network
controller)). Table 1 gives the detailed description of various
parameters for all generations [21].
1.2 5G channel coding: a challenge
Since 5G is considered to incorporate the key characteris-
tics of higher transmission rate of around 10 Gbps, delay
less than 1 ms, higher energy efficiency and higher spec-
tral efficiency as compared to 4G. Hence the 5G channel
coding techniques must adhere to these requirements too.
Figure 1 shows its pictorial representation. Following points
describes the Channel Coding Challenges for 5G wireless
Networks.
1. Design of Shorter Code-word lengths and parallel
decoders 5G networks demand for higher data raterang-
ing from 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps and Channel Coding
adds extra bits, which could decrease 5G transmission
rate requirement. To overcome this challenge, M. Khan
et al. illustrated the use of LDPC codes along with punc-
turing methods which reduces the code-word lengthto
increase throughput [22]. As the data after reception
must pass through channel-decoder, so if N = 10 itera-
tions are needed for convergence and if processing
units in the channel decoder are working at frequency
of f = 400 MHz, then (N*throughput/f) i.e. 500 paral-
lel processing units are needed so as to attain 20Gbps
maximum data rate and adding 500 processing units. F.
Kahn et al. described the inherent parallelism of LDPC
decoder that can aid in escalating the transmission rate
to some extent. Further the detection and demodulation
can be combined to form a Joint detector and demodula-
tor and which can also work at shorter-code words [22,
23].
2. To minimize channel decoding delay For 4G technolo-
gies, the round trip delay is around 15 ms. The foreseen
applications for 5G (which include Google glass, will
have latency of around 1 ms [24].
13


Table 1  Expedition from 1G to 5G
Expedition Systems Access technol- Data rate Modulation Frequency band Band width Channel coding Switching Application
from 1G to ogy techniques

13
5G

1G (1980’s) Advanced Frequency Divi- 2.4 kbps Frequency 800 MHZ 30 kHz NA Circuit Voice
mobile sion Multi- Modulation
phone ple Access (FM)
systems (FDMA)
(AMPS)
2G (1990’s) Global Time Divi- 10 kbps Gaussian 850/900/1900 MHz 200 kHz Convolutional Circuit Voice + Data
System sion Multi- Minimum Encoding
for Mobile ple Access shift Keying
Commu- (TDMA) (GMSK)
nication
(GSM)
Code Divi- 10kbps
sion Multiple
Access
2.5G (2000) General Time Divi- 50kbps 200 kHz Cyclic Circuit Voice + Data
Packet sion Multi- Code + Punc-
Radio Ser- ple Access tured Convo-
vice (GPRS) (TDMA) lutional Code
2.75G Enhanced TDMA 200kbps GMSK + Phase 200 kHz Cyclic Code Circuit/
(2003) Data Rates Shift Keying +Punctured Packet
for GSM (8-PSK) Convolutional
Evolution Code
(EDGE)
3G (2005) Wideband Code Divi- 384 kbps Quadrature 800/850/900/18,001,900/2100 MHz 5 MHz Convolu- Circuit/ Voice + Data + Video
Code Divi- sion Multi- Phase Shift tional + Turbo Packet Calling
sion Multi- ple Access Keying Codes
ple Access (CDMA) (QPSK)
(WCDMA)/
Universal
Mobile
Telecom-
munications
Systems
(UMTS)
CDMA2000 CDMA 384 kbps 1.25 MHz
(Code
Division
Multiple
Access)
K. Arora et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
Expedition Systems Access technol- Data rate Modulation Frequency band Band width Channel coding Switching Application
from 1G to ogy techniques
5G

3.5G (2008) High speed CDMA 5-30 Mbps QPSK/16- 800/850/900/1800/1900/2100 MHz 5 MHz Turbo Codes Packet Voice + Data + Video
Packet QAM Calling
Access (Quadrature
(HSPA) Amplitude
Modulation)
Evolution data CDMA 5-30 Mbps QPSK/16- 800/850/900/1800/1900/2100 MHz 1.25 MHz Turbo Codes Packet
optimized QAM)
(EVDO)
3.9G (2013) Long Term Orthogonal 100– QPSK, 1.8 GHz, 2.6 GHz 1.4 MHz to Fountain Codes, Packet Online gaming + High
Evolution Frequency 200 Mbps 16QAM, 20 MHz Turbo Codes Definition T.V.
(LTE) Division Mul- 64QAM
tiple Access
(OFDMA)/
SC-FDMA
(single Carrier
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks

Frequency
Division Mul-
tiple Access)
World-Wide Scalable 3.5 GHZ and 5.8 GHz 3.5 MHz and Packet Online gaming + High
Interoper- Orthogonal 7 MHz in Definition T.V.
ability for Frequency 3.5 GHz band
multiple Division Mul- and 10 MHz
Access tiple Access in 5.8 GHz
(Fixed (S- OFDMA)/ band
WiMAX)
4G (2015) Long Term Orthogonal 3Gbps for QPSK, 1.8 GHz and 2.6 GHz 1.4 MHz to Fountain Codes, Packet Online gaming + High
Evolution- Frequency downlink 16QAM, 20 MHz Turbo Codes Definition T.V.
Advanced Division Mul- 1.5 Gbps 64QAM
(LTE-A) tiple Access for Up-link
(OFDMA)/
SC-
FDMA(single
carrier fre-
quency Divi-
sion Multiple
Access)

13
 K. Arora et al.

Online gaming + High

tion Video +Virtual

Ultra-High Defini-
Higher Transmission Rate (1000

Reality Applica-
Definition T.V.
times more than4G)
Application

tions
High Spectrum
Lower
Delay(<1ms)
5G Efficiency
Switching

Fountain Codes, Packet

Packet
Channel coding

convolutional
High Energy Efficiency (100
Turbo Codes

Turbo, Polar,

non-binary
binary and

LDPC and times compared with 4G)

tail-biting
techniques

codes
7 MHz,5 MHz,

Fig. 1  5G requirements
Band width

10 MHz
3.5 MHz,

60 GHz

Physical layer delay is reduced to around 50microsec-

onds in5G. So, this figure of delay is shared among all the
components present in physical layer. As few components
2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz

like synchronization block may have higher delay require-

ments. So, the channel decoder must possess the lower
Index –Modula- 1.8, 2.6 GHz and expected

delay by operating their processing units in parallelism. To

achieve a data rate of 10 Gbps, for a block of data with
length L = 10 Kbits, there will be delay of D = L/(Through-
Frequency band

30-300 GHz

put) = 1 µs which will be sufficient to attain an overall delay

of 1 ms. Several decoding algorithms are being designed
which could lower the decoding delay e.g. Belief Propaga-
tion decoding methods.
tion Schemes

3. Need of deliberately lower decoding error rate As 5G

Modulation

utilizes massive MIMO technology [21] that deals

with the introduction of large number of antennas and
enormous base-stations. The focus here is that the cost
should not increase as compared with the data rate pro-
(expected)
10–50 Gbps
Data rate

vided. In addition, as the data rate need to be increased

100–200
Mbps

by 100 times. So, their cost and power per bit must fall
by 100 times i.e. 5G channel coding techniques must
ensure less cost and must be energy efficient too [25].
Division Mul-

(S- OFDMA)/
Access technol-

multiple car-
rier (FBMC)
tiple Access
Orthogonal

sion Multi-

As 5G will shift their spectrum to mm wave frequencies

Filter bank
ple Access
Frequency

Beam Divi-

(BDMA)/

multiple

[26] so license cost for this spectrum should also be less.

Scalable

access

Liang et al. [27] utilized low-density parity-check codes

ogy

for non-coherent UWB communication systems so as to

improve energy efficiency. Energy Efficiency in decod-
5G-NR (New
World-Wide
Interoper-
ability for

ing process is measured by the count of decoded bits per

multiple

Wimax)
(Mobile
Access

Radio)
Systems

nano-Joule of the energy wasted in decoding.

Table 1  (continued)

4. Need of spectrum efficient channel coding Recent stand-

ards utilize the collaborative use of re-transmission
from 1G to
Expedition

protocol and error-correction-codes for lowering end-

5G (2020)

to-end delay essential for high-speed applications. But

this requires the need of additional bit in sending the
5G

13
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks
acknowledgement of the received ensemble data. Fur-
ther each ensemble block consists of several chunks of
encoded blocks. If anyone chunk of encoded data gets
corrupted, the whole ensemble block need to be re-send
which in turn lowers the spectrum efficiency (SE) [28].
As 5G trends focus on increasing data-rate hundred
times, so there are more chunks in one ensemble block
which leads to further reduction in the spectral efficiency.
To overcome this challenge, several techniques have been
implemented [28, 29] that re-transmit selective chunks
of corrupted data but at the cost of increased overhead.
Yang et al. [24] proposed a method which involves the
use of some interlinked chunks of encoded data which
improves the problem of spectrum efficiency and reduces
delay too. Also, Non-Binary-LDPC Codes (NBLC) [30–
32] have been proposed to escalate spectrum efficiency.
Also, it has been noticed that polar Codes [19] used in
conjunction with 5G waveforms too help to increase
throughput as compared with turbo codes.
In addition, As 5G relies on the use of mm waves which
were earlier considered not appropriate for radio commu-
nication but now due to the recent advancements in tech-
nologies, millimeter waves can be used for short-distance
communication(i.e. for femto cells). 60 GHz band is idle
which is proposed to be used in 5G which can lead to
increase in bandwidth (in terms of bps/Hz) and hence spec-
trum efficiency. [32].
1.3 Motivation
As described in the above section, enormous challenges exist
in the implementation of channel coding techniques so as to
meet 5G requirements which highly motivated us to present
the survey of various channel coding techniques. Further, the
work published by Shannon [33] has made “Channel cod-
ing” a vital element to build a capacity-approaching com-
munication system. In his study, he clarified that it is viable
to achieve error-less transmission provided the transmission
rate should be lesser than channel capacity. Till now, enor-
mous channel codes have been devised based upon applica-
tion demands and with advances in technologies. Channel
codes are broadly classified as block codes and trellis codes.
Block Codes are the codes which scrupulously rely upon
the mathematics. These codes yield a block of bits as out-
put using pre-defined algorithms. Examples of block codes
include Hamming codes, Bose–Chaudhuri–Hocquenghem
(BCH), LDPC codes. Trellis codes [34] are a class of chan-
nel codes in which the present output relies not only upon
the current block of input bits but also upon the previous
block of input bits. Examples of such codes include: Con-
volutional Codes, Turbo codes. Brief description of these
algorithms is illustrated in Table 2.
Amongst the above listed codes in Table 2, Turbo, LDPC
and Polar Codes are the capacity approaching codes. Further
amongst these codes, we limit our survey to the design of
LDPC and Polar Codes only because of their lower delay,
efficient encoding and lower bit-error-rate performance that
make them suitable to be used in 5G too. Also, it has been
observed that there exist few survey papers that compare
LDPC and Polar Codes on the basis of their encoding, decod-
ing algorithms, performance, research issues and application
areas. The main contribution of this paper is enlisted as:
• In this paper, the detailed description of 5G Channel
Coding techniques (LDPC, Polar coding) are elaborated.
This aids in the energy efficient implementation of 5G
networks which is one of the key requirement of 5G net-
works.
• Design of LDPC and Polar Codes with their essential
parameters and different methods to construct its parity-
check-matrix are elaborated in detail along with the dif-
ferent decoding techniques.
• Decoding Algorithms involved and the various chal-
lenges faced in the channel encoding techniques for both
algorithms are also enlisted along with their other areas
of application.
• Further, bit-error-rate performance comparison of LDPC
and Polar Codes has been done and their suitability based
on particular parameter is concluded in comparison table.
1.4 Organization
This paper is organized in the following way: Sect. 1 speci-
fies the introduction and expedition from 1G to 5G in wire-
less communication. In this section, an outline of the channel
coding methods used in these generations till date along with
the challenges and motivation is described. Sections 2 and
3 elaborates the design and decoding algorithms of LDPC
Codes and Polar Codes respectively. In Sect. 4, the issues
addressed by different researchers and future directions in
Channel Coding have been discussed. Simulation Results for
different LDPC and Polar Codes are presented and compared
in Sect. 5. Further, the application areas for LDPC Codes
and Polar Codes are explored in Sect. 6. Finally, conclusion
along with the suitability of codes for different applications
is included in Sect. 7.
2 Design of LDPC codes
LDPC Codes were first devised by Gallager. In recent
applications, LDPC Codes having short block lengths are
in use instead of earlier stated large block LDPC Codes by
the inventor. LDPC Codes can be depicted in two peculiar
ways: one using parity check matrix (PCM) i.e. matrix
13

Table 2  Classification of channel coding methods
References Methods Description
13
[89–94] Algebraic Codes Hamming Codes This type of coding works by
Golay Codes searching for the code-word
that maximizes the hamming
Reed Muller Codes
distance
Bose–Chaudhuri–Hoc-
quenghem (BCH)
codes
[95–99] Probabilistic codes Convolutional codes These codes involved the use of
linear feedback shift registers.
The researchers, at that
instant, noticed that the algo-
rithm behind code construc-
tion need to be modified so as
that their practical enactment
can be made simple
Concatenated codes These codes involve the
concatenation of two linear
block codes. Indeed, one
concatenated code with inner
encoder as Reed-Solomon and
outer as convolutional codes
was introduced by NASA
[4] Turbo Codes Turbo codes exhibit randomness
in their design method which
permits for effective decoding
algorithms. These codes are a
class of parallel concatenated
codes with convolutional
encoders as its element-
encoders
[100, 101] Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) Codes LDPC Codes are the codes
whose parity check matrix
consists of lesser number of
ones
Advantages
This aids in lowering of
BER
These codes somehow
improves the bit-error
rate but with restrictions
on decoding and encod-
ing complexities
The usefulness of such
codes is that these codes
have lesser decoding
complexity
Because of the associ-
ated parallelism in the
architecture, the data rate
is very high
LDPC Codes can provide
higher data rate along
with excellent bit-error-
rate performance
Drawbacks Decoding Algorithm
These codes suffer with Maximum Likelihood
the major drawback of Algorithm
increased intricacy level
for large code-word
lengths.
Decoding and encoding Viterbi Decoding
complexities are high
Encoder complexity is still Decoding algorithm varies
very high according to inner and
outer encoder used
These codes incorporate Iterative soft decoding
very high decoding algorithms
intricacy. Also, Bit-Error-
Rate is very high at lower
values of Signal-to-Noise
Ratio
Encoding Intricacy is very
high
K. Arora et al.
 A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks

representation and other using graphical depiction i.e. bi-

Decoding. Belief propaga-

partite graph (BG) as described in Sect. 2.1 and 2.2.

Successive-Cancellation,
List Decoding, Stack
Decoding Algorithm

2.1 Matrix representation of LDPC codes

Consider N is code word length, K is the information bits

and M represents the parity bits, Code Rate,CR = NK > N−MN
 .

tion
Consider ′ x′ represents input bits to the LDPC encoder then
LDPC code-word
[ ]can be represented as:C = xG where
GK×N = IK PK×N−K is the generator matrix, IK is identity

Decoding latency is more

matrix of dimension K × K and P is parity matrix of dimen-
Encoding and decoding
intricacies are high

sion K × (N − K) . Parity Check Matrix can be illustrated as:

H(N−K)×N = PT IN−K  . Also because of orthogonality between
two matrices: HGT = 0 . PCM can be constructed by the aid
Drawbacks

of various methods listed in Table 3.

Definition 1  (Sporadic LDPC Codes) PCM of LDPC

Codes is sporadic i.e. lesser count of finite-valued elements.
huge data with effective

intricacies are optimum

These codes can work on

encoding and decoding

Pre-dominantly, finite-valued elements are 1. If instead of

Encoding and decoding

‘1’ some other digits are chosen, then such codes are speci-
fied as non-binary LDPC Codes. These codes are described
over Galois field GF(2m ). As an example for GF(4) field,
infinite-length coded sequence procedures
Advantages

parity check matrix incorporate elements {0, 1, 2, 3} [35].

Definition 2  (Regular and Irregular LDPC Codes) If

Count of finite-valued elements of rows in PCM is Nr and
a finite-length input sequence

promise to provide Shannon-

encoding and decoding com-

code-rate. With these codes,

can be generated with aid of

sion same or meagerly more

Fountain Codes depict a class

Polar codes are the codes that

from a sub-group of dimen-

capacity achieving codes in

for column is Nc  , then in regular LDPC codes

as compared with the input

binary channels with lower

recovery of input sequence
in a way that promises the
of codes having variable

(RLDPC), Nr = Nc while it is distinct for irregular LDPC

(IRLDPC) Codes and For RLDPC, Rate of Code
CR = 1 − Nr  . In case of IRLDPCs, the degree of bit vertices
N
c
∑
dbmax
and par ity ver tices are 𝛬(a) = 𝛬i ai−1 and
Description

sequence,

plexities

i=d
bmin
dpmax
∑
𝛾(a) = 𝛶i a  , where dbmax and dbmin ( dpmin anddpmax )
i−1
i=d
pmin

depicts the highest and lowest values of degrees of bit ver-

Fountain Codes: Luby transform codes (LT

tices (parity vertices); 𝛬i denotes the links corresponding to

degree-i bit vertices and 𝛶i depicts the links for degree-i
parity vertices.

Definition 3  (Systematic and Non Systematic PCM) Con-

sidering non-systematic PCM as ′ A′ and assuming its sys-
codes), Raptor Codes

tematic representation as ′ H ′ . Bi-partite graph is the pictorial

representation of PCM. It has two pairs of vertices. First pair
contains ‘ N ′ bit vertices b1 , b2 , … bN and second pair con-
[71, 72, 102–108] Polar Codes

t ains ′ M ′ par ity ver tices p1 , p2 … pM  . Consider

Methods

⎡1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1⎤
⎢1 0⎥
Table 2  (continued)

0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
⎢ ⎥
A = ⎢0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1⎥
⎢0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1⎥
References

⎢1 0 ⎥⎦
⎣ 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
[101]

13

13
Table 3  Classification of Parity Check Matrix construction methods
Algorithm
Davey and Mackey Construction [52] Random
Gallager Construction [53]
Cyclic-Shift Matrices [109, 110].
Partial geometry [111, 112]
Graphs [75, 113–117]
Combinatorial designs [36]
Protograph Based LDPC Codes [37]
Algorithm used for Description Features
Random or Structured
Codes
In this method, PCM of dimension is generated by ran- These codes refrain the occurrence of length-4 cycle
domly constructed rows one after other taking care of two Because of its random-code design, the encoding is in-efficient
conditions: (a) At every step, maximum count of ones in
a column must be Nc (b) At every step maximum count of
ones in a row must be Nr
Random Gallager devised a probabilistic design method in which Encoding process is less complex
dimensions ( N , M) of parity-check-matrix are selected in Length-4 cycles can be avoided only for few specific row
such a way that N = l.Nc and M = l.Nr and l is an integer combinations
such that NN = NM = l.
c r
Random The Parity-check matrix in this method is constructed with Decoding complexity can be reduced by using tree-based
help of circularly shift of individual columns by some permutation matrices
integer
Structured For designing a partial-geometry system, the situations Low error floor
need to be checked are as follows; for pre-defined integers
𝛼 ≥ 2, 𝛽 ≥ 2 and 𝛾 ≥ 1:
(1) two points must lie on a single line solely.
(2) every point must lie on 𝛼 lines.
(3) every line must cross 𝛽 points.
(4) in case, a point p doesnot lie upon line E, then there exists
𝛾 lines, every line crosses through p and one point upon E
Structured Bifurcating row and column operations aid in the reduction of Reduction in error-floor
number of cycles in bi-partite graph. In addition bit flipping
and progressive-edge-growth methods help in increasing
girth
Structured In this method, a group of bits are assigned to a subset of Efficient encoding
check-nodes conditioned on parameters like bit-count cor-
responding to each check-node
Structured Constructed using repetition of the same base matrix BER is less
K. Arora et al.
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks
Parity
vertices
Bit vertices
Fig. 2  Bi-partite graph corresponding to parity check matrix A
Fig. 3  ISG and normal graph
Bi-partite graph corresponding to A is shown in Fig. 2
[35]. A(j, i) = 1 indicates a link in the bi-partite graph.
Length of closed-path for bi-partite graph can be even-
number only. In bi-partite graph, CP never exceed the value
of four.
2.2 Preliminaries related to graph theory
and bi‑partite graph (BG) for LDPC Codes
LDPC Code performance critically depends upon the Bi-
partite graph design. The cycles associated with Bi-partite
graph design have a greater impact upon error-floor too
[36–41]. Hence some basic definitions related with graph
theory are defined below:
Definition 4  (Vertices, Links and Degree) Assume a non-
directed
{ graph }as G(V, L) where V = {v1,v2 , … vk } and
L = l1 , l2 , … lm are the k vertices and m links of G respec-
tively. The link between two vertices ( vi , vj ) is represented
by vi vj orvj vi where 1 ≤ i ≤ k and 1 ≤ j ≤ m.Number of links
corresponding to a particular vertex is called the ‘degree’ of
that vertex and is depicted by d(v) . The maximum value of
d(v) for a particular graph is denoted by D(G) and minimum
value is denoted by d(G).
Definition 5  (Chain) ‘Chain’ between two verti-
ces vi and vk+1 is defined as series of vertices and links
v1 , l1 , v2 , l2 , … vk , lk , vk+1 while vertices or edges need not to
be different.
Definition 6  (Path) ‘Path’,P is defined as finite/infinite set
of links which exist between a set of vertices that are dif-
ferent from each other. ‘Length’ of Path is described by the
number of links.
Definition 7  (Open and Closed Path) ‘Open path’ is the
name given to path in case its vertices are distinct else path
is known as ‘closed path’(CP ) or cycle.
Definition 8  (Girth) ‘Girth’ is the word which describes
the shortest CP.
Definition 9  (Connected Graph) If there exists ′ P′ between
every node, the graph is labeled as ‘Connected Graph’ ( CG).
Definition 10  (Tree)‘Tree’ (T) is the name given to ′ CG′
without CP . ‘Rooted Tree’ is ′ T ′ in which one particular
vertex is labelled as ‘Root’. A vertex is called leaf if d(v) is 1.
Definition 11  (Leafless Graph) Leafless Graph is CG with
d(G) greater than or equal to two.
Definition 12  (Sub-Graph(SG)) If v1 , v2 and v3 are vertices
of a particular graph G , which too are the vertices of some
other graph W  , then W is the SG of G.
Definition 13  (Induced Sub-Graph (ISG)) If two vertices of
SG are connected by a link and that link is also present in G ,
that particular Graph is labelled as ISG as depicted in Fig. 3.
The set of parity vertices with odd and even degrees in ISG
are depicted by do and de respectively. Its length is depicted
by number of bit-vertices (x). All ISGs with same length and
same number of do (say y) belong to common class (x,y) [42].
Definition 14  (Trapping Cycle(TC)) It depicts the ISG of
a particular BG for LDPC Code.
13
 K. Arora et al.

Iterative Decoding Algorithms (Message Passing Algorithms) Steps to be followed:

Step2:Parity Vertex Updation: Utilizing this information send by

Based upon Firm (Hard) Decision
Bit Flicking Algorithm
Step3:Bit Vertex Updation: In case, parity check vertices receive huge
Based upon Flexible (Soft) Decision
Using Maximum Posteriori Algorithm
(Addition-Multiplication Algorithm)
parity vertices, each bit-vertex checks for its parity-check equation.
In case all equations are satisfied, the algorithm stop else every
bit-vertex transmits the messages to their connected parity-check
vertices depicting the equation is satisfied or not.
number of notifications of “un-satisfied”, the parity-check vertex
flicks its present value; else the bit-value is preserved. In case, the
limit for allowed number of iterations is reached, the algorithm
stops and non-convergence is reported.

Using Min-Sum Algorithm

2.3.2 Addition multiplication algorithm

Weighted Bit Flicking

Modified Weighted Bit Flicking
Boot-strapped Bit Flicking
Gradient Descent Algorithms
Set Partition Algorithms
Fig. 4  Decoding algorithms for LDPC codes
Definition 15  (Elementary Trapped Cycle(ETC)) It depicts
TC having d value as one/two. Normal Graph for an ETC
is acquired from ISG by eliminating parity vertices of ISG.
2.3 Decoding algorithms
Based upon firm, flexible or hybrid decisions, decoding
algorithms for LDPC Codes are broadly classfied into two
major categories described in Fig. 4. Flexible(soft)-decision
decoding algorithms provide significantly good performance
but at the cost of complexity which can obstruct lower-delay
applications. For such cases, firm(hard) decision decoding
algorithms can be useful with somewhat compromise in
bit-error-rate.
2.3.1 Bit‑flicking algorithm
This algorithm relies upon hard decisions. Three steps
involved in this method are described below:
Steps to be followed:
This algorithm involves the utilization of decoding algo-
rithms that perform in a dispersed manner for the decod-
ing of the received symbols [6, 43–45]. Such algorithms
are based upon maximum-likelihood (ML) algorithm. This
method is the most intricate one but its bit-error-perfor-
mance is the best. To reduce the intricacy, min-sum method
has been devised which is closest approximation to ML.
Min-sum method provides a good balance between bit-
error-rate and intricacy. This method is used by weighted
bit-flicking algorithm, modified bit-flicking algorithm and
improved modified bit-flicking algorithm. Iterative methods
involve the use likelihood ratio (LR) or log-likelihood ratio
(LLR). Practically, LLR is less intricate.
2.3.3 Weighted bit‑flicking algorithm
Assume a LDPC code-word of W of dimension N is send over
a Additive White Gaussian
{ } Noise (AWGN) channel. Its parity
check matrix H = hij where 1 ≤ i ≤ M and 1 ≤ j ≤ N con-
tains M rows and N columns. If BPSK modulation is used and
received signal is r = s + w  ; where sj = (−1)Wj   , where
j = 1, 2, 3 … N  . Consider noise vector consists of i.i.d. (sta-
tistically-independent and identically-distributed) elements
and their variance value is 𝜎w2 with power-spectral-density of
N0
 . If Es denotes signal-energy for each bit and Rc denotes
2
rate for this code, then 𝜎w2 = 2R (E1 ∕N ) . The sign for every
c s 0
received-bit value gives an estimation value e for bit-transmit-
ted [46]. If e is the estimated value( for (code-word
)) W
acquired by firm-decision on ej = 1 − sgn rj ∕2 ; where
( ) ( )
sgn rj = 1ifrj ≥ 0;elsesgn rj = −1.

Step1:Initiation: Initiate each parity vertex with the value of bit

acquired after passing through the channel and pass these values to
its connected bit vertices

13
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks

Steps involved in Weighted bit-flicking algorithm 3 Design of polar codes

{ }
Step1: Calculate the syndrome vector Si  , where 1 ≤ i ≤ M using Polar Codes are emanating codes that were introduced in
Si = ehi mod2 . In case Si is a null vector for all values of i  , stop the
t

procedure.
2009 by Arıkan [19]. These codes are the foremost codes
Step2: For each
to attain the channel capacity for binary discrete chan-
{ bit (fixed) vertex 1 ≤ i}≤ M  , calculate:
(i)
rmin
| |
= min |rj | ∶ 1 ≤ j ≤ N, hij = 1 nels (BDC) without memory. Despite this, lower encoding
| | and decoding complexities make these codes to gain more
Step3: Corresponding to each parity (variable) vertex 1 ≤ j ≤ N  , attention. These codes are derived from Reed–Muller (RM)
compute
∑ error
� vector as:
Ej =
� (i)
2Si − 1 rmin
Codes and promise to provide Shannon capacity.
i∶hij =1

Step4: Flick jth bit corresponding to the maximum value of Ej 3.1 Polar coding
Step5:Repeat step no. 1­ st, ­3rd and ­4th, till are syndrome bits become
zero or limit for iteration is attained. Polar Coding can be represented in two different manners:
1. Bi-step Procedure. 2. Wedge Product.

2.3.4 Boot‑strapping or modified weighted bit‑flicking 3.1.1 Bi‑step procedure

algorithm
Here we define received element rj and its corresponding
| |
vertex j is considered “non-reliable”, if |rj | < 𝛽 , (where 𝛽 is
| |
a fixed value calculated initially) else reliable. Bit-vertex is
called as ‘reliable’ w.r.t. a non-reliable parity-vertex, in case
if entire parity-vertices connected to that bit-vertex are reli-
able. This algorithm is just similar to one iteration of min-
sum or max–sum algorithm [43].
Polar encoder works in an iterative way and the polarization
process is a bi-stage phenomenon where first stage involves
channel-mixing and second consists of channel-isolation.
1. Channel mixing Considering ‘ K  ’ bits need to be send
over ‘ B ’ binary discrete channels (BDC) without mem-
ory. The channel mixing is done by taking two inputs
first and combining them as depicted in Fig. 5.

Steps involved in Modified Weighted bit-flicking algorithm Consider B ∶ 𝜒 → Z depict a BDC without memory,
where 𝜒 = {0, 1} depicts input symbol and z denotes
Step1: Decoding process is started by recognizing and removing
entire non-reliable parity vertices. output symbol with state-conversion probabilities
Step2: Allocate new rectified values and reliability values to the B(z|b), z ∈ Zandb ∈ 𝜒 .The channel B2 ∶ b2 → z2 is hereby
removed parity-vertices via the reliable bit-vertices. If rj represents
′
formed using Eq. (1) as:
the rectified value for a removed parity vertex j as ( )
� ∑ ∏ � � �� B2 b1 , b2 |z1 , z2 = B(z1 |b1 ⊕ b2 )B(z2 |b2 ) (1)
rj = rj + sgn(rj ).minj� ∈U(i)�j �rj �
i∈R(j) j� ∈U(i)�j � �
where R(j) represents the near-by reliable parity vertices and U(i)�j The channels formed in Fig. 5 and using two more input
depicts all the near by vertices of bit-vertex i other than j. bits, new channel B4 ∶ b4 → z4 is created with the aid of
Step3: In case, no reliable bit-vertex is connected to removed parity Eq. (2).This process progresses till the formation of BK
vertex, the received value is re-allocated to that vertex.
channel.
Step4: Corresponding to the entire reliable parity vertices rj is
unchanged i.e.rj = rj . Algorithm then continues with the traditional
� ( ) ( )
B4 b41 |z41 = B2 z21 |b1 ⊕ b2 , b3 ⊕ b4 B2 (z43 |b2 , b4 ) (2)
weighted bit-flicking algorithm.
If 𝜋4 represents permutation matrix. Let r1N depict random
In addition to above traditional algorithms, many algo-
vector of set { (r1 , r2 , … rN }) and ri depict the sub-set{ri , … rj }
j
rithms have been devised by researchers [45, 47–50]. Low-
.So 𝜋4 is r1 = r1 , r2, r3 , r4 . (
4
)
intricate LDPC decoding algorithm based upon look-up-
tables abstain the need of some mathematical-operations ( The m a p p i n g) b41 frominputofchannelB4 → x14
totheinputofchannelB4 can also be illustrated as: x14 = b41 G4
thereby reducing the complexity. The algorithms known as
box-minus/plus algorithms further aid in reducing decoding ⎡1 0 0 0⎤
⎢1 0 1 0⎥
complexity. Extended Min-Sum Algorithm and trellis-based where (G)4 = ⎢ ⎥ is the generator matrix. In general-
algorithms further reduce decoding complexity and increase ⎢1 1 0 0⎥
⎣1 1 1 1⎦
throughput too. Further in this direction partition based min-
ized form, channel mixing process can be illustrated as:
sum algorithm have been introduced [51].

13
 K. Arora et al.

Fig. 5  Formation of channel in polar encoding

3.1.2 Using wedge product

The above steps of channel mixing and channel isolation can

be combined[ in one step using kernel of length
]
10
K  = 2.T = and T ⊗p depicts pth wedge product of
11
T ⊗ T ⋯ ⊗ T ( p times).
Generator matrix can also be defined in terms of T as
described below:

(G)K = ⊓̃ K T ⊗p = T ⊗p ⊓̃ K (5)
Fig. 6  Channel isolation process step in polarization
where ⊓̃ K denotes bit-rescinding matrix.
Again considering Fig. 5, the detection procedure on the
( ) ( )
BK bK1 |zK1 = BK bK1 |zK1 (G)K for all zK1 ∈ ZK , bK1 ∈ 𝜒 K . receiver side initiates the decoding process with the pre-
(3) diction of b1 from channel outcomes. Then using b1 along
with the channel outputs, more reliable detection of b2 can
be done. This reliability can be quantified by a parameter
2. Channel isolation The second step involves the isolation
known as Bhattacharya reliability metric.
of channels so as to form ′ K ′ different channels. Figure 6
below depicts the formation of 4 different channels.
Definition 16  (Reliability Metric) Consider R(B) denote
the Bhattacharya reliability
√ metric of channel B and is rep-
In isolation process, BK channel is converted back into
resented as: R(B) = B(z�0)B(z�1).
′
K ′ individual channels defined by BiK ∶ 𝜒 → ZK × 𝜒 i−1 ,
1 ≤ i ≤ K with state-conversion probabilities:
Example  Considering the probability of error is 0.5 , then
( K i−1 ) ∑ the capacity of clattered BDC channel (shown in Fig.
B(i) z1 , b1 |bi =
1
B (zK |bK ) ( a)) )is
K
2K−1 K 1 1 (4) I(B) = 1 − 0.5 = 0.5. By Mixing two input bits b0 , b1  ,
bKi+1 ∈𝜒 K−i
a joint channel ( B, B) is designed with ouput bits ( z1 , z2 ) .
( )
where zK1 , bi−1 depicts the outcome of channel B(i) and bi Capacity of this joint channel is 2I(B) . Using the chain rule
1 K
represents input. of mutual information, the joint channel can be spilt into two
sub-channels:B+ (depicted by blue line) and B− (depicted by

13
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks
green line). Thus, Channel splitting and channel isolation
processes convert the ‘same reliability mutually-exclusive
channels’ into ‘variable-reliability
( ) polarized channels’ with
joint capacity as I B+ + I(B− ) = 2I(B) and Here mutual
information
( ) of sub-channels is illustrated by the inventor []
as:I B+ = 2I(B) − I(B)2 and I(B− ) = I(B)2 . With the aid
of these expressions, it has been proved that after polariza-
tion, B− channels(less-reliable) channels have capacity lesser
than channel B and B+ channels(more-reliable) channels have
capacity more than channel B . As the code-length K grows,
this process occurs in an iterative way and two cusps of polari-
zation channels (one that are highly reliable and others that are
less-reliable) are created. This reliability improvement can be
illustrated with the aid of the following Fig. 7.
Polar Coding can be done in systematic, non-systematic
and joint ways. Considering the above figure and K = 4; if
the input bits are designated to b2 , b4 (i.e. more raliable chan-
nels); such type of polar coding belong to the class of ‘non-
systematic coding’. If the input bits are designated to x2 , x4 ,
type of polar coding is ‘systematic’. Systematic polar coding
has performance better as compared with non-systematic
polar-coding in terms of bit-error-rate.
3.2 Decoding algorithms
Various decoding algorithms can be used depending upon
the application requirements are enlisted in Table 4.
(a) K=
Less Reliable Channel
More Reliable Channel
(b) K=
Fig. 7  Reliability improvement using polarization process
4 Issues addressed by different researchers
and future directions in Channel Coding
field
Various issues addressed by different researchers are
described below and their tabular description is depicted
in Table 5.
4.1 Encoding complexity
LDPC Codes are categorized into two types: (a) Computer
generated random LDPC codes which are more intricate
to decode due to their randomized structures. (b) Well-
designed structured codes. These codes have lesser encod-
ing intricacy because of their structured design. QC (Quasi-
Cyclic) codes [52] are one of these structured codes whose
encoding process includes the use of simple shift registers.
Their error performance is identical with random codes but
because of lesser intricacy, these codes are gaining attention
as compared with random LDPC Codes [35, 53].
Researchers have used variants of parity check matrices to
ensure lesser complexity of operations involved in encoding
and decoding process. One such parity check matrix given
by Li et al. [54] uses circular shift of the rows and is able
to provide linearity in complexity that relies upon the count
of parity bits. In another attempt to reduce the complexity
Huang et al. [55] used matrix operations and with the aid of
Stage 2
(c) K=
13

Table 4  Description of decoding algorithms for polar encoding
Method
13
Successive Cancellation (SC) Decoding [102]
Simplified Successive-Cancellation (SSC)
Decoding [102]
LSC(List Successive Cancellation) [71]
SCS (Successive Cancellation using Stack)
[103]
Description Features:
Interference caused by the past bits got cancelled in each successive step. Complexity: O(KlogK) where K represents length of code-word
Amongst the branches incorporated with message bit, this algorithm Performance is not good in case of large code-word lengths
involves selecting a branch with higher probability. In case of false deter-
mination of a single bit, the whole procedure fails. This algorithm is not
optimal one
Repeated computations by SC decoding are reduced by using three catego- Less complex. Complexity is reduced up to twenty times
ries: rate 0, rate 1 and rate r
Consider X (i) represent a group of contenders in the ith step in decoding and Complexity: O(MKlogK)
Reduction in dimension of list will degrade the performance of
list. Following are the steps of this algorithm: polar codes
|X (i) | is the dimension of X (i) . If M is maximum permitted dimension of the
| |
1. Initiation: Consider an empty vector as the single contender initially Quite burdensome to calculate the ideal value for dimension of
present in the list and fix its probability to one list
2. Estimation of bits: Bits are guessed in succession with indices i = 1,2,
…K if the K is the length of code-word
(2a) Inflation: Corresponding to each contender present, i-lengthened
sequences are generated and decoded as bit 0 and bit 1 respectively
M candidates with higher probabilities leaving rest
(2b) Candidacy: If the ||X (i) || is lesser than M  , go to next step else retain only
(2c) Elimination: If these probabilities are below a threshold, the candidates
are eliminated
3. Confirmation: Encode each contender present in list and calculate their
likelihood functions and probabilities
Consider d denote the maximum value of depth for stack and t denotes the This decoding works similar to Viterbi decoding in a stack
depth of stack at particular instant: Their performance matches with SC decoding and these codes
1. Initiation: Assume t = 0 . Calculate the corresponding cadent of this are less intricate too
single-vertex track and store this value with in the stack simultaneously Memory occupation is slightly more
increment the value of t . This algorithm is not useful if stack-size is short
2. Retrieving from stack: Retrieve the track pi1 = p1 , p2 , p3 , … pi  ,
( )
i ∈ {1, 2, … , K) denotes the i arms of the tree. Corresponding to a track,
the arm at ith level depict the bit having value of pi . Decrement t by 1
3. Expanding: In case
i+1
the track to two new tracks
( the decoded) bit is non-reliable, expand the present
p1 , p2 , … , pi , 0 and = p1 , p2 , … , pi , 1 and compute the recent metrics
(track by p1 = ) p1 , p2 , (… , pi , 0  ; else expand
)
for these tracks
4. Saving: Corresponding to a data bit, if t > d − 2, remove that track
from stack and decrement t by 1. For reliable bit, save the expanded
pi+1
1
= pi1 , 0 in stack and increment t by 1
tracks in( stack) and increment t by two. In case of non-reliable bit, save
5. Arranging: Rearrange tracks in stack starting from upper to lower value
with decreasing value of metric
6. Conclusion: If upper track in stack reaches leaf node of tree, method
terminates and gives the upper path as the resultant sequence. Else jump
to step 2
K. Arora et al.
 Table 4  (continued)
Method Description Features:

CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check) decoding Concatenation of CRC encoder before polar encoding and CRC decoder This decoding method can be concatenated with other listing
[104, 105] after polar decoding reduces the bit-error rate further and makes it even algorithms but that will increase the complexity too
better than turbo codes. In addition to above five steps, sixth step is modi-
fied and one more is included
Conclusion: If upper track in stack reaches leaf node of tree, go to next step
CRC based conclusion: If this step is also passed, then the upper path is
concluded as resultant sequence and method terminates; else jump to step
2 depicted in above method. But if the number of iteration reaches the
maximum limit, the algorithm fails
Hybrid Decoding [106] It combines the listing and stacking algorithms. It works in two different This algorithm has bit-error rate performance similar to SC
operating states: continue and delay mode. This works similar to the stack- decoding and too with lesser complexity
decoding algorithm but transits between these two states
While searching for the optimal track with the help of stack, it simultane-
ously checks for the upper limit of depth. In case, upper limit is reached,
this algorithm waits and stops finding tracks further and delay mode is on.
In delay mode, this method further expands the lowest-length track till all
the candidatures have achieved the same dimension. This mode is identical
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks

to List decoding. Here, number of tracks are limited to a maximum limit of

Sorting and Non-sorting Algorithms aided List
Decoding [72]
Belief Propagation [107]
M  . Then it slides to the continue step till K dimension track arrives at the
top of stack
Choosing M optimal tracks is a challenge in case of list decoding algo- Intricacy for Direct sorting: O(KM)
rithms. This challenge is resolved by different sorting strategies of bubble Intricacy for Bubble sorting: O KM 2
( )
and quick sorting. Also, non-sorting algorithm of direct-selection reduces Intricacy for Quick sorting: O(KMlogM)
the complexity to linear
This method which is based upon soft decisions incorporates several pros as Reduced Delay and Higher data rate
compared with successive-cancellation method. This provides higher data
rate due to parallel structure also with lower-delay

13


Table 5  Issues involved in channel coding techniques

Issues Algorithms used Advantages Shortcomings

13
Encoding complexity Quasi-Cyclic (QC) LDPC Codes [35, 52, 53] Lesser Intricacy BER performance is marginal
Variants of Parity Check Matrices Circular shift of rows and columns Lesser Complexity (21% lesser than High Error Floor
[54] conventional LDPC Codes)
Double Diagonal Matrices [55] Less complex along with adaptable
code rates
Shorter Code Words [2] No iterations are required in decod- Error detection is limited to two bits
ing and correction to 1 bit only.
Decoding Algorithms and Complex- Proximities in the parity vertices updates [46] Computing load is less Decoding cycles are more
ity Weighted bit-flicking (WB) and boot-strapping (BS) methods [57, 58] Less Decoding Complexity Reliability is also less
Modified Weighted bit-flicking (WB) method [56] Better Reliability as compared with WC depends upon SNR
conventional WB method and
iterations are also reduced by half
Trellis-based-EMSA (TEMSA) [55] Inherent parallelism increases Complexity is dependent upon parity
throughput vertices update
Fixed path minimum sum algorithm (FPMSA) [55] No need to search all deviation paths Reliability is less
Using Max-log-Map Algorithm in Decoding of LDPC Codes [118] To reduce decoding complexity, Reliability is less
logarithmic operations are used so
as to convert multiplications into
additions
Reliability Re-weighing (RW) Methods [61] Improvement in Speed and BER Increases computational load
Re-scheduling (RS) Methods [61] Residual-Belief-Propagation-Algo-
rithm (RBPA)
Node-wise-Belief-Propagation-
Algorithm (NBPA)
Layered-Belief- Propagation-Algo-
rithm (LBPA)
Hybrid LDPC Codes with two encoding stages [61] BER less Two stages (sparse Generator matri-
ces and sparse Parity check matri-
ces) are implemented to achieve
better bit-error-rate but complexity
increases
Non-bipartite LDPC Codes [62] Remarkable good performance …
codes to be used in 5G Networks
Compromise between reliability and LDPC Coding with Iteratively Reliable Decoding [65] This method provides compromise between complexity and performance.
decoding complexity The soft outputs of belief propagation algorithm for each iteration are
used as reliability outputs
New message passing Algorithm [119] In case if girths are present in the LDPC Codes, conventional approach
of decoding does not provide optimal performance. So, a new approach
is proposed which schedule the updating process of messages at each
symbol node in accordance with length of girths
K. Arora et al.
 A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks

double diagonal matrices, it is possible to reduce complexity

by around 21% than conventional LDPC Codes along with
adaptability in code rates. But suffer from an ineluctable
drawback of error-floor (EF). Low complexity codes have
been proposed by Alabady et al. [2] which use shortened
code-words that are suitable to be used in IoT based applica-
tions. These types of codes have lesser bit-error-rate and pro-
Shortcomings

vide higher coding gain than LDPC codes. One of the major
advantages is that no iterations are required in decoding pro-
Complex

cess. Error detection is limited to 2 bits and correction to 1

bit only. Arikan proved that Systematic Codes work well as
compared to Non-Systematic codes. But this improvement
has to pay for in terms of complexity. Systematic codes need
Highly Secure as well as reliable
Low bit error rate even at large

large storage requirement and computations.

4.2 Decoding complexity
Reduction in EF

Several methods have been illustrated for decoding of LDPC

High Security

Codes in literature. Parameters considered for decoding pro-

Advantages

cess include block Length, decoding speed. It has been dis-

SNRs

covered that for large-block-lengths, Message passing Algo-

rithm (MPA) works great but the appearance of CP in shorter
LDPC detroits the proficiency of the codes. Dynamic sched-
Polar Codes transmission using channels that are unreliable for undesired
Tri-diagonal matrices and avoiding double-degree vertices in their parity

uling methods work well for short-block-length codes. Also,

some MPAs requires exclusively large number of decoding
cycles for lower-delay and energy-efficient applications.
Examples of these include AMA (Addition–Multiplication
Algorithm) and Min–sum (MS) algorithm. The diminution
in computing load can be done by the aid of proximities to
the decoding cycles in AMA. However, this method if used
with MS leads to the deterioration in BER. MS algorithm
LDPC Coded Algorithm for encryption [68]

performance can be improved by the aid of proximities in the

Polar codes for forbidden channels [69]

parity vertices updates. Applying this method will reduce the

Trapping cycles are analyzed [37–42]

calculation tariff but the count of decoding cycles remains

Protographed LDPC Codes [67]

unaltered [46].
LDPC Codes traditionally use addition–multiplication
approach (AMA) for decoding which are quite complex
check matrices [66]

but for fast and highly energy efficient systems, intricacy of

Algorithms used

AMA may not be accepted. Decoding algorithm’s decisions

may be firm, flexible or combination of both [56]. Enormous
user [3]

methods have been suggested in this area which include

weighted bit-flicking (WB) and boot-strapping (BS) [57, 58]
algorithms. BS method avoids the lesser accurate informa-
tion to travel through the bipartite graph used for decoding
Avoidance of cycles in LDPC Code

[59]. Zhang et al. [56] proposed a method that is based upon

one of the variants of WB method which made use of both
parity and message bits for computing the accuracy for each
bit instead of conventional method that was based upon the
Table 5  (continued)

reliability–checking of only parity bits. Reliability of this

Construction

method is better than the conventional WB method but suf-

fers from a drawback of dependency of weighing-coefficient
Error floor

Security

(WC) upon SNR. This method works with lesser intricacy

Issues

for longer code-word lengths. With proper selection of WC,

13

this method requires half iterations as compared with con-
ventional WB method.
NBLDPC (Non-Binary LDPC Codes) have potency to
replace binary LDPC Codes but these codes suffer with
the problem of decoding complexity. Many solutions [55,
59] have been devised to overwhelm this problem. Q-ary
addition-multiplication algorithm (QAMA) is considered to
be best decoding algorithm for NBLDPC Codes and com-
plexity is dependent upon parity vertices update. Elongated
minimum-sum algorithm (EMSA) chooses most accurate
values ( mn ) from a length-q set of values. The complexity is
of the order of dmn log2 mn , where d is the degree of parity
vertices. One more algorithm for reducing decoding com-
plexity is trellis-based-EMSA (TEMSA) which seeks for the
most accurate nodes in each trellis row and also seeks for
the deviation paths (DPs) in the trellis. Inherent parallelism
makes this method more efficient in terms of throughput.
Fixed path minimum sum algorithm (FPMSA) by Huang
et al. [55] has also been devised which has the advantage of
not searching for DPs as it assumes static paths and is able
to decode with complexity of the order of d .
4.3 Reliability
Finite Field LDPC Codes with Galois Field GF(q) where
q > 2 using Belief Propagation Algorithm, have been earlier
employed to scale down BER and in turn inflate reliability.
By using GF(q) where q > 2, i.e. GF(4) and GF(8), slight
improvement in BER is achieved as compared with conven-
tional turbo codes. Also, to achieve capacity near-by-Shan-
non capacity, irregular parity check matrices are used [60].
Altering the decoding method (using maximum Likelihood
decoding algorithm) further aids to improve reliability but at
the expense of intricacy [61].To increase computing speed
of the decoder, re-weighing (RW) and re-scheduling (RS)
techniques have been adapted. RW methods utilize weighing
coefficients for the updates in parity vertices while RS meth-
ods use message-status shared via bi-partite graph in order
to find the update which can provide maximum efficiency.
Among RS methods, Residual-Belief-Propagation-Algo-
rithm (RBPA), Node-wise-Belief-Propagation-Algorithm
(NBPA) and layered-Belief- Propagation-Algorithm (LBPA)
have been introduced. RBPA takes the maximum remainder
value calculated from the subtraction of shared messaged
between vertices and messages. LBPA utilizes the latest
message in bipartite graph and updates are provided seri-
ally. Using variable scheduling methods led to improvement
in the speed and BER but simultaneously there is increase
in computational load as more calculations are required for
computing remainders. To increase decoding speed with less
complexity, a new algorithm is proposed by Healy et al. in
[62]. Further in this direction, non-bipartite codes have been
devised. These LDPC codes along with space diversity and
13
K. Arora et al.
with improved constellation diagram are designed using Gal-
lager mapping contribute a remarkable good performance
for Rayleigh Fading Channels.
4.4 Energy efficiency and inflexibility
Kernel construction method makes the polar code inflex-
ible in terms of its length because of its length dependency
on the size of kernel. This issue is addressed by Korada
et al. [63] using variable-length BCH kernels. Further in
this direction, puncturing method devised by Wang et al.
[18] found magnifical attention as it also aids in increasing
energy efficiency of system which is a key requirement for
5G networks. Also iterative decoding algorithms can lead
to increase in delay and wastage of energy. So, in this direc-
tion to reduce the number of iterations and thereby to make
energy-efficient system, sub-factor graph has been proposed
[51]. Also it has been noticed that multi-level codes can aid
in spectrally efficient design of system [64].
4.5 Error floor
Rate-Compatible-LDPC Codes suffers from the problem of
Error Floor [65]. This problem is addressed by Wu et al.
[66] using tri-diagonal matrices and avoiding double-degree
vertices in their parity check matrices; these codes provide a
fairly low bit error rate even at large SNRs (signal-to-noise
ratios).In addition, It has been observed that joined source-
channel encoding [67] in which Protographed LDPC Codes
are considered to be optimum one; too suffered from the
problem of higher EF. Utilizing the principle that source-
encoder entropy is lesser than source-decoding threshold
(SDT) and SDT varies from channel-decoder threshold
value, Source codes are designed to provide lower EF values.
4.6 Security
It is very tedious task to task to acquire reliability and secu-
rity together. In security issues too, these codes have gained
substantial attention. Shahbaz et al. [68] proposed an algo-
rithm using LDPC Codes to provide encryption to data. The
message bits are encoded and some bits are punctured ran-
domly. Joint decoding is used as decoding process. Their
performance is judged for same and different transmission
power levels for and verified that they provide small secu-
rity gap. Polar Codes can too be used for encrypting data
by sending over channels which are considered to be non-
reliable for un-desired users and reliable for desired ones
and vice versa [59, 61–63]. But in case of polar codes with
finite code-words, polarization process does not work per-
fectly. Here, most of the channels resulted out to be neither
exactly reliable nor un-reliable. So, a new approach of polar
encoding with Ex-OR and repetition encoding is proposed
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks
Fig. 8  FER comparison of 10 0
LDPC codes with polar codes
10 -1
FER
10 -2
10 -3
0.5 1 1.5
by Kim et al. [69]. In this work, using these operations of
Ex-OR and repetition coding, the forbidden channels (that
are neither reliable nor un-reliable) are converted into good
channels of polarization [70].
4.7 Avoidance of cycles in LDPC code construction
The study of cycles is found beneficial to predict EF so that
an optimum decoding algorithm can be discovered and EF
can be minimized. Hashemi et al. [57] suggested that LDPC
code’s error floor depends upon the trapping cycles (TC)
involved in their bi-partite graphs. In case of RLDPCs, the
most detrimental effects are caused by ETC (Elementary
trapping cycles) and in particular leafless-TCs are the main
offenders amongst RLDPCs.
5 Simulation results
In this section we have done the simulation analysis for
LDPC and Polar Codes. In this section, the simulations are
carried out for Protograph based LDPC Codes and Polar
Codes as specified by 3GPP standard document for 5G and
comparisons are done on this basis. Expansion factors can
be E = a ∗ 2j where the value of a = {2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15}
, j = 0, 1, 2, … ja and ja = {7, 7, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4} . Correspond-
ing to every value of E, the proto-matrix can have elements
ranging from {−1, 0, 1, … E − 1}. Maximum value of E for
5G standard is kept as 384.
Figure 8 shows the frame-error-rate comparison of LDPC
Codes and Polar Codes. It has been found that the Proto-
graph-based LDPC Codes constructed using base matrix1
[67] has a gain of about 0.3 dB to attain frame-error-rate of
10−2 over Protograph-based LDPC Codes constructed using
base-matrix2 [67]. In addition, 3GPP Polar codes with list
Polar Codes with Successive List decoding[52]
Protograph based LDPC Codes with base matrix2[102]
Polar Codes with Successive cancellation decoding[57]
Protograph based LDPC Codes with base matrix1[102]
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Eb/N0 (dB)
successive decoding (list size = 4) [71] provides a gain of
about 0.67 dB over 3GPP Polar codes with successive can-
cellation decoding [72] corresponding to frame-error-rate of
10−2 . Simulation Parameters for this comparison are enlisted
in Table 6.
Comparison of LDPC Codes: Fig. 9 compares some of
the existing Binary and Non-Binary LDPC Codes in terms
of their Frame-Error-rate (FER) performance with Rates
½. LDPC Codes [52] used belief-propagation (BP) as the
decoding algorithm. Further [73] improves the Frame-Error-
Rate by employing (BP)-list erasure decoders at the cost of
increased complexity. Such decoders provide gain of 0.8 dB
for FER of 0.1. Also, Fig. 9 shows that Irregular LDPC
Codes perform better as compared with regular LDPC Codes
[74]. Non-binary LDPC Codes perform better as compared
with binary LDPC Codes in terms of error rate and are band-
width efficient too. But the major drawback is of complexity
which is addressed in [37]. Boutillon [75] reduced complex-
ity by the use of optimized values of elements in non-binary
LDPC Codes over GF (64) and GF (256) instead of taking
random values.
Comparison of Polar Codes: Fig. 10 compares some of
the existing Polar Codes in terms of their Frame-Error-rate
(FER) performance. Polar Codes by Hashemi et al. [76, 77]
devised an improved way of successive list decoding and
this is further improved by Polar Codes in [78] devised by
Chen et al. Different Segments have been taken for designing
Polar Codes. Polar Codes 1 are constructed using two seg-
ments each containing 16 bits. Polar Codes 2 are designed
with two segments containing 4 and 7 bits, Polar Codes 3
have been constructed with 3 segments and each segment
contains 8 bits while Polar Codes 4 used four segments. It
has been observed that Polar Codes 2 performed well and
provide coding gain of 0.5 dB over Polar Codes 3 to achieve
frame-error-rate of 10−3 [78].
13
 K. Arora et al.

Table 6  Simulation parameters Channel encoding 3GPP LDPC codes 3GPP polar codes

Code-word length 1024 1024

Message length 512 512
Rate ½ ½
Decoding algorithm Min-sum decoder (For LDPC Codes) Successive cancellation decoding and
successive list decoding
Channel environment AWGN channel AWGN channel
Constellation BPSK BPSK
Performance parameters Frame error rate, signal-to-noise ratio Frame error rate, signal-to-noise ratio

6 Application areas

1. Deep Space Optical Communications (DSOC) DSOC

based technology is under development and is also a pro-
ject led by NASA. This technology promises to enhance
the performance around hundred folds as compared with
the on-going RF (radio-frequency) technology with no
impact on power requirements. For such power-efficient
systems, PPM based Poisson channel (PPMBPC) is
supposed to be the best candidate. For PPMBPC, Non-
Bipartiite LDPC (NBLDPC) outperforms as compared
with the earlier used RS-Codes by 3 dB but suffers with
the drawback of having lesser capacity. To remove this
drawback, BLDPC codes are considered which suffered
from performance degradation in ambient-noise condi-
Fig. 9  Comparison of LDPC codes tions. For this, LDPC Code design is modified which
ensures good performance [46] but at cost of complexity.

Fig. 10  Comparison of existing 10
0
Polar Codes1 [76]
polar codes
Polar Codes1 [78]
Polar Codes2 [77]
-1
10 Polar Codes2 [78]
Polar Codes3 [76]
Polar Codes3 [78]
-2
10 Polar Codes4 [77]
Polar Codes5 [78]
FER

-3
10

-4
10

-5
10

-6
10
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
E bN0 dB

13
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks
Fig. 11  Multi-beam MCS uplink with MIMO receiver
2. Helicopter Satellite Communications (HSC) HSC is found
to gain notable attention now-a-days because of their utili-
zation in enormous fields e.g. relieving operations in case
of fire or floods and airy surveillance. In the implementa-
tion of HSC, there occurs major problem of blockage of
communication due to the regular rotation of rotary wings
of helicopter. The modified LDPC codes are being used to
resolve this problem. Check-hybrid codes are constructed
from QC-LDPC codes using two-level algorithm. The first
step involves the multiplication of data sequence with the
generator matrix of QC LDPC Code. In second step com-
ponent-code is designed. The decoding algorithm used is
MPA (Message-passing-algorithm). MAP algorithm if
used, decreases the decoding complexity [79].
3. Mobile-Satellite Communication System (MCS) The
transmission channel from Earth station to a space-
craft in MCS consisting of multiple beams is basically
a MIMO channel. To lessen the interference amongst
these beams an effective decoding algorithm using
LDPC codes is ascertained by Yang et al. [80]. With the
aid of this algorithm, there is declination in both calcu-
lation load and BER. Amongst MIMO detectors, turbo
detector performing iteratively is considered to be the
optimal detector. The linear SISO detector used in iter-
ative-turbo-detector (ITD), if replaced by approximate-
message-passing detector; has been proven to provide
less BERs and lower complexities [80].
Figure 11 shows MCS consisting of ′ m ’ beams. Consid-
ering ‘ n′ subscribers are provided with service simultane-
ously and LDPC Encoder is used to encode ′ k′-bit sequence
of data bits of each user (denoted by di for ith user) and pro-
vides code-word of length ‘ w ’ bits ( denoted by wi for ith user) .
These wi bits are mapped by QAM modulator and outputs Xi
sequence. Xit specifies all the transmitted symbols for i th user
at symbol period t  , Xi is denoted by Xit.Here yi represents data
after beamforming and d̂ i represent detected signals.
4. Cognitive Radio Networks Cognitive Radio Networks aim
towards achieving a spectrally-efficient system in which the
un-licensed (secondary) users can utilize the spectrum if
the licensed users are not transmitting over a particular fre-
quency band. LDPC Codes aid in detecting errors caused
during secondary user data transmission. Also, Azeem et al.
[81] compared the efficiency for shorter and longer block-
length LDPC Codes. It has been found that shorter-block
codes provide lesser complexity and lesser delay as com-
pared to longer-block codes. This technique can be further
extended to cooperative sensing techniques [82, 83]
5. UWB Non-Coherent Communications Non coher-
ent detection gains a lot of attention because of their
simplicity and non-requirement of estimating channel
coefficients which make the system power efficient too.
Liang illustrated that using these codes, bit-error-rate
declines as compared to Reed–Solomon or convolutional
codes but with increased computational complexity. For
ultra-wide-band applications, short-length LDPC codes
are generally used to ensure lesser latency [34].
6. WiMax Networks LDPC Codes find their applications
in enormous wireless standards including Wi-Max
(Worldwide interoperability for microwave access) [84],
WLAN (Wireless Local Area Networks) [85], Wi-Fi
(Wireless Fidelity) [86] and wireless sensor networks
[87, 88]. Tsatsaragkos et al. [86] used LDPC Codes
with min-sum decoding for Wi-Fi applications. The
ever-increasing high-speeds in 5G enforced the usage of
QC-LDPC Codes in Wi-Max networks. Recently, Wang
et al. [84] invented a high-rate efficient encoder with
salient features of high encoding speed, minimum hard-
ware usage. LDPC Code used is dual-diagonal along
with lower-triangular form structure. Such parallel-high
speed LDPC structures can also be utilized in IEEE
802.11n and IEEE 802.22 standards.
7 Discussions and conclusions
Channel Coding is considered to be the most crucial ele-
ment in the wireless communications and thus an area of
prime interest for scientists and researchers. This paper gives
13

Table 7  Suitability of codes
Parameter
Bit-error-rate performance Short block size (~ 40)
Moderate (~ 400) and large block size (~ 6144)
Complexity
Chip area required
Data channels
Control channels
Decoding latency
Similarity
the review of channel coding techniques till in use amongst
different generations. A detailed survey of channel coding
techniques for 5G is done elaborating key requirements for
5G networks in terms of transmission rate, spectral effi-
ciency, energy efficiency and data rate. To meet these essen-
tial requirements, channel coding techniques named LDPC
Codes and Polar Codes are elaborated. In addition research
challenges faced in the implementation of these techniques
i.e. complexities in terms of encoding or decoding, error
floor, security, cycles impact on decoding are described. As
there exist tradeoffs amongst these features; hence depend-
ing upon their particular application, encoding and decoding
algorithms are enlisted too. Further based on the survey,
the suitability of codes for particular parameter has been
enlisted in Table 7.
References
1. Turjman, F. A. (2017). Cognitive caching for the future sensors
in fog networking. Pervasive Mobile Computing, 42, 317–334.
2. Salah, A. A., & Turjman, F. A. (2018). Low complexity parity
check code for futuristic wireless networks applications. IEEE
Access, 6, 18398–18407.
3. Niu, K., Chen, K., Lin, J., & Zhang, Q. T. (2014). Polar codes:
Primary concepts and practical decoding algorithms. IEEE Com-
munications Magazine, 52(7), 192–203.
4. Berrou, C., & Glavieux, A. (1996). Near optimum error correct-
ing coding and decoding: Turbo-codes. IEEE Transactions on
Communications, 44, 1261–1271.
5. MacKay, D. J. C., & Neal, R. M. (1997). Near shannon limit
performance of low density parity check codes. Electronics Let-
ters, 33, 457–458.
6. MacKay, D. J. C. (1999). Good error-correcting codes based on
very sparse matrices. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
45(2), 399–431.
7. Richardson, T., & Urbanke, R. (2001). The capacity of low-den-
sity parity-check codes under message-passing decoding. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, 47, 599–618.
8. Spielman, D. (1996). Linear-time encodable and decodable error-
correcting codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
42(6), 1723–1731.
13
K. Arora et al.
Suitable channel codes
Polar codes
LDPC codes
With increase in List size of decoder, complexity of Polar Codes
increases. Non Binary LDPC Codes provide high spectral
efficiency but complexity is high
LDPC codes require lesser area for lower code-rates
LDPC codes
Polar codes
Polar codes using parallel-list and adaptive-list decoders
Non Binary LDPC Codes and Polar Codes using successive list
decoding (list size of 1024) perform identically
9. Luby, M. G., Mitzenmacher, M., Shokrollahi, M. A., Spielman,
D. A., & Stemann, V. (1997). Practical loss-resilient codes. In
Proceedings of 29th annual ACM symposium on theory of com-
puting (pp. 150–159).
10. Richardson, T., & Urbanke, R. (2001). Efficient encoding of low-
density parity-check codes. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 47(2), 638–656.
11. Richardson, T., Shokrollahi, M., & Urbanke, R. (2001). Design of
capacity approaching irregular low-density parity-check codes.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 47(2), 619–637.
12. ten Brink, S. (2001). Convergence behavior of iteratively decoded
parallel concatenated codes. IEEE Transactions on Communica-
tions, 49(10), 1727–1737.
13. Brink, S., Kramer, G., & Ashikhmin, A. (2004). Design of low-
density parity-check codes for modulation and detection. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, 52(4), 670–678.
14. Ashikhmin, A., Kramer, G., & Brink, S. (2004). Extrinsic infor-
mation transfer functions: Model and erasure channel properties.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 50(11), 2657–2673.
15. Prayogo, G. K., Putra, R., Prasetyo, A. H., & Suryanegara, M.
(2018). A 5G new radio LDPC coded NOMA scheme supporting
high user load for massive MTC. In International conference on
information technology and electrical engineering (ICITEE) (pp.
170–174).
16. Wu, X., Jiang, M., Zhao, C., Ma, L., & Wei, Y. (2018). Low-rate
PBRL-LDPC codes for URLLC in 5G. IEEE Wireless Commu-
nications Letters., 7(5), 800–803.
17. Sharma, A, & Salim, M. (2017). Polar Code: The Channel
Code contender for 5G scenarios. In International conference
on computer, communications and electronics (Comptelix) (pp.
676–682).
18. Wang, R., & Rongke, L. A. (2014). Novel puncturing scheme
for polar codes. IEEE Communication on Letters, 18(12),
2081–2083.
19. Arıkan, E. (2009). Channel polarization: A method for construct-
ing capacity-achieving codes. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 55(7), 3051–3073.
20. Marconi, G. (1899). Wireless telegraphy. Journal of the Institu-
tion of Electrical Engineers, 28(139), 273–290.
21. Sofi, I. B., & Gupta, A. (2018). A survey on energy efficient 5G
green network with a planned multi-tier architecture. Journal of
Network and Computer Applications, 118, 1–28.
22. Khan, F. (2009). LTE for 4G mobile broadband: Air interface
technologies and performance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks
23. Khan, M. N., Gilani, S. O., Jamil, M., Rafay, A., et al. (2018).
Maximizing throughput of hybrid FSO-RF communication sys-
tem: An algorithm. IEEE Access, 6, 30039–30048.
24. Yang, L., Xie, Y., Yuan, J., Cheng, X., & Wan, L. (2018).
Chained LDPC codes for future communication systems. IEEE
Communications Letters, 22(5), 898–901.
25. Andrews, J. G., Buzzi, S., Choi, W., et al. (2014). What will 5G
be. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 32(6),
1065–1082.
26. Kong, L., Khan, M. K., Wu, F., Chen, G., & Zeng, P. (2017).
Millimeter-wave wireless communications for IoT-cloud sup-
ported autonomous vehicles: Overview, design, and challenges.
IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(1), 62–68.
27. Liang, Z., Zang, J., Yang, X., Dong, X., & Song, H. (2017). Low-
density parity-check codes for noncoherent UWB communica-
tion systems. China Communications, 14(7), 1–11.
28. Hung-Ta, P., Han, Y. S., & Chu, Y. J. (2011). New HARQ scheme
based on decoding of tail-biting convolutional codes in IEEE
802.16e. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 60(3),
912–918.
29. GPP TSG-RAN WG1 #86. (2016). Discussion on outer coding
on eMBB data. LG Electronics.
30. Peng, R. H., & Chen, R. R. (2006). Application of non-binary
LDPC codes for communication over fading channels using
higher order modulations. In Proceedings of IEEE global com-
munications conference (GLOBECOM).
31. Feng, D., Xu, H., Zheng, J., & Bai, B. (2018). Nonbinary LDPC-
coded spatial modulation. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Com-
munications, 17(4), 2786–2799.
32. Chen, X., & Wang, C. L. (2012). High-throughput efficient
non-binary LDPC decoder based on the simplified min-sum
algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, 59(11),
2784–2794.
33. Shannon, C. E.(1948). A mathematical theory of communication.
Bell System Technical Journal, 27:379–423, 623–656.
34. Calderbank, A., & Mazo, J. (1984). A new description of trel-
lis codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 30(6),
784–791.
35. Lin, S., & Costello, D. J. (2004). Error control coding: Fun-
damentals and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
36. Xiao, H., & Banihashemi, A. H. (2009). Error rate estimation of
low-density parity-check codes on binary symmetric channels
using cycle enumeration. IEEE Trans. Communications, 57(6),
1550–1555.
37. Karimi, M., & Banihashemi, A. H. (2014). On characterization of
elementary trapping sets of variable-regular LDPC codes. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, 60(9), 5188–5203.
38. Halford, T. R., & Chugg, K. M. (2006). An algorithm for count-
ing short cycles in bipartite graphs. IEEE Transactions on Infor-
mation Theory, 52(1), 287–292.
39. Asvadi, R., Banihashemi, A. H., & Attari, M. A. (2011). Lower-
ing the error floor of LDPC codes using cyclic liftings. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, 57(4), 2213–2224.
40. Karimi, M., & Banihashemi, A. H. (2012). Efficient algorithm for
finding dominant trapping sets of LDPC codes. IEEE Transac-
tions on Information Theory, 58(11), 6942–6958.
41. Hashemi, Y., & Banihashemi, A. H. (2015). On characterization
and efficient exhaustive search of elementary trapping sets of
variable-regular LDPC codes. IEEE Communications Letters,
19(3), 323–326.
42. Tanner, R. (1981). A recursive approach to low complexity codes.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 27(5), 33–47.
43. Ryan, W. E., & Lin, S. (2009). Channel codes: Classical and
modern (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Kocarev, L., Lehmann, F., Maggio, G., Scanavino, B., et al.
(2006). Nonlinear dynamics of iterative decoding systems:
Analysis and applications. IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, 52, 1366–1384.
45. Forney, G. D. (1997). On iterative decoding and the two-way
algorithm. In Proceedings of international symposium on turbo
codes and related topics brest, France (pp. 12–25).
46. Matuz, B., Paolini, E., Zabini, F., & Liva, G. (2017). Non-binary
LDPC code design for the Poisson PPM channel. IEEE Transac-
tions on Communications, 65(11), 4600–4611.
47. Vatta, F., Soranzo, A., & Babich, F. (2018). Low-complexity
bound on irregular LDPC belief-propagation decoding thresh-
olds using a Gaussian approximation. Electronics Letters, 54(17),
1038–1040.
48. Clevorn, T., & Vary P. (2004). Low-complexity belief propaga-
tion by approximations with lookup-tables. In Proceedings of
5th international ITG conference on source and channel coding
(SCC), Erlangen, Germany (pp. 211–216).
49. Wadayama, T., Nakamura, K., Yagita, M., et al. (2010). Gradient
descent bit flipping algorithms for decoding LDPC codes. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, 58(6), 1610–1614.
50. Sundararajan, G., Winstead, C., & Boutillon, E. (2014). Noisy
gradient descent bit-flip decoding for decoding LDPC codes.
IEEE Transactions on Communications, 62(10), 3385–3400.
51. Huang, Q., Song, L., & Wang, Z. (2017). Set message-passing
decoding algorithms for regular non-binary LDPC codes. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, 65(12), 5110–5122.
52. Davey, M. C., & MacKay, D. J. C. (1998). Low density parity
check codes over GF(q). Information theory workshop.
53. MacKay, D. J. C., Wilson, S. T., & Davey, M. C. (1999). Com-
parison of constructions of irregular Gallager codes. IEEE Trans-
actions on Communications, 47(10), 1449–1454.
54. Li, Z., Chen. L., Zeng, L., Lin, S., & Fong, F. H. (2006). Efficient
encoding of quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check codes 54(1),
71–81.
55. Huang, Q., Tang, L., He, S., Xiong, Z., & Wang, Z. (2014). Low-
complexity encoding of quasi-cyclic codes based on Galois fou-
rier transform. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 62(6),
1757–1767.
56. Zhang, J., & Fossorier, M. P. C. (2004). A modified weighted
bit-flipping decoding of low-density parity-check codes. IEEE
Communications Letters, 8(3), 165–167.
57. Nouh, A., & Banihashemi, A. H. (2002). Bootstrap decoding of
low-density parity-check codes. IEEE Communications Letters,
6(9), 391–393.
58. Oh, J., & Ha, J. (2018). A two-bit weighted bit-flipping decoding
algorithm for LDPC codes. IEEE Communications Letters, 22(5),
874–877.
59. Li, E., Gunnam, K., & Declercq, D. (2011). Trellis based
extended Min-Sum for decoding non-binary LDPC codes. In
Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on wireless com-
munication systems (pp. 46–50).
60. Davey, M. C., & MacKay, D. J. C. (1998). Low density parity
check codes over GF(q). Ireland: ITW.
61. Sason, I., & Shamai, S. (2000). Improved upper bounds on the
ensemble performance of ML decoded low density parity check
codes. IEEE Communication Letters, 4(3), 88–91.
62. Healy, C., Shao, Z., Oliveira, R. M., et al. (2018). Knowledge-
aided informed dynamic scheduling for LDPC decoding of short
blocks. IET Communications, 12(9), 1094–1101.
63. Korada, S. B., Soglu, S., & Urbanke, R. (2010). Polar codes:
Characterization of exponent, bounds, constructions. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, 56(12), 6253–6264.
64. Mughal, S., Yang, F., Xu, H., et al. (2018). Coded cooperative
spatial modulation based on multi-level construction of polar
13

code. Telecommunications Systems. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1123​5-018-0485-6.
65. Fossorier, M. P. C. (2001). Iterative reliability-based decoding of
low-density parity check codes. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
in Communications, 19(5), 908–917.
66. Wu, X., Jiang, M., & Zhao, C. (2017). A parity structure for
scalable QC-LDPC codes with all nodes of degree three. IEEE
Communications Letters, 21(9), 1913–1916.
67. Chen, C., Wang, L., & Liu, S. (2018). The design of protograph
LDPC codes as source codes in a JSCC system. IEEE Commu-
nications Letters, 22(4), 672–675.
68. Shahbaz, S., Akhbari, B., & Asvadi, R. (2018). LDPC codes over
Gaussian multiple access wiretap channel. IET Communications,
12(8), 962–969.
69. Kim, M., Kim, B. H., & Ahn, J. K. (2017). Secure polar cod-
ing with REP and XOR coding. IEEE Communications Letters,
21(10), 2126–2129.
70. Shao, S., Hailes, P., Wang, T.-Y., Wu, J.-Y., Maunder, R. G.,
Al-Hashimi, B. M., & Hanzo, L. (2019). Survey of turbo, LDPC
and polar decoder ASIC implementations. IEEE Communica-
tions Surveys & Tutorials.
71. Chen, K., Niu, K., & Lin, J. R. (2012). List successive cancel-
lation decoding of polar codes. IEEE Electronics Letters, 48(9),
500–501.
72. Kong, B. Y., Yoo, H., & Park, I. C. (2016). Efficient sorting
architecture for successive cancellation list decoding of polar
codes. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express
Briefs, 63(7), 673–677.
73. Bocharova, I. E., Kudryashov, B. D., Skachek, V., & Yakimenka,
Y. (2018). BP-LED decoding algorithm for LDPC codes over
AWGN channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
65(3), 1677–1693.
74. Boutillon, E. (2018). Optimization of non binary parity check
coefficients. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 65(4),
2092–2100.
75. Khazraie, S., Asvadi, R., & Banihashemi, A. H. (2012). A PEG
construction of finite-length LDPC codes with low error floor.
IEEE Communications Letters, 16(8), 1288–1291.
76. Hashemi, S., Balatsoukas-Stimming, & Giard, P. (2016). Par-
titioned successive-cancellation list decoding of polar codes.
In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on acoustics,
speech and signal process. Shanghai, China (pp. 957–960).
77. Hashemi, S., Mondelli, M., & Hamed, S. (2018). Decoder par-
titioning: Towards practical list decoding of polar codes. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, 66(9), 3749–3759.
78. Chen, P., Bai, B., Ren, Z., Wang, J., & Sun, S. (2019). Hash-polar
codes with application to 5G. IEEE Access, 7, 12441–12455.
79. Wang, P., Yin, L., & Lu, J. (2018). Efficient helicopter-satellite
communication scheme based on check-hybrid LDPC coding.
Tsinghua Science and Technology, 23(3), 323–332.
80. Yang, Y., Wang, W., & Gao, X. (2018). AMP Dual-turbo iterative
detection and decoding for LDPC coded multibeam MSC uplink.
China Communications, 15(6), 178–186.
81. Azeem, M. M., Khan, A. B., & Azeem, U. (2017). Application of
short erasure correcting codes for cognitive radio. In IEEE 86th
vehicular technology conference (VTC-Fall).
82. Azmi, M. H., & Leib, Harry. (2018). Multichannel cooperative
spectrum sensing that integrates channel decoding with fusion-
based decision. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems, 54(4), 1998–2014.
83. Soliman, Samir S., & Song, Bongyong. (2017). Fifth genera-
tion (5G) cellular and the network for tomorrow: Cognitive and
cooperative approach for energy savings. JNCA, 85(1), 84–93.
84. Wang, X., Ge, T., Li, J., & Su, C. (2017). Efficient multi-rate
encoder of QC-LDPC codes based on FPGA for WIMAX Stand-
ard. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 26(2), 250–255.
13
K. Arora et al.
85. Uthansakul, M., & Uthansakul, P. (2011). Experiments with a
low-profile beamforming MIMO system for WLAN applications.
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 53(6), 56–69.
86. Tsatsaragkos, I., & Paliouras, V. (2018). A reconfigurable LDPC
decoder optimized for 802.11n/ac applications. IEEE Transac-
tions on Very Large Scale Integration, 26(1), 182–195.
87. Pellenz, M. E., Souza, D. R., & Fonseca, M. S. P. (2010). Error
control coding in wireless sensor networks. Telecommunication
Systems, 44(1), 61–68.
88. Tsai, H.-C. (2019). Iterative multiuser detector-decoding for
nonbinary LDPC coded multicarrier MFSK systems. Telecom-
munication Systems, 70(2), 309–320.
89. Hamming, R. W. (1950). Error detecting and error correcting
codes. Bell System Technical Journal, 29(2), 147–160.
90. Golay, M. J. (1949). Notes on digital coding. In Proceedings of
the IRE (vol. 37, p. 657).
91. Muller, D. E. (1954). Application of boolean algebra to switch-
ing circuit design and to error detection. Electronic Computers,
Transactions of the IRE Professional Group, 3, 6–12.
92. Reed, I. (1954). A class of multiple-error-correcting codes and
the decoding scheme. Information Theory, Transactions of the
IRE Professional Group, 4(4), 38–49.
93. Bose, R. C., & Ray-Chaudhuri, D. K. (1960). On a class of error
correcting binary group codes. Information and Control, 3(1),
68–79.
94. Reed, I. S., & Solomon, G. (1960). Polynomial codes over certain
finite fields. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics, 8(2), 300–304.
95. Costello, D. J., & Forney, G. D. (2007). Channel coding: The road
to channel capacity. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95, 1150–1177.
96. Elias P. (1955). Coding for two noisy channels. In Proceedings
Th. Theory (pp. 61–76).
97. Viterbi, A. J. (1967). Error bounds for convolutional codes and an
asymptotically optimum decoding algorithm. IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory, 13(2), 260–269.
98. Bahl, L., Cocke, J., Jelinek, F., & Raviv, J. (1974). Optimal
decoding of linear codes for minimizing symbol error rate. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, 20(2), 284–287.
99. Consulative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS).
(1984).Telemetry channel coding. Silver Book.
100. Gallager, R. G. (1963). Low-density parity-check codes. Ph.D.
thesis, Dep. Electrical Eng., M.I.T, Cambridge.
101. Arıkan, E. (2008). A performance comparison of polar codes
and Reed–Muller Codes. IEEE Communications Letters, 12(6),
447–449.
102. Liang, H., Liu, A., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2017). Analysis
and adaptive design of polar coded HARQ transmission under
SC-list decoding. IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, 6(6),
798–801.
103. Niu, K., & Chen, K. (2012). Stack decoding of polar codes. Elec-
tronics Letters, 48(12), 695–696.
104. Chen, K., Niu, K., & Lin, Jiaru. (2013). Improved successive
cancellation decoding of polar codes. IEEE Transactions on
Communications, 61(8), 3100–3107.
105. Li, B., Shen, H., & Tse, D. (2012). An adaptive successive can-
cellation list decoder for polar codes with cyclic redundancy
check. IEEE Communications Letters, 16(12), 2044–2047.
106. Niu, K., & Chen, K. (2012). CRC-aided decoding of polar codes.
IEEE Communications Letters, 16(10), 1668–1671.
107. Elkelesh, A., Ebada, M., Cammerer, S., & ten Brin, Stephan.
(2018). Belief propagation list decoding of polar codes. IEEE
Communication Letters, 22(8), 1536–1539.
108. OnurDizdar, Erdal Arıkan. (2016). A high-throughput energy-
efficient implementation of successive cancellation decoder for
polar codes using combinational logic. IEEE Transactions on
Circuits and Systems, 63(3), 436–447.
A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks

109. Jiang, S., Mo, F., Lau, C. M., & Sham, C. W. (2018). Tree- Jaswinder Singh  obtained his
permutation-matrix based LDPC codes. IEEE Transactions on Bachelor’s degree in Electronics
Circuits and Systems, 65(8), 1019–1023. & Communication Engineering
110. Kim, K. S., Lee, S. H., Kim, Y. H., & Ahn, J. Y. (2004). Design from Guru Nanak Dev Univer-
of binary LDPC code using cyclic shift matrices. Electronics sity, Amritsar. Then he obtained
letters, 40(5), 325–326. his Master’s degree in Electron-
111. Tasdighi, A., Banihashemi, A. H., & Sadeghi, M. R. (2017). ics & Communication Engineer-
Symmetrical constructions for regular Girth-8 QC-LDPC codes. ing from PTU Jalandhar and
IEEE Transactions on Communications, 65(1), 14–22. Ph.D. degree in Electronics &
112. Diao, Q., Li, J., Lin, S., & Blake, I. F. (2016). New classes of Communication Engineering
partial geometries and their associated LDPC codes. IEEE Trans- from Guru Nanak Dev Univer-
actions on Information Theory, 62(6), 2947–2965. sity, Amritsar in 2003 and 2011
113. Elsanadily, S., Mahran, A., & Elghandour, O. (2018). Classifica- respectively. Currently he is an
tion-based algorithm for bit-flipping decoding of GLDPC codes Associate Professor in the
over AWGN channels. IEEE Communications Letters, 22(8), Department of Electronics and
1520–1523. Communication Engineering at
114. He, X., Zhou, L., & Du, J. (2018). PEG-like design of binary BCET, Gurdaspur. His area of specialization is Optical CDMA and his
QC-LDPC codes based on detecting and avoiding generating research interests are in Optical CDMA systems & Networks, Optical
small cycles. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 66(5), Communications systems and Networks.
1845–1858.
115. Jiang, X. Q., Hai, H., Wang, H. M., & Lee, M. H. (2017). Con- Yo g e s h w a r S i n g h R a n d ‑
structing large Girth QC protograph LDPC codes based on PSD- hawa  received the B.E. degree
PEG algorithm. IEEE Access, 5, 13489–13500. in electronics and communica-
116. Jiang, X., Xia, X. G., & Lee, M. H. (2014). Efficient progressive tion engineering from BBSBEC
edge-growth algorithm based on Chinese remainder theorem. (Baba Banda Singh Bahadur
IEEE Transactions on Communications, 62(2), 442–451. Engineering College), Fatehgarh
117. Gruner, A., & Huber, M. (2012). New combinatorial construction Sahib in 2003, M.B.A. in HR
techniques for low-density parity-check codes and systematic from PTU University, Jalandhar
repeat-accumulate codes. IEEE Transactions on Communica- in 2007, M.Tech in Electronics
tions, 60(9), 2387–2395. and Communication Engineering
118. Wei, X., & Akansu, A. (2001). Density evolution for low-density From Beant College, Gurdaspur
parity-check codes under Max-Log-MAP decoding. Electronics in 2010 and Ph.D in Design and
Letters, 37(18), 1125–1126. Analysis of Low power SRAM
119. Mao, Y., & Banihashemi, A. H. (2001). Decoding low-density from State University (SU)
parity-check codes with probabilistic scheduling. IEEE Com- Rajasthan. He is currently work-
muincation on Letters, 5(10), 414–416. ing as a Director in Lyallpur
Khalsa College of Engineering, Jalandhar, India. His research area
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to include polarization modeling, simulation of optical fiber in electronics
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. and communication and VLSI. He is a member and active reviewer of
many international journals.

Komal Arora  has received the

B.E. degree in electronics and
communication engineering
from Punjabi University, Punjab
India, in 2008, M.Tech degree in
electronics and communication
engineering from Thapar Uni-
versity, India, in 2011 and cur-
rently pursuing the Ph.D. degree
in electronics and communica-
tion engineering from IKG Pun-
jab Technical University, Jaland-
har, India. She is currently an
Assistant Professor in the School
of Electronics and Electrical
Engineering, CGC, Landran,
Mohali, India. She is currently involved in research work on channel
encoding and decoding algorithms of LDPC and Polar Codes in 5G.
She is also working on Cognitive Radio networks and MATLAB tools
for wireless communication. Her research interests include the emerg-
ing channel encoding techniques in 5G wireless communication
network.

13