Information Reconciliation for High-Dimensional Quantum Key Distribution using Nonbinary LDPC codes
Extracted source text · arXiv 2305.08631
\documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
\IEEEoverridecommandlockouts
% The preceding line is only needed to identify funding in the first footnote. If that is unneeded, please comment it out.
\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{booktabs}
%\def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
% T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}
%\usepackage{biblatex} %Imports biblatex package
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
%\addbibresource{conf.bib} %Import the bibliography file
\begin{document}
\title{Information Reconciliation for High-Dimensional Quantum Key Distribution using Nonbinary LDPC codes\\
\thanks{We acknowledge funding from: The Center of Excellence SPOC (ref DNRF123)}
}
% \author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Ronny Müller}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Department of Electrical and Photonics Engineering} \\
% \textit{Technical University of Denmark}\\
% Lyngby, Denmark \\
% email address or ORCID}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Davide Bacco}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Department of Physics and Astronomy} \\
% \textit{University of Florence}\\
% Firenze, Italy \\
% email address or ORCID}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Leif Katsuo Oxenløwe}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Department of Electrical and Photonics Engineering} \\
% \textit{Technical University of Denmark}\\
% Lyngby, Denmark \\
% email address or ORCID}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Søren Forchhammer}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Department of Electrical and Photonics Engineering} \\
% \textit{Technical University of Denmark}\\
% Lyngby, Denmark \\
% email address or ORCID}
% }
\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Ronny M\"uller\IEEEauthorrefmark{2}, Davide Bacco\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}, Leif Katsou Oxenløwe\IEEEauthorrefmark{2}, and Søren Forchhammer\IEEEauthorrefmark{2}}
\IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{2}Department of Electrical and Photonics Engineering\\
Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark\\
Email: ronmu@dtu.dk}
\IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}Department of Physics and Astronomy\\ University of Florence, Florence, Italy}}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Information Reconciliation is an essential part of Quantum Key distribution protocols that closely resembles Slepian-Wolf coding. The application of nonbinary LDPC codes in the Information Reconciliation stage of a high-dimensional discrete-variable Quantum Key Distribution setup is proposed. We model the quantum channel using a $q$-ary symmetric channel over which qudits are sent. Node degree distributions optimized via density evolution for the Quantum Key Distribution setting are presented, and we show that codes constructed using these distributions allow for efficient reconciliation of large-alphabet keys.
\end{abstract}
\begin{IEEEkeywords}
Information reconciliation, High-dimensional QKD, nonbinary LDPC codes
\end{IEEEkeywords}
\section{Introduction}
Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) aims to share a symmetric secret key usable for encryption between two remote parties. It consists of a quantum phase in which the two parties (Alice and Bob) share some quantum information sent over a quantum channel, followed by a classical post-processing phase in which a shared secret key is extracted \cite{Bennett_2014}. While QKD using quantum bits (qubits) is well established, its High-dimensional version (HD-QKD) (using qu\textit{d}its) has seen significantly less research effort. HD-QKD offers many potential advantages, most importantly a significantly increased resilience to noise \cite{PhysRevA.61.062308}. Physical implementations of HD-QKD systems have been shown using a variety of different technologies, including but not limited to time-bin encoding \cite{PhysRevApplied.14.014051}, time-energy encoding \cite{time-en}, and orbital angular momentum \cite{PhysRevApplied.11.064058}.\\
An essential part of the post-processing is the information reconciliation phase during which a common string is extracted from the results of the quantum state measurements. This is followed by privacy amplification \cite{pa}, during which a secret key is extracted from that common string, e.g. using universal hash functions. While a lot of research has analyzed and optimized the information reconciliation phase for the two-dimensional case, little regard has yet been paid to the high-dimensional case, apart from the introduction of the layered scheme in 2013 \cite{6502993}. In contrast to most channel coding applications, the (HD)-QKD setting has lower requirements on latency and throughput but puts a lot of value on a minimized information leakage. Motivated by this setting, the excellent decoding performance of nonbinary LDPC codes \cite{706440}, and their native handling of high dimensions, we explore the design and application of nonbinary LDPC codes for the post-processing in HD-QKD protocols.
\section{Background}
\subsection{Information Reconciliation}
The information reconciliation stage in QKD aims to correct any mismatch between the keys of the two parties while leaking as little information as possible to a potential eavesdropper. In general, Alice sends a random string $\mathbf{x}=(x_0,...,x_{n-1})$, $x_i = \{0,...,q-1\}$ of $n$ qudits of dim $q$ to Bob who proceeds to measure them, resulting in his version of the string $\mathbf{y}=(y_0,...,y_{n-1})$, $y_i = \{0,...,q-1\}$. We assume that the quantum channel can be accurately modeled by a substitute channel where $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ are correlated as a $q$-ary symmetric channel, as errors are usually uncorrelated and symmetric. The transition probabilities of such a channel is given by:
\begin{equation}
\text{P}(y_i|x_i) = \begin{cases} 1-p & y_i=x_i,\\
\frac{p}{1-q} & \text{else}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Here, the parameter $p$ denotes the channel transition probability. We refer to the symbol error rate between $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ as the quantum bit error rate (QBER) in a slight abuse of notation but in accordance with experimental works on HD-QKD. We assume the QBER to be an underlying channel property in our simulations, making it equivalent to the channel parameter $p$. Besides the qudits, Alice additionally sends a message $\mathbf{s}$ (usually the syndrome) of length $m$ over a classical communication channel which is assumed to be error-free. From a coding point of view, this is equal to asymmetric Slepian-Wolf coding with side information at the receiver, where $\mathbf{s}$ represents the compressed version of $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ is the side information. A more detailed description of this equivalence can be found in \cite{1042242}. Any information that is leaked to a potential eavesdropper at any point of the quantum key distribution has to be subtracted from the final secret key \cite{Br_dler_2016} during privacy amplification. The information leaked during the information reconciliation stage will be denoted by leak$_{\text{IR}}$. Given no rate adaption, it can be upper-bounded by the syndrome length in symbols, $\text{leak}_{\text{IR}} \leq m$. Using the Slepian-Wolf bound \cite{1055037}, the minimum amount of leaked information to successfully reconcile with arbitrary low failure chance is therefore given by the conditional entropy:
\begin{equation}
m \geq n\text{H}(X|Y).
\end{equation}
The conditional entropy of the $q$-ary symmetric channel, assuming independent and identically distributed input $X$, can be written as
\begin{equation}
\text{H}(X|Y) = -((1-p)\text{log}_q(1-p) - p\cdot \text{log}_q(\frac{p}{q-1})).
\end{equation}
The performance of a code with respect to information leakage can be measured by its efficiency $f$, given by
\begin{equation}
f = \frac{m}{n\text{H}(X|Y)}.
\end{equation}
Note that an efficiency of $f>1$ corresponds to leaking more bits than required by the theoretical minimum of $f=1$, which represents the best possible performance according to the Slepian-Wolf bound. Practical systems have $f>1$.
\begin{table*}[h] % Add the following just after the closing bracket on this line to specify a position for the table on the page: [h], [t], [b] or [p] - these mean: here, top, bottom and on a separate page, respectively
\centering % Centres the table on the page, comment out to left-justify
\caption{The code rate, the best possible theoretical threshold (TT) according to the Slepian-Wolf bound, the ensemble threshold (ET) using density evolution, the ensemble efficiency (EE), the evaluated code efficiency (CE), and the respective degree polynomial for an 8-ary symmetric channel.} % Table caption, can be commented out if no caption is required
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c l} % The final bracket specifies the number of columns in the table along with left and right borders which are specified using vertical pipes (|); each column can be left, right or center-justified using l, r or c. Columns will widen to hold the content in them by default, to specify a precise width, use p{width}, e.g. p{5cm}
%\toprule % Top horizontal line
%& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Growth Media}} \\ % Amalgamating several columns into one cell is done using the \multicolumn command with the number of columns to amalgamate as the first argument and then the justification (l, r or c)
%\cmidrule(l){2-6} % Horizontal line spanning less than the full width of the table - you can add (r) or (l) just before the opening curly bracket to shorten the rule on the left or right side
Rate & TT & ET & EE & CE & Ensemble (edge view)\\ % Column names row
\midrule % In-table horizontal line
0.90 & 0.033 & 0.031 & 1.060 & 1.17 &
$\lambda(x) = 0.112x + 0.103x^2 + 0.194x^3 + 0.146x^9 + 0.163x^{10} + 0.003x^{17}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.173x^{19} + 0.049x^{26} + 0.006x^{28} + 0.052x^{29}$\\[2mm]
0.85 & 0.053 & 0.052 & 1.080 & 1.12 &$\lambda(x) = 0.125x + 0.165x^2 + 0.163x^5 + 0.11x^7 + 0.073x^{12} + 0.089x^{18}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.122x^{27} + 0.154x^{32}$\\[2mm]
0.80 & 0.0758 & 0.0724 & 1.038 & 1.12 & $\lambda(x) = 0.146x + 0.177x^2 + 0.130x^4 + 0.084x^7 + 0.149x^{10} + 0.035x^{19}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.029x^{22} + 0.087x^{25} + 0.163x^{26}$\\[2mm]
0.75 & 0.100 & 0.096 & 1.030 & 1.10 & $\lambda(x) = 0.165x + 0.192x^2 + 0.092x^5 + 0.176x^7 + 0.019x^{10} + 0.086x^{17}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.129x^{19} + 0.103x^{30} + 0.038x^{31}$\\[2mm]
0.70 & 0.126 & 0.121 & 1.030 & 1.10 & $\lambda(x) = 0.160x + 0.208x^2 + 0.140x^5 + 0.096x^8 + 0.028x^{10} + 0.013x^{11}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.113x^{18} + 0.032x^{21} + 0.211x^{27}$\\[2mm]
0.65 & 0.154 & 0.147 & 1.032 & 1.10 & $\lambda(x) = 0.173x + 0.228x^2 + 0.092x^4 + 0.169x^8 + 0.112x^{14} + 0.019x^{23}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.012x^{24} + 0.195x^{28}$\\[2mm]
0.60 & 0.183 & 0.177 & 1.026 & 1.10 & $\lambda(x) = 0.192x + 0.196x^2 + 0.222x^5 + 0.104x^{13} + 0.114x^{23} + 0.055x^{25}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.117x^{27}$\\[2mm]
0.55 & 0.214 & 0.207 & 1.024 & 1.10 & $\lambda(x) = 0.183x + 0.269x^2 + 0.124x^6 + 0.036x^8 + 0.097x^{10} + 0.004^{21}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.116x^{25} + 0.171x^{26}$\\[2mm]
0.50 & 0.247 & 0.239 & 1.024 & 1.11 & $\lambda(x) = 0.215x + 0.256x^2 + 0.030x^4 + 0.154x^7 + 0.065x^{11} + 0.050^{13}$\\
&&&&&\hspace{0.9cm} $+ 0.072x^{21} + 0.128x^{27}$\\[2mm]
%\midrule % In-table horizontal line
%\midrule % In-table horizontal line
%Average Rate & 0.920 & 0.882 & 0.477 & 0.539 & 0.923\\ % Summary/total row
%\bottomrule % Bottom horizontal line
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:lamda} % A label for referencing this table elsewhere, references are used in text as \ref{label}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{design_vs_slepian_new.png}
\caption{The frame error rate (FER) of 9 codes of coding rate [0.50, 0.55,...,0.90] (left to right) for different values of the QBER on a $q=8$-dimensional $q$-ary symmetric channel. Each data point has been evaluated with 5000 samples or until 100 errors have been collected.}
\label{fig:fers}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Nonbinary LDPC codes}
We assume some familiarity with belief propagation decoding of binary Low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes and Tanner graphs. For an overview see \cite{ldpcbook}.
Nonbinary LDPC codes can be characterized by their parity check Matrix $\mathbf{H}$, with $m$ rows and $n$ columns, which contain values in a Galois Field (GF) of order $q$ as its entries. To increase clarity in this section, we will mark all variables that represent a Galois field element with a hat, e.g. $\hat{a}$. Furthermore, let $\oplus, \ominus, \otimes,$ and $\oslash$ refer to the common operations on Galois field elements.
An LDPC code can be represented as a bipartite graph, the Tanner graph. There, the parity-check equations constitute one side of the graph, called the check nodes, while the symbols of the codeword represent the other side of the graph, the variable nodes. The Tanner graph of a nonbinary LDPC code additionally has weighted edges between the check and variable nodes where the weight corresponds to the respective entry of $\mathbf{H}$. The syndrome $\mathbf{s}$ of the $q$-ary string $\mathbf{x}$ is calculated as $\mathbf{s} = \mathbf{H}\mathbf{x}$.
In this work, we deploy a log-domain FFT-SPA \cite{6577118, 1312606} for decoding. Detailed descriptions of this algorithm can be found in \cite{4787626, 6987278} but will be reiterated here for completeness of the work. Let $Z$ denote a random variable that takes values in GF($q$) such that $\text{P}(Z_i = k)$ denotes the probability that the qudit $i$ has value $k=0,...,q-1$. The probability vector $\mathbf{p}=(p_0,...p_{q-1})$, $p_j = \text{P}(Z=j)$ can be transformed into the log-domain using the generalized equivalent of the log-likelihood-ratio (LLR) in the binary case, $\mathbf{m}=(m_0,...,m_{q-1})$, $m_j = \text{log}\frac{\text{P}(Z=0)}{\text{P}(Z=j)} = \log(\frac{p_0}{p_j})$. Given the LLR presentation, one can go back to probabilities via $p_j = \exp(-m_j)/\sum_{k=0}^{q-1} \exp(-m_k)$. We denote these transforms with $p(\cdot)$ and $m(\cdot)$. To further simplify notation, we define the multiplication and division of an element $\hat{a}$ in GF$(q)$ and an LLR message as a permutation of the indices of the vector:
\begin{align}
\hat{a} \cdot \mathbf{m} &:= (m_{\hat{0} \oslash \hat{a}},...,m_{\hat{q-1} \oslash \hat{a}})\\
\mathbf{m} / \hat{a} &:= (m_{\hat{0}\otimes \hat{a}},...,m_{\hat{q-1} \otimes \hat{a}}),
\end{align}
where the multiplication and division of the indices take place in the Galois Field. These permutations are required as we have to weigh messages according to their edge weight during the decoding. We further define two transformations involved with the decoding,
\begin{align}
\Bar{\mathcal{F}}(\mathbf{m}, \hat{H}_{ij}) &= \mathcal{F}(p(\hat{H}_{ij}\cdot \mathbf{m}))\\
\Bar{\mathcal{F}}(\mathbf{m}, \hat{H}_{ij})^{-1} &= m(\mathcal{F}^{-1}(\mathbf{m}))/\hat{H}_{ij},
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{F}$ is the discrete Fourier transform. Note that for $q$ being a power of 2, the Fast Walsh Hadamard Transform can be used. The decoding process then consists of two iterating message-passing phases, from check nodes to variable nodes and vice versa. The message update rule at iteration $l$ for the check node corresponding to the parity check matrix entry at $(i,j)$ can then be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{m}^{(l)}_{ij,\text{CV}} = \mathcal{A}(\hat{s}^{\prime}_i) \Bar{\mathcal{F}}^{-1}( \underset{j\prime \in \mathcal{M}(i)/j}{\Pi} \Bar{\mathcal{F}}(\mathbf{m}^{(l-1)}_{ij\prime}, \hat{H}_{ij\prime}), \hat{H}_{ij}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{M}(i)$ is the set of all check nodes in row $i$ of $\mathbf{H}$. $\mathcal{A}$, defined as $\mathcal{A}_{kj}(\hat{a}) = \delta( \hat{a} \oplus k \ominus j) - \delta(a\ominus j)$, accounts for the nonzero syndrome \cite{6987278}. The weighted syndrome value is calculated as $\hat{s}^{\prime}_i = \hat{s}_i \oslash \hat{H}_{ij}$. The a posteriori message of column $j$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\Tilde{\mathbf{m}}^{(l)}_j = \mathbf{m}^{(0)}(j) + \underset{i^{\prime} \in \mathcal{N}(j)}{\sum} \mathbf{m}^{(l)}_{i^{\prime}j,\text{CV}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}(j)$ is the set of all check nodes in column $j$ of $\mathbf{H}$. The best guess $\Tilde{\mathbf{x}}$ at each iteration $l$ can be calculated as the minimum value of the a posteriori, $\Tilde{x}_j^{(l)} = \text{argmin} (\Tilde{m}_j)$. The second message passings, from variable to check nodes, are given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{m}_{ij, \text{VC}}^{(l)} = \Tilde{\mathbf{m}}^{(l)}_j - \mathbf{m}^{(l)}_{ij, \text{CV}}.
\end{equation}
The message passing is repeated until either $\mathbf{H}\Tilde{\mathbf{x}} = \mathbf{s}$ or the maximum number of iterations is reached.
\subsection{Density Evolution}
For a uniform edge weight distribution, the asymptotic decoding performance of LDPC codes in the regime of infinite code length is completely characterized by two polynomials \cite{4712621, 910577}:
\begin{equation}
\lambda(x) = \sum_{i=0}^{d_{\text{v, max}}} \lambda_i x^{i-1} \quad \rho(x) = \sum_{i=0}^{d_{\text{c, max}}} \rho_i x^{i-1}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\lambda_i$ ($\rho_i$) are the fraction of edges connected to variable (check) nodes of degree $i$ while $d_{\text{v, max}}$ ($d_{\text{c, max}}$) is the highest degree of the variable (check) nodes.
One can then define the code ensemble $\mathcal{E}(\lambda, \rho)$, representing all codes of infinite length with degree distributions given by $\lambda$ and $\rho$. The threshold $p_t(\lambda, \rho)$ of the code ensemble $\mathcal{E}(\lambda, \rho)$ is then defined as the worst channel parameter (QBER) for which decoding is still possible with an arbitrary small failure probability. This threshold can be approximated using Monte-Carlo Density Evolution (MC-DE), which is described in detail in \cite{inproceedings}. This method repeatedly samples the node degrees according to $\lambda$ and $\rho$, and draws random connections between nodes for each iteration. Given a high enough sample size, this simulates the performance of a cycle-free code. Note that MC-DE is especially well suited for nonbinary LDPC codes as the different edge weights help in decorrelating messages \cite{inproceedings}. During the simulation, we monitor the mean entropy of all messages. Once it drops below a certain value, the decoding is declared a success. If this does not happen after a maximum number of iterations, the evaluated channel parameter is above the threshold of $\mathcal{E}(\lambda,\rho)$. Using a concentrated check node distribution (which is favorable according to \cite{910580}) and a fixed code rate, we can further simplify to $\mathcal{E}(\lambda)$. One can then use the threshold as an objective function to optimize the code design, which is commonly done using the Differential Evolution algorithm \cite{de}.
\section{Results}
While the described approach is feasible for any dimension $q$, we chose to analyze for an 8-dimensional system as this is in the range of reported implementations \cite{PhysRevLett.127.110505}.
We designed 9 codes with code rates between 0.50 and 0.90, corresponding to a QBER range between 0 and 24.7\%. We used 100000 nodes with a maximum of 150 iterations for the MC-DE and swept the QBER in 20 steps in a short range below the best possible threshold. For the Differential Evolution, we used population sizes between 15 and 50, a differential weight of 0.85, and a crossover probability of 0.7. We enforced a sparsity of at most 10 different degrees in the polynomial and choose $d_{\text{v, max}}=40$. The sparsity allowed for reasonable optimization complexity. We observed that higher $d_{\text{v, max}}$ can lead to numerical instability during decoding. The results of the optimization can be found in Tab. \ref{tab:lamda}. For the optimization and evaluation, we used the all-zero codeword assumption, which holds for the given scenario of a symmetric channel \cite{4787626}. For all rates, the designed thresholds are close to the theoretical bound. We constructed LDPC codes with a length of $n=30000$ symbols using Progressive Edge Growth \cite{1377521} to confirm the results of the density evolution experimentally. A log-FFT-SPA decoder is used to reconcile the messages. The performance of the finite-size codes can be seen in Fig. \ref{fig:fers}. As expected for finite-size codes, they do not reach the ensemble threshold but show sub-optimal performance. To estimate the impact on the secret key rate, we also evaluate the efficiency $f$ of the ensembles and the constructed codes at their working points. We measured the efficiency at a frame error rate (FER) of 1\% which is a common heuristic. Note that there is a direct trade-off between efficiency and FER which can be optimized to maximize the overall secret key generation. After the reconciliation, the correctness of the frames is asserted by exchanging short hashes. Incorrect frames are then simply discarded, only lowering the secret key rate. QKD systems can therefore efficiently operate at significantly higher FERs compared to what would be acceptable in a classical communication setting. The resulting efficiencies can be seen in Tab. \ref{tab:lamda}. The decoder runs a maximum of 100 decoding iterations.
\section{Discussion}
Nonbinary LDPC codes pose as a natural candidate for the information reconciliation stage of HD-QKD as their order can be matched to the dimension of the used qudits, and nonbinary codes are known to have good decoding performance \cite{706440}. Their main disadvantage, high decoding complexity, is less of an obstacle in this setting as the keys can be processed and stored before their usage in real-time applications, reducing the importance of decoding latency. We expect HD-QKD systems to be used in a long-haul setting with a high error rate and small count rate resulting in low throughput, further reducing the requirements on throughput volume. Nevertheless, less complex decoder algorithms like EMS \cite{4155118} or TEMS \cite{6125307} can be considered to allow the usage of longer codes. This is regarded beneficial as they reduce finite-size penalties of the secret key rate. Further, our codes allow for straightforward rate adaption and integration into existing schemes developed for binary channels, like Blind Reconciliation \cite{blind}.
While the efficiencies we report are between 1.10 and 1.17, and therefore in a similar range to the efficiencies of binary LDPC codes for conventional two-dimensional QKD \cite{Kiktenko_2017}, it is difficult to make statements about their performance in comparison to alternative schemes. To the best of our knowledge, only the layered scheme \cite{6502993}, which handles the decoding using $\lceil \log_2(q)\rceil $ binary decoders on bit planes, has been introduced for information reconciliation with regard to HD-QKD. It is similar in concept to the multilevel coding and multistage decoding methods used in slice reconciliation for continuous-variable (CV) QKD \cite{1266817}. While the layered scheme allows for reconciliation using binary LDPC codes only, it brings its own drawbacks, like error propagation, bit mapping, and interactive communication. Unfortunately, little to no results that would allow for a fair comparison have been published yet. Simulation results for $q=32$, a code length per layer of 800 symbols, and a QBER of 20\%, show an efficiency of the layered scheme of $f\approx1.4$ (Fig. 5 in \cite{6502993}). Later experimental implementations report efficiencies of 1.25 \cite{latest} ($q=3$, $n=1944$, $p=8\%$) and 1.17 \cite{2015NJPh...17b2002Z} ($q=1024$, $n=4000$, $p=39.6\%)$. These papers report their efficiencies in the $\beta$-notation. $\beta$ is commonly used in the continuous-variable QKD community, whereas $f$ is more widespread with respect to discrete-variable QKD. They can be related via $\beta (\text{H}(X)-\text{H}(X|Y)) = \text{H}(X)-f\text{H}(X|Y)$. Note that this conversion is dependent on $p$ and $q$. We want to emphasize that a direct comparison to the efficiencies reported in our work cannot be considered fair, as the settings are not identical. A fair comparison between the two approaches that additionally considers practicality remains the object of future work.
While the found ensembles show thresholds close to the Slepian-Wolf bound, we believe that even better results could be achieved by an extended search of the hyperparameters involved in the optimization, e.g. the enforced sparsity and highest degree of $\lambda$, and a finer sweep of the QBER during density evolution. Similarly, we believe that the performance of the constructed codes can be increased by using longer codes and improved versions of the PEG algorithm \cite{IPEG1, IPEG2}.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, information reconciliation for High-Dimensional Quantum Key Distribution using nonbinary LDPC codes over the $q$-ary symmetric channel is introduced. We present optimized node degree distributions for the case of $q=8$ that reach close to the Slepian-Wolf bound. Codes constructed according to these distributions with a length of 30000 symbols reach efficiencies of $f \approx 1.10$.
% \begin{figure}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{effs.png}
% \caption{Caption}
% \label{fig:my_label}
% \end{figure}
% \begin{table}[]
% \begin{tabular}{l c c c} %
% Rate & Design Eff & Code Eff at 1 \% & Code eff at 10 \%\\
% \midrule % In-table horizontal line
% 0.90 & 1.06 & 1.123 & 1.135\\
% 0.85 & 1.028 & 1.13 & 1.11\\
% 0.80 & 1.038 & 1.114 & 1.089\\
% 0.75 & 1.03 & 1.115 & 1.09\\
% 0.70 & 1.030 & 1.12 & 1.10\\
% 0.65 & 1.032 & 1.10 & 1.089\\
% 0.60 & 1.026 & 1.105 & 1.09\\
% 0.55 & 1.024 & 1.113 & 1.089\\
% 0.50 & 1.024 & 1.118 & 1.108
% \end{tabular}
% \caption{Table caption text}
% \label{tab:eff}
% \end{table}
\bibliography{conf}
%\printbibliography %Prints bibliography
\end{document}
\section{Ease of Use}
\subsection{Maintaining the Integrity of the Specifications}
The IEEEtran class file is used to format your paper and style the text. All margins,
column widths, line spaces, and text fonts are prescribed; please do not
alter them. You may note peculiarities. For example, the head margin
measures proportionately more than is customary. This measurement
and others are deliberate, using specifications that anticipate your paper
as one part of the entire proceedings, and not as an independent document.
Please do not revise any of the current designations.
\section{}
\section{Prepare Your Paper Before Styling}
Before you begin to format your paper, first write and save the content as a
separate text file. Complete all content and organizational editing before
formatting. Please note sections \ref{AA}--\ref{SCM} below for more information on
proofreading, spelling and grammar.
Keep your text and graphic files separate until after the text has been
formatted and styled. Do not number text heads---{\LaTeX} will do that
for you.
\subsection{Abbreviations and Acronyms}\label{AA}
Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text,
even after they have been defined in the abstract. Abbreviations such as
IEEE, SI, MKS, CGS, ac, dc, and rms do not have to be defined. Do not use
abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are unavoidable.
\subsection{Units}
\begin{itemize}
\item Use either SI (MKS) or CGS as primary units. (SI units are encouraged.) English units may be used as secondary units (in parentheses). An exception would be the use of English units as identifiers in trade, such as ``3.5-inch disk drive''.
\item Avoid combining SI and CGS units, such as current in amperes and magnetic field in oersteds. This often leads to confusion because equations do not balance dimensionally. If you must use mixed units, clearly state the units for each quantity that you use in an equation.
\item Do not mix complete spellings and abbreviations of units: ``Wb/m\textsuperscript{2}'' or ``webers per square meter'', not ``webers/m\textsuperscript{2}''. Spell out units when they appear in text: ``. . . a few henries'', not ``. . . a few H''.
\item Use a zero before decimal points: ``0.25'', not ``.25''. Use ``cm\textsuperscript{3}'', not ``cc''.)
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Equations}
Number equations consecutively. To make your
equations more compact, you may use the solidus (~/~), the exp function, or
appropriate exponents. Italicize Roman symbols for quantities and variables,
but not Greek symbols. Use a long dash rather than a hyphen for a minus
sign. Punctuate equations with commas or periods when they are part of a
sentence, as in:
\begin{equation}
a+b=\gamma\label{eq}
\end{equation}
Be sure that the
symbols in your equation have been defined before or immediately following
the equation. Use ``\eqref{eq}'', not ``Eq.~\eqref{eq}'' or ``equation \eqref{eq}'', except at
the beginning of a sentence: ``Equation \eqref{eq} is . . .''
\subsection{\LaTeX-Specific Advice}
Please use ``soft'' (e.g., \verb|\eqref{Eq}|) cross references instead
of ``hard'' references (e.g., \verb|(1)|). That will make it possible
to combine sections, add equations, or change the order of figures or
citations without having to go through the file line by line.
Please don't use the \verb|{eqnarray}| equation environment. Use
\verb|{align}| or \verb|{IEEEeqnarray}| instead. The \verb|{eqnarray}|
environment leaves unsightly spaces around relation symbols.
Please note that the \verb|{subequations}| environment in {\LaTeX}
will increment the main equation counter even when there are no
equation numbers displayed. If you forget that, you might write an
article in which the equation numbers skip from (17) to (20), causing
the copy editors to wonder if you've discovered a new method of
counting.
{\BibTeX} does not work by magic. It doesn't get the bibliographic
data from thin air but from .bib files. If you use {\BibTeX} to produce a
bibliography you must send the .bib files.
{\LaTeX} can't read your mind. If you assign the same label to a
subsubsection and a table, you might find that Table I has been cross
referenced as Table IV-B3.
{\LaTeX} does not have precognitive abilities. If you put a
\verb|\label| command before the command that updates the counter it's
supposed to be using, the label will pick up the last counter to be
cross referenced instead. In particular, a \verb|\label| command
should not go before the caption of a figure or a table.
Do not use \verb|\nonumber| inside the \verb|{array}| environment. It
will not stop equation numbers inside \verb|{array}| (there won't be
any anyway) and it might stop a wanted equation number in the
surrounding equation.
\subsection{Some Common Mistakes}\label{SCM}
\begin{itemize}
\item The word ``data'' is plural, not singular.
\item The subscript for the permeability of vacuum $\mu_{0}$, and other common scientific constants, is zero with subscript formatting, not a lowercase letter ``o''.
\item In American English, commas, semicolons, periods, question and exclamation marks are located within quotation marks only when a complete thought or name is cited, such as a title or full quotation. When quotation marks are used, instead of a bold or italic typeface, to highlight a word or phrase, punctuation should appear outside of the quotation marks. A parenthetical phrase or statement at the end of a sentence is punctuated outside of the closing parenthesis (like this). (A parenthetical sentence is punctuated within the parentheses.)
\item A graph within a graph is an ``inset'', not an ``insert''. The word alternatively is preferred to the word ``alternately'' (unless you really mean something that alternates).
\item Do not use the word ``essentially'' to mean ``approximately'' or ``effectively''.
\item In your paper title, if the words ``that uses'' can accurately replace the word ``using'', capitalize the ``u''; if not, keep using lower-cased.
\item Be aware of the different meanings of the homophones ``affect'' and ``effect'', ``complement'' and ``compliment'', ``discreet'' and ``discrete'', ``principal'' and ``principle''.
\item Do not confuse ``imply'' and ``infer''.
\item The prefix ``non'' is not a word; it should be joined to the word it modifies, usually without a hyphen.
\item There is no period after the ``et'' in the Latin abbreviation ``et al.''.
\item The abbreviation ``i.e.'' means ``that is'', and the abbreviation ``e.g.'' means ``for example''.
\end{itemize}
An excellent style manual for science writers is \cite{b7}.
\subsection{Authors and Affiliations}
\textbf{The class file is designed for, but not limited to, six authors.} A
minimum of one author is required for all conference articles. Author names
should be listed starting from left to right and then moving down to the
next line. This is the author sequence that will be used in future citations
and by indexing services. Names should not be listed in columns nor group by
affiliation. Please keep your affiliations as succinct as possible (for
example, do not differentiate among departments of the same organization).
\subsection{Identify the Headings}
Headings, or heads, are organizational devices that guide the reader through
your paper. There are two types: component heads and text heads.
Component heads identify the different components of your paper and are not
topically subordinate to each other. Examples include Acknowledgments and
References and, for these, the correct style to use is ``Heading 5''. Use
``figure caption'' for your Figure captions, and ``table head'' for your
table title. Run-in heads, such as ``Abstract'', will require you to apply a
style (in this case, italic) in addition to the style provided by the drop
down menu to differentiate the head from the text.
Text heads organize the topics on a relational, hierarchical basis. For
example, the paper title is the primary text head because all subsequent
material relates and elaborates on this one topic. If there are two or more
sub-topics, the next level head (uppercase Roman numerals) should be used
and, conversely, if there are not at least two sub-topics, then no subheads
should be introduced.
\subsection{Figures and Tables}
\paragraph{Positioning Figures and Tables} Place figures and tables at the top and
bottom of columns. Avoid placing them in the middle of columns. Large
figures and tables may span across both columns. Figure captions should be
below the figures; table heads should appear above the tables. Insert
figures and tables after they are cited in the text. Use the abbreviation
``Fig.~\ref{fig}'', even at the beginning of a sentence.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Table Type Styles}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Table}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Table Column Head}} \\
\cline{2-4}
\textbf{Head} & \textbf{\textit{Table column subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}} \\
\hline
copy& More table copy$^{\mathrm{a}}$& & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{l}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$Sample of a Table footnote.}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics{fig1.png}}
\caption{Example of a figure caption.}
\label{fig}
\end{figure}
Figure Labels: Use 8 point Times New Roman for Figure labels. Use words
rather than symbols or abbreviations when writing Figure axis labels to
avoid confusing the reader. As an example, write the quantity
``Magnetization'', or ``Magnetization, M'', not just ``M''. If including
units in the label, present them within parentheses. Do not label axes only
with units. In the example, write ``Magnetization (A/m)'' or ``Magnetization
\{A[m(1)]\}'', not just ``A/m''. Do not label axes with a ratio of
quantities and units. For example, write ``Temperature (K)'', not
``Temperature/K''.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The preferred spelling of the word ``acknowledgment'' in America is without
an ``e'' after the ``g''. Avoid the stilted expression ``one of us (R. B.
G.) thanks $\ldots$''. Instead, try ``R. B. G. thanks$\ldots$''. Put sponsor
acknowledgments in the unnumbered footnote on the first page.
\section*{References}
Please number citations consecutively within brackets \cite{b1}. The
sentence punctuation follows the bracket \cite{b2}. Refer simply to the reference
number, as in \cite{b3}---do not use ``Ref. \cite{b3}'' or ``reference \cite{b3}'' except at
the beginning of a sentence: ``Reference \cite{b3} was the first $\ldots$''
Number footnotes separately in superscripts. Place the actual footnote at
the bottom of the column in which it was cited. Do not put footnotes in the
abstract or reference list. Use letters for table footnotes.
Unless there are six authors or more give all authors' names; do not use
``et al.''. Papers that have not been published, even if they have been
submitted for publication, should be cited as ``unpublished'' \cite{b4}. Papers
that have been accepted for publication should be cited as ``in press'' \cite{b5}.
Capitalize only the first word in a paper title, except for proper nouns and
element symbols.
For papers published in translation journals, please give the English
citation first, followed by the original foreign-language citation \cite{b6}.
\printbibliography %Prints bibliography
\end{document}
% Generated by IEEEtran.bst, version: 1.14 (2015/08/26)
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{#1}
\csname url@samestyle\endcsname
\providecommand{\newblock}{\relax}
\providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
\providecommand{\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=0pt\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor}{4}
\providecommand{\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing}{\spaceskip=\fontdimen2\font plus
\BIBentryALTinterwordstretchfactor\fontdimen3\font minus
\fontdimen4\font\relax}
\providecommand{\BIBforeignlanguage}[2]{{%
\expandafter\ifx\csname l@#1\endcsname\relax
\typeout{** WARNING: IEEEtran.bst: No hyphenation pattern has been}%
\typeout{** loaded for the language `#1'. Using the pattern for}%
\typeout{** the default language instead.}%
\else
\language=\csname l@#1\endcsname
\fi
#2}}
\providecommand{\BIBdecl}{\relax}
\BIBdecl
\bibitem{Bennett_2014}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
C.~H. Bennett and G.~Brassard, ``Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution
and coin tossing,'' \emph{Theoretical Computer Science}, vol. 560, pp. 7--11,
dec 2014. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://doi.org/10.1016\%2Fj.tcs.2014.05.025}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{PhysRevA.61.062308}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
H.~Bechmann-Pasquinucci and W.~Tittel, ``Quantum cryptography using larger
alphabets,'' \emph{Phys. Rev. A}, vol.~61, p. 062308, May 2000. [Online].
Available: \url{https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.062308}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{PhysRevApplied.14.014051}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
I.~Vagniluca, B.~Da~Lio, D.~Rusca, D.~Cozzolino, Y.~Ding, H.~Zbinden,
A.~Zavatta, L.~K. Oxenl\o{}we, and D.~Bacco, ``Efficient time-bin encoding
for practical high-dimensional quantum key distribution,'' \emph{Phys. Rev.
Appl.}, vol.~14, p. 014051, Jul 2020. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.014051}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{time-en}
T.~Zhong, H.~Zhou, R.~Horansky, C.~Lee, V.~Verma, A.~Lita, A.~Restelli,
J.~Bienfang, R.~Mirin, T.~Gerrits, S.~Nam, F.~Marsili, M.~Shaw, Z.~Zhang,
L.~Wang, D.~Englund, G.~Wornell, J.~Shapiro, and F.~Wong, ``Photon-efficient
quantum key distribution using time–energy entanglement with
high-dimensional encoding,'' \emph{New Journal of Physics}, vol.~17, p.
022002, 02 2015.
\bibitem{PhysRevApplied.11.064058}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
D.~Cozzolino, D.~Bacco, B.~Da~Lio, K.~Ingerslev, Y.~Ding, K.~Dalgaard,
P.~Kristensen, M.~Galili, K.~Rottwitt, S.~Ramachandran, and L.~K.
Oxenl\o{}we, ``Orbital angular momentum states enabling fiber-based
high-dimensional quantum communication,'' \emph{Phys. Rev. Appl.}, vol.~11,
p. 064058, Jun 2019. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.11.064058}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{pa}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
C.~H. Bennett, G.~Brassard, and J.-M. Robert, ``Privacy amplification by public
discussion,'' \emph{SIAM Journal on Computing}, vol.~17, no.~2, pp. 210--229,
1988. [Online]. Available: \url{https://doi.org/10.1137/0217014}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{6502993}
H.~Zhou, L.~Wang, and G.~Wornell, ``Layered schemes for large-alphabet secret
key distribution,'' in \emph{2013 Information Theory and Applications
Workshop (ITA)}, 2013, pp. 1--10.
\bibitem{706440}
M.~Davey and D.~MacKay, ``Low density parity check codes over gf(q),'' in
\emph{1998 Information Theory Workshop (Cat. No.98EX131)}, 1998, pp. 70--71.
\bibitem{1042242}
A.~Liveris, Z.~Xiong, and C.~Georghiades, ``Compression of binary sources with
side information at the decoder using ldpc codes,'' \emph{IEEE Communications
Letters}, vol.~6, no.~10, pp. 440--442, 2002.
\bibitem{Br_dler_2016}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
K.~Br{\'{a}}dler, M.~Mirhosseini, R.~Fickler, A.~Broadbent, and R.~Boyd,
``Finite-key security analysis for multilevel quantum key distribution,''
\emph{New Journal of Physics}, vol.~18, no.~7, p. 073030, jul 2016. [Online].
Available: \url{https://doi.org/10.1088\%2F1367-2630\%2F18\%2F7\%2F073030}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{1055037}
D.~Slepian and J.~Wolf, ``Noiseless coding of correlated information sources,''
\emph{IEEE Transactions on Information Theory}, vol.~19, no.~4, pp. 471--480,
1973.
\bibitem{ldpcbook}
S.~Lin and J.~Li, \emph{Fundamentals of Classical and Modern Error-Correcting
Codes}.\hskip 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em\relax Cambridge University Press,
2022.
\bibitem{6577118}
S.~Aruna and M.~Anbuselvi, ``Fft-spa based non-binary ldpc decoder for ieee
802.11n standard,'' in \emph{2013 International Conference on Communication
and Signal Processing}, 2013, pp. 566--569.
\bibitem{1312606}
H.~Wymeersch, H.~Steendam, and M.~Moeneclaey, ``Log-domain decoding of ldpc
codes over gf(q),'' in \emph{2004 IEEE International Conference on
Communications (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37577)}, vol.~2, 2004, pp. 772--776 Vol.2.
\bibitem{4787626}
G.~Li, I.~J. Fair, and W.~A. Krzymien, ``Density evolution for nonbinary ldpc
codes under gaussian approximation,'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory}, vol.~55, no.~3, pp. 997--1015, 2009.
\bibitem{6987278}
E.~Dupraz, V.~Savin, and M.~Kieffer, ``Density evolution for the design of
non-binary low density parity check codes for slepian-wolf coding,''
\emph{IEEE Transactions on Communications}, vol.~63, no.~1, pp. 25--36, 2015.
\bibitem{4712621}
V.~Savin, ``Non binary ldpc codes over the binary erasure channel: Density
evolution analysis,'' in \emph{2008 First International Symposium on Applied
Sciences on Biomedical and Communication Technologies}, 2008, pp. 1--5.
\bibitem{910577}
T.~Richardson and R.~Urbanke, ``The capacity of low-density parity-check codes
under message-passing decoding,'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory}, vol.~47, no.~2, pp. 599--618, 2001.
\bibitem{inproceedings}
M.~Gorgoglione, V.~Savin, and D.~Declercq, ``Optimized puncturing distributions
for irregular non-binary ldpc codes,'' in \emph{2010 International Symposium
On Information Theory \& Its Applications}, 11 2010, pp. 400 -- 405.
\bibitem{910580}
S.-Y. Chung, T.~Richardson, and R.~Urbanke, ``Analysis of sum-product decoding
of low-density parity-check codes using a gaussian approximation,''
\emph{IEEE Transactions on Information Theory}, vol.~47, no.~2, pp. 657--670,
2001.
\bibitem{de}
R.~Storn and K.~Price, ``Differential evolution - a simple and efficient
heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces,'' \emph{Journal of
Global Optimization}, vol.~11, pp. 341--359, 01 1997.
\bibitem{PhysRevLett.127.110505}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
X.-M. Hu, C.~Zhang, Y.~Guo, F.-X. Wang, W.-B. Xing, C.-X. Huang, B.-H. Liu,
Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, X.~Gao, M.~Pivoluska, and M.~Huber,
``Pathways for entanglement-based quantum communication in the face of high
noise,'' \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}, vol. 127, p. 110505, Sep 2021. [Online].
Available: \url{https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.110505}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{1377521}
X.-Y. Hu, E.~Eleftheriou, and D.~Arnold, ``Regular and irregular progressive
edge-growth tanner graphs,'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Information Theory},
vol.~51, no.~1, pp. 386--398, 2005.
\bibitem{4155118}
D.~Declercq and M.~Fossorier, ``Decoding algorithms for nonbinary ldpc codes
over gf$(q)$,'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Communications}, vol.~55, no.~4,
pp. 633--643, 2007.
\bibitem{6125307}
E.~Li, K.~Gunnam, and D.~Declercq, ``Trellis based extended min-sum for
decoding nonbinary ldpc codes,'' in \emph{2011 8th International Symposium on
Wireless Communication Systems}, 2011, pp. 46--50.
\bibitem{blind}
J.~Martinez-Mateo, D.~Elkouss, and V.~Martin, ``Blind reconciliation,''
\emph{Quantum Info. Comput.}, vol.~12, no. 9–10, p. 791–812, sep 2012.
\bibitem{Kiktenko_2017}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
E.~Kiktenko, A.~Trushechkin, C.~Lim, Y.~Kurochkin, and A.~Fedorov, ``Symmetric
blind information reconciliation for quantum key distribution,''
\emph{Physical Review Applied}, vol.~8, no.~4, oct 2017. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://doi.org/10.1103\%2Fphysrevapplied.8.044017}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{1266817}
G.~Van~Assche, J.~Cardinal, and N.~Cerf, ``Reconciliation of a
quantum-distributed gaussian key,'' \emph{IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory}, vol.~50, no.~2, pp. 394--400, 2004.
\bibitem{latest}
\BIBentryALTinterwordspacing
J.~Liu, Z.~Lin, D.~Liu, X.~Feng, F.~Liu, K.~Cui, Y.~Huang, and W.~Zhang,
``High-dimensional quantum key distribution using energy-time entanglement
over 242 km partially deployed fiber,'' 2022. [Online]. Available:
\url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.02695}
\BIBentrySTDinterwordspacing
\bibitem{2015NJPh...17b2002Z}
T.~{Zhong}, H.~{Zhou}, R.~D. {Horansky}, C.~{Lee}, V.~B. {Verma}, A.~E. {Lita},
A.~{Restelli}, J.~C. {Bienfang}, R.~P. {Mirin}, T.~{Gerrits}, S.~W. {Nam},
F.~{Marsili}, M.~D. {Shaw}, Z.~{Zhang}, L.~{Wang}, D.~{Englund}, G.~W.
{Wornell}, J.~H. {Shapiro}, and F.~N.~C. {Wong}, ``{Photon-efficient quantum
key distribution using time-energy entanglement with high-dimensional
encoding},'' \emph{New Journal of Physics}, vol.~17, no.~2, p. 022002, Feb.
2015.
\bibitem{IPEG1}
H.~Xiao and A.~Banihashemi, ``Improved progressive-edge-growth (peg)
construction of irregular ldpc codes,'' \emph{IEEE Communications Letters},
vol.~8, no.~12, pp. 715--717, 2004.
\bibitem{IPEG2}
A.~Venkiah, D.~Declercq, and C.~Poulliat, ``Randomized progressive edge-growth
(randpeg),'' in \emph{2008 5th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and
Related Topics}, 2008, pp. 283--287.
\end{thebibliography}