Skip to main content
Entropy logoLink to Entropy
. 2020 Jan 8;22(1):78. doi: 10.3390/e22010078

Lengths for Which Fourth Degree PP Interleavers Lead to Weaker Performances Compared to Quadratic and Cubic PP Interleavers

Lucian Trifina 1,*, Daniela Tarniceriu 1, Jonghoon Ryu 2, Ana-Mirela Rotopanescu 1
PMCID: PMC7516510  PMID: 33285853

Abstract

In this paper, we obtain upper bounds on the minimum distance for turbo codes using fourth degree permutation polynomial (4-PP) interleavers of a specific interleaver length and classical turbo codes of nominal 1/3 coding rate, with two recursive systematic convolutional component codes with generator matrix G=[1,15/13]. The interleaver lengths are of the form 16Ψ or 48Ψ, where Ψ is a product of different prime numbers greater than three. Some coefficient restrictions are applied when for a prime piΨ, condition 3(pi1) is fulfilled. Two upper bounds are obtained for different classes of 4-PP coefficients. For a 4-PP f4x4+f3x3+f2x2+f1x(mod16kLΨ), kL{1,3}, the upper bound of 28 is obtained when the coefficient f3 of the equivalent 4-permutation polynomials (PPs) fulfills f3{0,4Ψ} or when f3{2Ψ,6Ψ} and f2{(4kL1)·Ψ,(8kL1)·Ψ}, kL{1,3}, for any values of the other coefficients. The upper bound of 36 is obtained when the coefficient f3 of the equivalent 4-PPs fulfills f3{2Ψ,6Ψ} and f2{(2kL1)·Ψ,(6kL1)·Ψ}, kL{1,3}, for any values of the other coefficients. Thus, the task of finding out good 4-PP interleavers of the previous mentioned lengths is highly facilitated by this result because of the small range required for coefficients f4,f3 and f2. It was also proven, by means of nonlinearity degree, that for the considered inteleaver lengths, cubic PPs and quadratic PPs with optimum minimum distances lead to better error rate performances compared to 4-PPs with optimum minimum distances.

Keywords: PP interleaver, 4-PP, minimum distance, upper bound, turbo codes

1. Introduction

Error correcting codes with very good performances are an essential component for modern digital communications systems [1,2]. There are three classes of capacity approaching codes—turbo codes [3], low density parity check codes [4], and polar codes [5]. As a class of capacity approaching error correcting codes, turbo codes have gained much interest since their invention. One of the important research directions is increasing their minimum distances by different approaches. For example, recent works that deal with this topic are [6,7,8,9]. In [6], some upper bounds on the minimum distance for 3-dimensional turbo codes (conventional turbo codes with an additional patch) with quadratic permutation polynomial (QPP) interleavers were derived. Some example of QPPs found by random search that lead to significantly improved minimum distances are given. In [7], 4-dimensional (4-D) turbo codes are proposed and upper bounds on bit error rate (BER) performances are derived. These upper bounds imply weight enumerating functions and are derived by a simplified, augmented state-diagram-based method. This method is used to select different parameters of 4-D turbo codes so that they lead to lower BER values or higher minimum distances. In [8], a moment based augmented state diagram method was proposed to derive tighter upper bounds on BER performance for 4-D turbo codes. It was used to design 4-D turbo codes in order to achieve improved BER performances. In [9], a modified interleaver for a new structure of 4-D turbo codes, based on superposition modulation and grouped power allocation, has been proposed to improve the minimum distance. An appropriate design of interleavers for turbo codes considers the approaches that can lead to higher minimum distances. In this respect, knowing the upper bounds on the minimum distances for different classes of interleavers is important from the perspective of the measurements of their performances or limitations.

Permutation polynomial (PP) interleavers for turbo codes were introduced by Sun and Takeshita in 2005 [10]. They are very attractive because of their fully algebraic description, low memory, and high performance if they are appropriately chosen. Other very high-performing interleavers that are not fully algebraic described, are dithered relative prime (DRP) interleavers [11] and almost regular permutation interleavers [12]. Many results have been obtained regarding QPP interleavers. They have been chosen as interleavers for turbo codes in the long term evolution (LTE) standard [13]. The most notable results regarding QPP interleavers are those from [14,15]. In the last years, analysis and design of PP interleavers of degree greater than two have gained interest. For example, good interleavers based on PPs of degree greater than two have been obtained in [16,17,18].

In [15], upper bounds of the minimum distance for turbo codes with QPP interleavers and different interleaver lengths were obtained. Some upper bounds for PP interleavers of any degree were obtained in [19]. Recently, some results regarding upper bounds of the minimum distance for turbo codes with cubic permutation polynomial (CPP) interleavers have been acquired [20,21]. In this paper, for the first time, upper bounds of the minimum distance for turbo codes with fourth degree permutation polynomial (4-PP) interleavers of a specific type of interleaver length and for classical turbo codes of nominal 1/3 coding rate, with two recursive systematic convolutional component codes with generator matrix G=[1,15/13], were obtained. Specifically, for interleaver lengths of the form 16Ψ or 48Ψ, with Ψ, a product of prime numbers greater than three, the minimum distance is upper bounded by the value of 36 or 28, depending on the 4-PP coefficients. Some coefficient restrictions are applied when for a prime piΨ, condition 3(pi1) is fulfilled. If Ψ is a product of prime numbers pi>7 so that 3(pi1), the result in the paper is fully general.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, some preliminary results about 4-PPs are given. The main results are worked through in Section 3. Some remarks and examples are given in Section 4, and Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Notation

In the paper we use the following notation:

  • (modL), with L a positive integer, denotes modulo L operation;

  • ab, with a and b positive integers, denotes a dividing b;

  • ab, with a and b positive integers, denotes that a does not divide; b

  • gcd(a,b), with a and b positive integers, denotes the greatest common divisor of a and b;

  • log10(·) denotes base 10 logarithm;

  • ex is the natural exponential function of variable x.

2.2. Results Regarding 4-PPs

A 4-PP modulo L is a fourth degree polynomial

π(x)=(f1x+f2x2+f3x3+f4x4)(modL), (1)

so that for x{0,1,,L1}, values π(x)(modL) perform a permutation of the set {0,1,,L1}.

A 4-PP is true if the permutation it performs cannot be performed by a permutation polynomial of degree smaller than four.

Two 4-PPs with different coefficients are different if they lead to different permutations.

Conditions on coefficients f1, f2, f3, and f4 so that the fourth degree polynomial in (1) is a 4-PP modulo L have been obtained in [22]. Because we are interested in interleaver lengths of the form 16·i=1Nppi or 48·i=1Nppi, with Np a positive integer, in Table 1 we give the coefficient conditions only for the primes 2, 3, and pi, i=1,2,,Np, when the interleaver length is of the form

L=2nL,2·3nL,3·i=1Nppi,withnL,2>1,nL,3{0,1},pi>3,i=1,2,,Np,p1<p2<<pNp. (2)

Table 1.

Conditions for coefficients f1,f2,f3, and f4 so that π(x) in (1) is a fourth degree permutation polynomial (4-PP) modulo L of the form (2) (pi is a prime number so that piL).

(1) pi=2 nL,2>1 f10,(f2+f4)=0,f3=0(mod2)
(2) pi=3 nL,3=1 (f1+f3)0,(f2+f4)=0(mod3)
(3) 3(pi1) nL,pi=1 f10,f2=0,f3=0,f4=0(modpi)
(pi>7)
(4) 3(pi1) nL,pi=1 f10,f2=0,f3=0,f4=0(modpi) or
f22=3f1f3(modpi), f30,f4=0(modpi)

A 4-PP modulo L

ρ(x)=(ρ1x+ρ2x2+ρ3x3+ρ4x4)(modL), (3)

is an inverse of the 4-PP in (1) if

π(ρ(x))=x(modL),x{0,1,,L1}. (4)

3. Main Results

In this section, we consider the interleaver lengths of the form

L=16·i=1Nppi=24·i=1NppiorL=48·i=1Nppi=24·3·i=1Nppi, (5)

with pi different prime numbers so that pi>3, i=1,2,,Np, and p1<p2<<pNp.

For pi a prime so that 3(pi1), i{1,2,,Np}, we will consider only the 4-PPs with coefficients fulfilling conditions

f10,f2=0,f3=0,f4=0(modpi). (6)

In the following, we denote

i=1Nppi=Ψ. (7)

The reason for which we focus on the interleaver lengths of the form given in (5) is as follows. In [17], 4-PPs of several lengths that lead to the best minimum distance of 36 were reported. We wanted to see if this minimum distance is a general upper bound for a general form of interleaver lengths. From the lengths in [17] for which the best minimum distance of 4-PPs is 36, we restrict ourselves to those of the form given in (5) and also we restrict ourselves to the coefficients fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1) because, in this case, the possible coefficients of a true 4-PP are limited to a few values (see Lemma 1). This simplifies finding the coefficients of the inverse 4-PPs, and thus, the proofs for upper bounds on minimum distance for 4-PPs of the focal interleaver lengths. We note that increasing the power of primes in the product Ψ leads to more values of the possible coefficients of 4-PPs, and thus, finding the inverse 4-PPs is more complicated.

3.1. Methodology

The research methodology is similar to that from [20,21] and it is described in this subsection. To find upper bounds on the minimum distance for turbo codes that have 4-PP interleavers of lengths of the form given in (5), the research methodology assumes the following steps:

  • (1)

    For the interleaver lengths of the form given in (5), we found all possible values for the coefficients of true different 4-PPs. Thus, every 4-PP will have the coefficients equivalent to these found values.

  • (2)

    We proved that for the interleaver lengths in question, every true 4-PP has an inversely true 4-PP, extending the result from [23].

  • (3)

    For some 4-PPs with particular minimum distances, we found the interleaver patterns that lead to these minimum distances. There are several methods to find minimum distance of turbo codes with particular interleavers. The method from [24] or its improved version from [25] allow the determination of the true minimum distance (dmin), but their complexity increases rapidly when increasing dmin. Methods based on impulses of high amplitude inserted in the all-zero codeword and then decoding this perturbed codeword to give a decoded codeword of low weigth, are faster for high values of dmin and useful for finding interleaver patterns. Double impulse method (DIM) and triple impulse method (TIM) [26] are more reliable among the impulse based methods. An alternative method of TIM is the full range double impulse method from [27] (denoted DIMK in [28]), wherein the reliability of DIM is improved by a full range for the second impulse, instead of a limited range search. The complexity of impulse based methods can be reduced for structured interleavers (such as 4-PP ones) [29]. We have made use of DIMK method for finding the interleaver patterns from Theorems 1 and 2.

  • (4)

    Finally, we proved that these critical interleaver patterns always appear for 4-PPs of the interleaver lengths in question and classes of their coefficients.

3.2. Coefficients of 4-PPs for the Interleaver Lengths of the Form 16Ψ or 48Ψ

In [23], we derived a pure mathematical result. For interleaver lengths of the form 16Ψ, in Lemma 3.1 from [23], the possible values of the coefficients of a true 4-PP were obtained. Lemma 3.2 provides an equation to determine the coefficients of an inverse true 4-PP without giving all its possible solutions. The next two lemmas are extensions of Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2 from [23]. Lemma 1 gives the coefficients of a true 4-PP and Lemma 2 gives the coefficients of an inverse true 4-PP of a true 4-PP, fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1), the modulo of an integer of the form given in (5). These two lemmas are necessary to derive the upper bounds on the minimum distance from Section 3.3. We note that because of coefficient conditions 2) from Table 1, the extension of the results from [23] to the interleaver lengths of the form 48Ψ is not straightforward. Because 3Ψ, we can have any of the following combinations of f4 and f2 coefficients’ conditions: (1) f4=1(mod3), f2=2(mod3); (2) f4=2(mod3), f2=1(mod3), with any of the following combinations of f3 and f1 coefficients conditions: (1) f3=0(mod3) and f10(mod3); (2) f3=1(mod3), f12(mod3); (3) f3=2(mod3), f11(mod3). Therefore, we will have more different cases to determine the coefficients of an inverse 4-PP, as Tables 5–8 show show.

Lemma 1.

Let the interleaver length be of the form given in (5). Then all true different 4-PPs fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1), have possible values for coefficients f4, f3, and f2 equivalent to those given in Table 2 from the second, third, and fourth columns, respectively. Coefficient f1 has to always be odd.

Table 2.

Possible values for coefficients f4, f3, and f2 so that π(x) in (1) is a true 4-PP modulo L of the form (5).

L f4 f3 f2
16Ψ Ψ 0 or 2Ψ or 4Ψ or 6Ψ Ψ or 3Ψ or 5Ψ or 7Ψ
48Ψ Ψ 0 or 2Ψ or 4Ψ or 6Ψ 5Ψ or 11Ψ or 17Ψ or 23Ψ

Proof. 

For the interleaver length of the form L=16Ψ, a true 4-PP is equivalent to a 4-PP for which f2<L/2=8Ψ, f3<L/2=8Ψ, and f4<L/8=2Ψ. For the interleaver length of the form L=48Ψ, a true 4-PP is equivalent to a 4-PP for which f2<L/2=24Ψ, f3<L/6=8Ψ, and f4<L/24=2Ψ. Taking into account the coefficient conditions for a 4-PP given in Table 1 and that Ψ is odd, coefficients f2, f3, and f4 from Table 2 follows.

We note that when L=16Ψ or L=48Ψ, (from condition 1 in Table 1) f1 becomes odd. □

Lemma 2.

Let the interleaver length be of the form L=16·kL·Ψ, with kL{1,3} and Ψ given in (7). Then, a true 4-PP π(x)=f1x+f2x2+f3x3+f4x4(modL), fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1), has an inverse true 4-PP ρ(x)=ρ1x+ρ2x2+ρ3x3+ρ4x4(modL), with

ρ4=f4, (8)
ρ3=k3,ρ·2Ψ, (9)
ρ2=(2k2,ρ·kL1)·Ψ. (10)

ρ1 is the unique modulo L solution of the congruence f1ρ1=Ψ·k+1(modL). k, k3,ρ, and k2,ρ are given in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8, according to the values of k3,f=f3/(2Ψ), k2,f=(f2/Ψ+1)/(2kL), and f1(mod16kL).

Table 3.

Coefficients of an inverse 4-PP for a 4-PP (mod16Ψ) (Part I) (k2,f=(k2,f+1)/2 and k2,ρ=(k2,ρ+1)/2). For f1(mod16)=f1,8+8, ρ1(mod16)=(ρ1,f1,8+8)(mod16).

k3,f k2,f f1,8 k3,ρ k2,ρ ρ1,f1,8 k for ρ1,f1,8 k for
for kΨ,4=1 kΨ,4=1 for kΨ,4=3 kΨ,4=3
0 1 1 0 1 13 12 13 4
3 2 5 3 8 11 0
5 0 1 9 12 9 4
7 2 5 15 8 7 0
3 1 2 3 13 12 5 12
3 0 3 11 0 11 0
5 2 3 1 4 9 4
7 0 3 15 8 15 8
5 1 0 5 13 12 13 4
3 2 1 3 8 11 0
5 0 5 9 12 9 4
7 2 1 15 8 7 0
7 1 2 7 13 12 5 12
3 0 7 3 8 3 8
5 2 7 1 4 9 4
7 0 7 7 0 7 0
1 1 1 1 5 5 4 13 4
3 3 1 3 8 3 8
5 1 5 1 4 9 4
7 3 1 15 8 15 8
3 1 3 3 5 4 13 4
3 1 3 3 8 3 8
5 3 3 9 12 1 12
7 1 3 7 0 7 0
5 1 1 1 5 4 13 4
3 3 5 3 8 3 8
5 1 1 1 4 9 4
7 3 5 15 8 15 8
7 1 3 7 13 12 5 12
3 1 7 3 8 3 8
5 3 7 1 4 9 4
7 1 7 7 0 7 0

Table 4.

Coefficients of an inverse 4-PP for a 4-PP (mod16Ψ) (Part II) (k2,f=(k2,f+1)/2 and k2,ρ=(k2,ρ+1)/2). For f1(mod16)=f1,8+8, ρ1(mod16)=(ρ1,f1,8+8)(mod16).

k3,f k2,f f1,8 k3,ρ k2,ρ ρ1,f1,8 k for ρ1,f1,8 k for
for kΨ,4=1 kΨ,4=1 for kΨ,4=3 kΨ,4=3
2 1 1 2 1 5 4 5 12
3 0 5 3 8 11 0
5 2 1 1 4 1 12
7 0 5 15 8 7 0
3 1 0 3 5 4 13 4
3 2 3 11 0 11 0
5 0 3 9 12 1 12
7 2 3 15 8 15 8
5 1 2 5 5 4 5 12
3 0 1 3 8 11 0
5 2 5 1 4 1 12
7 0 1 15 8 7 0
7 1 0 7 5 4 13 4
3 2 7 3 8 3 8
5 0 7 9 12 1 12
7 2 7 7 0 7 0
3 1 1 3 5 13 12 5 12
3 1 1 3 8 3 8
5 3 5 9 12 1 12
7 1 1 15 8 15 8
3 1 1 3 13 12 5 12
3 3 3 3 8 3 8
5 1 3 1 4 9 4
7 3 3 7 0 7 0
5 1 3 1 13 12 5 12
3 1 5 3 8 3 8
5 3 1 9 12 1 12
7 1 5 15 8 15 8
7 1 1 7 5 4 13 4
3 3 7 3 8 3 8
5 1 7 9 12 1 12
7 3 7 7 0 7 0

Table 5.

Coefficients of an inverse 4-PP for a 4-PP (mod48Ψ) (Part I). For f1(mod48)=f1,24+24, ρ1(mod48)=(ρ1,f1,24+24)(mod48).

k3,f k2,f f1,24 k3,ρ k2,ρ ρ1,f1,24 for k for ρ1,f1,24 for k for
kΨ,12=1 kΨ,12=1 kΨ,12=7 kΨ,12=7
(ρ1,1) (k1)
0 1 1/13 0 1 13/1 12/12 ρ1,1 (k1+24)
5/17 0 1 41/29 12/12 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 2 3 15/3 8/8 (ρ1,1+24)
11/23 2 3 43/31 40/40 (mod48)
2 1/13 2 2 45/9 44/20 (ρ1,1+24) k1
5/17 2 2 1/13 4/28 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 0 2 31/43 24/0 ρ1,1
11/23 0 2 35/47 0/24 (mod48)
3 1/13 0 3 13/1 12/12 ρ1,1 (k1+24)
5/17 0 3 41/29 12/12 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 2 1 15/3 8/8 (ρ1,1+24)
11/23 2 1 43/31 40/40 (mod48)
4 1/13 2 4 45/9 44/20 (ρ1,1+24) k1
5/17 2 4 1/13 4/28 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 0 4 7/19 0/24 ρ1,1
11/23 0 4 11/23 24/0 (mod48)
1 1 3/15 3 1 35/23 8/8 ρ1,1 k1
5/17 1 3 17/5 36/36 (ρ1,1+24) (mod48)
9/21 1 3 45/33 20/20 (mod48)
11/23 3 1 43/31 40/40 ρ1,1
2 3/15 1 2 3/15 8/32 ρ1,1 k1
5/17 3 2 25/37 28/4 (ρ1,1+24) (mod48)
9/21 3 2 29/41 20/44 (mod48)
11/23 1 2 11/23 24/0 ρ1,1
3 3/15 3 3 35/23 8/8 ρ1,1 k1
5/17 1 1 17/5 36/36 (ρ1,1+24) (mod48)
9/21 1 1 45/33 20/20 (mod48)
11/23 3 3 43/31 40/40 ρ1,1
4 3/15 1 4 3/15 8/32 ρ1,1 k1
5/17 3 4 1/13 4/28 (ρ1,1+24) (mod48)
9/21 3 4 5/17 44/20 (mod48)
11/23 1 4 11/23 24/0 ρ1,1

Table 6.

Coefficients of an inverse 4-PP for a 4-PP (mod48Ψ) (Part II). For f1(mod48)=f1,24+24, ρ1(mod48)=(ρ1,f1,24+24)(mod48).

k3,f k2,f f1,24 k3,ρ k2,ρ ρ1,f1,24 for k for ρ1,f1,24 for k for
kΨ,12=1 kΨ,12=1 kΨ,12=7 kΨ,12=7
(ρ1,1) (k1)
2 1 1/13 2 1 37/25 36/36 ρ1,1 (k1+24)
3/15 0 3 19/7 8/8 (ρ1,1+24) (mod48)
7/19 0 3 47/35 40/40 (mod48)
9/21 2 1 45/33 20/20 ρ1,1
2 1/13 0 2 5/17 4/28 ρ1,1+24 k1
3/15 2 2 27/39 32/8 ρ1,1 (mod48)
7/19 2 2 31/43 24/0 (mod48)
9/21 0 2 13/25 20/44 ρ1,1+24
3 1/13 2 3 37/25 36/36 ρ1,1 (k1+24)
3/15 0 1 19/7 8/8 (ρ1,1+24) (mod48)
7/19 0 1 47/35 40/40 (mod48)
9/21 2 3 45/33 20/20 ρ1,1
4 1/13 0 4 5/17 4/28 ρ1,1+24 k1
3/15 2 4 3/15 8/32 ρ1,1 (mod48)
7/19 2 4 7/19 0/24 (mod48)
9/21 0 4 13/25 20/44 ρ1,1+24
3 1 1/13 3 3 13/1 12/12 (ρ1,1+24) k1
5/17 3 3 41/29 12/12 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 1 1 47/35 40/40 ρ1,1
11/23 1 1 27/15 8/8 (mod48)
2 1/13 1 2 29/41 28/4 (ρ1,1+24) k1
5/17 1 2 33/45 20/44 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 3 2 7/19 0/24 ρ1,1
11/23 3 2 11/23 24/0 (mod48)
3 1/13 3 1 13/1 12/12 (ρ1,1+24) k1
5/17 3 1 41/29 12/12 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 1 3 47/35 40/40 ρ1,1
11/23 1 3 27/15 8/8 (mod48)
4 1/13 1 4 5/17 4/28 (ρ1,1+24) k1
5/17 1 4 9/21 44/20 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 3 4 7/19 0/24 ρ1,1
11/23 3 4 11/23 24/0 (mod48)

Table 7.

Coefficients of an inverse 4-PP for a 4-PP (mod48Ψ) (Part III). For f1(mod48)=f1,24+24, ρ1(mod48)=(ρ1,f1,24+24)(mod48).

k3,f k2,f f1,24 k3,ρ k2,ρ ρ1,f1,24 for k for ρ1,f1,24 for k for
kΨ,12=5 kΨ,12=5 kΨ,12=11 kΨ,12=11
(ρ1,5) (k5)
0 1 1/13 0 1 13/1 12/12 ρ1,5 (k5+24)
5/17 0 1 41/29 12/12 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 2 3 47/35 8/8 (ρ1,5+24)
11/23 2 3 27/15 40/40 (mod48)
2 1/13 2 2 29/41 44/20 (ρ1,5+24) k5
5/17 2 2 33/45 4/28 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 0 2 31/43 24/0 ρ1,5
11/23 0 2 35/47 0/24 (mod48)
3 1/13 0 3 13/1 12/12 ρ1,5 (k5+24)
5/17 0 3 41/29 12/12 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 2 1 47/35 8/8 (ρ1,5+24)
11/23 2 1 27/15 40/40 (mod48)
4 1/13 2 4 29/41 44/20 (ρ1,5+24) k5
5/17 2 4 33/ 45 4/28 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 0 4 7/19 0/24 ρ1,5
11/23 0 4 11/23 24/0 (mod48)
1 1 1/13 1 3 37/25 36/36 ρ1,5+24 k5
3/15 3 1 19/7 40/40 ρ1,5 (mod48)
7/19 3 1 47/35 8/8 (mod48)
9/21 1 3 45/33 4/4 ρ1,5+24
2 1/13 3 2 5/17 20/44 ρ1,5+24 k5
3/15 1 2 3/15 40/16 ρ1,5 (mod48)
7/19 1 2 7/19 0/24 (mod48)
9/21 3 2 13/25 4/28 ρ1,5+24
3 1/13 1 1 37/25 36/36 ρ1,5+24 k5
3/15 3 3 19/7 40/40 ρ1,5 (mod48)
7/19 3 3 47/35 8/8 (mod48)
9/21 1 1 45/33 4/4 ρ1,5+24
4 1/13 3 4 29/41 44/20 ρ1,5+24 k5
3/15 1 4 3/15 40/16 ρ1,5 (mod48)
7/19 1 4 7/19 0/24 (mod48)
9/21 3 4 37/1 28/4 ρ1,5+24

Table 8.

Coefficients of an inverse 4-PP for a 4-PP (mod48Ψ) (Part IV). For f1(mod48)=f1,24+24, ρ1(mod48)=(ρ1,f1,24+24)(mod48).

k3,f k2,f f1,24 k3,ρ k2,ρ ρ1,f1,24 for k for ρ1,f1,24 for k for
kΨ,12=5 kΨ,12=5 kΨ,12=11 kΨ,12=11
(ρ1,5) (k5)
2 1 3/15 0 3 35/23 40/40 ρ1,5+24 (k5+24)
5/17 2 1 17/5 36/36 ρ1,5 (mod48)
9/21 2 1 45/33 4/4 (mod48)
11/23 0 3 43/31 8/8 ρ1,5+24
2 3/15 2 2 27/39 16/40 ρ1,5 k5
5/17 0 2 25/37 44/20 (ρ1,5+24) (mod48)
9/21 0 2 29/41 4/28 (mod48)
11/23 2 2 35/47 0/24 ρ1,5
3 3/15 0 1 35/23 40/40 ρ1,5+24 (k5+24)
5/17 2 3 17/5 36/36 ρ1,5 (mod48)
9/21 2 3 45/33 4/4 (mod48)
11/23 0 1 43/31 8/8 ρ1,5+24
4 3/15 2 4 3/15 40/16 ρ1,5 k5
5/17 0 4 25/37 44/20 (ρ1,5+24) (mod48)
9/21 0 4 29/41 4/28 (mod48)
11/23 2 4 11/23 24/0 ρ1,5
3 1 1/13 3 3 13/1 12/12 (ρ1,5+24) k5
5/17 3 3 41/29 12/12 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 1 1 15/3 40/40 ρ1,5
11/23 1 1 43/31 8/8 (mod48)
2 1/13 1 2 45/9 28/4 (ρ1,5+24) k5
5/17 1 2 1/13 20/44 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 3 2 7/19 0/24 ρ1,5
11/23 3 2 11/23 24/0 (mod48)
3 1/13 3 1 13/1 12/12 (ρ1,5+24) k5
5/17 3 1 41/29 12/12 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 1 3 15/3 40/40 ρ1,5
11/23 1 3 43/31 8/8 (mod48)
4 1/13 1 4 21/33 4/28 (ρ1,5+24) k5
5/17 1 4 25/37 44/20 (mod48) (mod48)
7/19 3 4 7/19 0/24 ρ1,5
11/23 3 4 11/23 24/0 (mod48)

Proof. 

ρ(x) is an inverse 4-PP of π(x) if

π(ρ(x))=x(modL),x{0,1,,L1}. (11)

Taking into account Lemma 1, after some algebraic manipulations, Equation (11) is equivalent to

(f1ρ11)·x+(f1ρ2+f2ρ12)·x2+(f1ρ3+2f2ρ2ρ1+f3ρ13)·x3+
+(f4ρ14+3f3ρ12ρ2+2f2ρ3ρ1+f2ρ22+f1ρ4)·x4+
+(4f4ρ13ρ2+3f3ρ12ρ3+3f3ρ1ρ22+2f2ρ4ρ1+2f2ρ3ρ2)·x5+
+(4f4ρ13ρ3+6f4ρ12ρ22+3f3ρ4ρ12+6f3ρ1ρ2ρ3+f3ρ23+2f2ρ4ρ2+f2ρ32)·x6+
+(4f4ρ4ρ13+12f4ρ12ρ2ρ3+4f4ρ1ρ23+6f3ρ4ρ1ρ2+3f3ρ1ρ32+3f3ρ22ρ3+2f2ρ4ρ3)·x7+
+(12f4ρ12ρ2ρ4+6f4ρ12ρ32+12f4ρ1ρ22ρ3+6f3ρ1ρ3ρ4+f4ρ24+3f3ρ22ρ4+3f3ρ2ρ32+f2ρ42)·x8+
+(12f4ρ12ρ3ρ4+12f4ρ1ρ22ρ4+12f4ρ1ρ2ρ32+3f3ρ1ρ42+4f4ρ23ρ3+6f3ρ2ρ3ρ4+f3ρ33)·x9+
+(6f4ρ12ρ42+24f4ρ1ρ2ρ3ρ4+4f4ρ1ρ33+4f4ρ23ρ4+6f4ρ22ρ32+3f3ρ2ρ42+3f3ρ32ρ4)·x10+
+(12f4ρ22ρ3ρ4+4f4ρ2ρ33+12f4ρ1ρ2ρ42+12f4ρ1ρ32ρ4+3f3ρ3ρ42)·x11+
+(6f4ρ22ρ42+12f4ρ2ρ32ρ4+f4ρ34+12f4ρ1ρ3ρ42+f3ρ43)·x12+
+(4f4ρ33ρ4+12f4ρ2ρ3ρ42+4f4ρ1ρ43)·x13+(6f4ρ32ρ42+4f4ρ2ρ43)·x14+
+(4f4ρ3ρ43)·x15+(f4ρ44)·x16=0(modL),x{0,1,,L1}. (12)

Because π(x) and ρ(x) are true 4-PPs, from Lemma 1 it results that ρ4=f4=Ψ, ρ3=k3,ρ·2Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, with k3,ρ,k3,f{0,1,2,3}, ρ2=(2k2,ρ·kL1)·Ψ, and f2=(2k2,f·kL1)·Ψ, with k2,ρ,k2,f{1,2,3,4}, kL{1,3}. Because pi is odd i{1,2,,Np}, Ψ from (7) is also odd. Then, we can have Ψ=1(mod8), Ψ=3(mod8), Ψ=5(mod8), or Ψ=7(mod8). Then, 2Ψ=2(mod8) or 2Ψ=6(mod8). Because every pi is odd and 3pi, we can have Ψ=1(mod24), Ψ=5(mod24), Ψ=7(mod24), Ψ=11(mod24), Ψ=13(mod24), Ψ=17(mod24), Ψ=19(mod24), or Ψ=23(mod24). Then, 2Ψ=2(mod24), 2Ψ=10(mod24), 2Ψ=14(mod24), or 2Ψ=22(mod24).

Thus, for L=16kLΨ, kL{1,3}, ρ3=k3,ρ·2Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, with k3,ρ,k3,f{0,1,2,3}, ρ2=(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ, and f2=(2k2,fkL1)·Ψ, with kL{1,3}, k2,ρ,k2,f{1,2,3,4}, (12) is equivalent to

(f1ρ11)·x+Ψ·(f1·(2k2,ρkL1)+(2k2,fkL1)·ρ12)·x2+
+2Ψ·(f1k3,ρ+(2k2,fkL1)·(2k2,ρkL1)Ψρ1+k3,fρ13)·x3+
+Ψ·(ρ14+6k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ·ρ12+4k3,ρ·(2k2,fkL1)·Ψ·ρ1+
+(2k2,fkL1)·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψ2+f1)·x4+
+2Ψ2·(2·(2k2,ρkL1)·ρ13+6k3,fk3,ρρ12+3k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψρ1+(2k2,fkL1)·ρ1+
+2·(2k2,fkL1)·(2k2,ρkL1)·k3,ρΨ)·x5+
+2Ψ2·(4k3,ρρ13+3·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψρ12+3k3,fρ12+12k3,fk3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψρ1+
+k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)3·Ψ2+(2k2,fkL1)·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ+2·(2k2,fkL1)·k3,ρ2Ψ)·x6+
+4Ψ2·(ρ13+6k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψρ12+(2k2,ρkL1)3·Ψ2ρ1+3k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψρ1+
+6k3,fk3,ρ2Ψρ1+3k3,fk3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψ2+k3,ρ·(2k2,fkL1)·Ψ)·x7+
+Ψ3·(12·(2k2,ρkL1)·ρ12+24k3,ρ2ρ12+24k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψρ1+24k3,fk3,ρρ1+
+(2k2,ρkL1)4·Ψ2+6k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψ+24k3,fk3,ρ2·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ+(2k2,fkL1))·x8+
+2Ψ3·(12k3,ρρ12+3k3,fρ1+24k3,ρ2·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψρ1+6·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψρ1+
+4k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)3·Ψ2+12k3,fk3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ+8k3,fk3,ρ3Ψ)·x9+
+2Ψ3·(3ρ12+16k3,ρ3Ψρ1+24k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψρ1+2·(2k2,ρkL1)3·Ψ2+
+12k3,ρ2·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψ2+3k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ+12k3,fk3,ρ2Ψ)·x10+
+4Ψ4·(12k3,ρ2ρ1+3·(2k2,ρkL1)·ρ1+8k3,ρ3·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ+
+6k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψ+3k3,fk3,ρ)·x11+
+2Ψ4·(12k3,ρρ1+8k3,ρ4Ψ+3·(2k2,ρkL1)2·Ψ+24k3,ρ2·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ+k3,f)·x12+
+4Ψ4·(ρ1+8k3,ρ3Ψ+6k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·Ψ)·x13+4Ψ5·(6k3,ρ2+(2k2,ρkL1))·x14+
+(8k3,ρΨ5)·x15+Ψ5·x16=0(mod16kLΨ),x{0,1,,16kLΨ1}. (13)

Because ΨL, from (13) we have

(f1ρ11)·x=0(modΨ),x{0,1,,16kLΨ1}. (14)

Equation (14) is equivalent to

f1ρ1=1(modΨ)f1ρ1=Ψ·k+1(mod16kLΨ),withk{0,1,2,,16kL1}. (15)

We note that when kL=1, we have gcd(f1,16Ψ)=1. According to Theorem 57 from [30], in this case congruence (15) has only one solution in variable ρ1. When kL=3, we can have gcd(f1,48Ψ)=3. Thus, congruence (15) has three solutions, but as we will see, only one solution from the three will be valid.

With (15) and denoting Ψ(mod16kL)=kΨ, (13) is fulfilled if and only if

k·x+(f1·(2k2,ρkL1)+(2k2,fkL1)·ρ12)·x2+
+2·(f1k3,ρ+(2k2,fkL1)·(2k2,ρkL1)kΨρ1+k3,fρ13)·x3+
+(ρ14+6k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨ·ρ12+4k3,ρ·(2k2,fkL1)·kΨ·ρ1+
+(2k2,fkL1)·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨ2+f1)·x4+
+2kΨ·(2·(2k2,ρkL1)·ρ13+6k3,fk3,ρρ12+3k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨρ1+(2k2,fkL1)·ρ1+
+2·(2k2,fkL1)·(2k2,ρkL1)·k3,ρkΨ)·x5+
+2kΨ·(4k3,ρρ13+3·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨρ12+3k3,fρ12+12k3,fk3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨρ1+
+k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)3·kΨ2+(2k2,fkL1)·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨ+2·(2k2,fkL1)·k3,ρ2kΨ)·x6+
+4kΨ·(ρ13+6k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨρ12+(2k2,ρkL1)3·kΨ2ρ1+3k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨρ1+
+6k3,fk3,ρ2kΨρ1+3k3,fk3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨ2+k3,ρ·(2k2,fkL1)·kΨ)·x7+
+kΨ2·(12·(2k2,ρkL1)·ρ12+24k3,ρ2ρ12+24k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨρ1+24k3,fk3,ρρ1+
+(2k2,ρkL1)4·kΨ2+6k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨ+24k3,fk3,ρ2·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨ+(2k2,fkL1))·x8+
+2kΨ2·(12k3,ρρ12+3k3,fρ1+24k3,ρ2·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨρ1+6·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨρ1+
+4k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)3·kΨ2+12k3,fk3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨ+8k3,fk3,ρ3kΨ)·x9+
+2kΨ2·(3ρ12+16k3,ρ3kΨρ1+24k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨρ1+
+2·(2k2,ρkL1)3·kΨ2+12k3,ρ2·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨ2+3k3,f·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨ+12k3,fk3,ρ2kΨ)·x10+
+4kΨ3·(12k3,ρ2ρ1+3·(2k2,ρkL1)·ρ1+8k3,ρ3·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨ+
+6k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨ+3k3,fk3,ρ)·x11+
+2kΨ3·(12k3,ρρ1+8k3,ρ4kΨ+3·(2k2,ρkL1)2·kΨ+24k3,ρ2·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨ+k3,f)·x12+
+4kΨ3·(ρ1+8k3,ρ3kΨ+6k3,ρ·(2k2,ρkL1)·kΨ)·x13+4kΨ4·(6k3,ρ2+(2k2,ρkL1))·x14+
+(8k3,ρkΨ4)·x15+kΨ4·x16=0(mod16kL),x{0,1,,16kL1}. (16)

We note that the values of kL and kΨ are given by the interleaver length.

Because Ψ is odd, when kL=1 we can have kΨ{1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15}.

For kL=1 we denote k2,f=2k2,f1 and k2,ρ=2k2,ρ1.

In this case, the variables from Equation (16) are f1(mod16),ρ1(mod16){1,3,5,,15}, k3,ρ,k3,f{0,1,2,3}, k2,ρ,k2,f{1,3,5,7}, k, and kΨ. The values of k3,f, k2,f, and f1(mod16) are given by the true 4-PP, for which we want to find the inverse 4-PP; and kΨ is given by the interleaver length. Given the values of kΨ, k3,f, k2,f, and f1(mod16), we can find the coefficients of the inverse 4-PP by exhaustive searching for the rest of variables, k3,ρ, k2,ρ, ρ1(mod16), and k. For each k3,ρ{0,1,2,3}, k2,ρ{1,3,5,7}, ρ1(mod16){1,3,5,,15}, and k{0,1,,15}, we test if the left hand side term from (16), evaluated modulo 16, is equal to 0 for each x{0,1,,15}. For a combination of variables kΨ, k3,f, k2,f, and f1(mod16), only a combination of k3,ρ, k2,ρ, ρ1(mod16), and k results in a solution of (16). In this way, using Matlab environment we found all the solutions of Equation (16). Solutions in variables k, f1(mod16),ρ1(mod16), k3,ρ,k3,f, and k2,ρ,k2,f are the same kΨ{1,5,9,13}, and also solutions in the previously mentioned variables are the same kΨ{3,7,11,15}. For every kΨ{1,3,5,,15}, solutions of Equation (16) in variables k, k3,ρ,k3,f, and k2,ρ,k2,f are the same f1(mod16){1,9}, or f1(mod16){3,11}, or f1(mod16){5,13}, or f1(mod16){7,15}. If the solution of Equation (16) in variable ρ1(mod16) for f1(mod16)=f1(mod8)=f1,8{1,3,5,7} and the other variables with fixed values, is ρ1,f1,8(mod16), then solution of the same equation in variable ρ1(mod16), for f1(mod16)=f1,8+8, is (ρ1,f1,8+8)(mod16). Thus, for kL=1, we can summarize the solutions of (16) for every kΨ(mod4)=kΨ,4{1,3} and for every f1(mod8){1,3,5,7}. These solutions are given in Table 3 and Table 4.

When kL=3, because 3Ψ, we can have kΨ{1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,25,29,31,35,37,41,43,47}. We note that in this case, because of condition (f1+f3)0(mod3), we can have only some values for f1(mod48), not every odd number. Because 3Ψ, we can have Ψ(mod3){1,2}. Because f3=k3,f·2Ψ, with k3,f{0,1,2,3}, we can have:

  • (1)

    f1(mod48){1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,25,29,31,35,37,41,43,47}, when Ψ(mod3){1,2} and k3,f{0,3};

  • (2)

    f1(mod48){1,3,7,9,13,15,19,21,25,27,31,33,37,39,43,45}, when Ψ(mod3)=1 and k3,f=2 or when Ψ(mod3)=2 and k3,f=1;

  • (3)

    f1(mod48){3,5,9,11,15,17,21,23,27,29,33,35,39,41,45}, when Ψ(mod3)=1 and k3,f=1 or when Ψ(mod3)=2 and k3,f=2.

Solutions of Equation (16) for kL=3 were found in the same way as for kL=1, as it was previously explained. Solutions in variables k, f1(mod48),ρ1(mod48), k3,ρ,k3,f, and k2,ρ,k2,f are the same kΨ{1,13,25,37}, or kΨ{5,17,29,41}, or kΨ{7,19,31,43}, or kΨ{11,23,35,47}. For every kΨ{1,5,7,11,,47}, solutions of Equation (16) in variables k, k3,ρ,k3,f, and k2,ρ,k2,f are the same f1(mod48) and for (f1+24)(mod48). If the solution of Equation (16) in variable ρ1(mod48) for f1(mod48)=f1(mod24)=f1,24 and with the other variables with fixed values, is ρ1,f1,24(mod48), then solution of the same equation in variable ρ1(mod48), for f1(mod48)=f1,24+24, is (ρ1,f1,24+24)(mod48). Thus, for kL=3, we can summarize the solutions of (16) for every kΨ(mod12)=kΨ,12{1,5,7,11} and for every f1(mod24). These solutions, found by means of Matlab software, are given in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8. □

We note that the inverse 4-PP from Lemma 2 is a true 4-PP, and thus the 4-PP π(x) does not admit an inverse QPP or CPP.

3.3. Upper Bounds on the Minimum Distances for 4-PP-Based Turbo Codes for Interleaver Lengths of the Form 16Ψ or 48Ψ

In this subsection, we prove that for the interleaver lengths of the form given in Equation (5), a true 4-PP leads to a minimum distance which is upper bounded by the value of 36 or 28, depending on the classes of coefficients, for a classical 1/3 rate turbo code with two recursive systematic convolutional (RSC) component codes having generator matrix G=[1,15/13] in octal form.

Theorem 1.

Let the interleaver length be of the form given in (5). Then, the minimum distance of the classical nominal 1/3 rate turbo code with two RSC codes parallel concatenated having the generator matrix G=[1,15/13] (in octal form) and 4-PP interleavers—fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1), with coefficients f4=Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, k3,f{1,3}, f2=(2k2,f·kL1)·Ψ, k2,f{1,2,3,4}, and kL{1,3}—is upper bounded by the value of 36.

Proof. 

We consider the interleaver pattern of size twelve shown in Figure 1.

The twelve elements of permutation π(·) indicated in Figure 1 are written in detail below.

x1π(x1)x1+1π(x1+1)(modL)x1+5π(x1+5)(modL)x2π(x2)=π(x1)+2(modL)x2+1π(x2+1)=π(x1+1)+2(modL)x2+5π(x2+5)=π(x1+5)+2(modL)x3π(x3)=π(x1)+4(modL)x3+1π(x3+1)=π(x1+1)+4(modL)x3+5π(x3+5)=π(x1+5)+4(modL)x4π(x4)=π(x1)+8(modL)x4+1π(x4+1)=π(x1+1)+8(modL)x4+5π(x4+5)=π(x1+5)+8(modL) (17)

Writing x2=ρ(π(x2))=ρ(π(x1)+2) in the fifth and sixth equations from (17), x3=ρ(π(x3))=ρ(π(x1)+4) in the eighth and ninth equations from (17), and x4=ρ(π(x4))=ρ(π(x1)+8) in the eleventh and twelfth equation from (17), with x1=x, we have

π(ρ(π(x)+2)+1)=π(x+1)+2(modL)π(ρ(π(x)+2)+5)=π(x+5)+2(modL)π(ρ(π(x)+4)+1)=π(x+1)+4(modL)π(ρ(π(x)+4)+5)=π(x+5)+4(modL)π(ρ(π(x)+8)+1)=π(x+1)+8(modL)π(ρ(π(x)+8)+5)=π(x+5)+8(modL) (18)

Taking into account that

π(a+b)=π(a)+π(b)+a·b·2f4·(2a2+3ab+2b2)+3f3·(a+b)+2f2, (19)

equations from (18) are equivalent to

ρ(π(x)+2)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(x)+2)+3ρ(π(x)+2)+2)++3f3·(ρ(π(x)+2)+1)+2f2)=x·2f4·(2x2+3x+2)+3f3·(x+1)+2f2(modL)5·ρ(π(x)+2)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(x)+2)+3·5·ρ(π(x)+2)+2·52)++3f3·(ρ(π(x)+2)+5)+2f2)==5·x·2f4·(2x2+3·5·x+2·52)+3f3·(x+5)+2f2(modL)ρ(π(x)+4)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(x)+4)+3ρ(π(x)+4)+2)++3f3·(ρ(π(x)+4)+1)+2f2)=x·2f4·(2x2+3x+2)+3f3·(x+1)+2f2(modL)5·ρ(π(x)+4)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(x)+4)+3·5·ρ(π(x)+4)+2·52)++3f3·(ρ(π(x)+4)+5)+2f2)==5·x·2f4·(2x2+3·5·x+2·52)+3f3·(x+5)+2f2(modL)ρ(π(x)+8)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(x)+8)+3ρ(π(x)+8)+2)++3f3·(ρ(π(x)+8)+1)+2f2)=x·2f4·(2x2+3x+2)+3f3·(x+1)+2f2(modL)5·ρ(π(x)+8)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(x)+8)+3·5·ρ(π(x)+8)+2·52)++3f3·(ρ(π(x)+8)+5)+2f2)==5·x·2f4·(2x2+3·5·x+2·52)+3f3·(x+5)+2f2(modL) (20)

or

4f4·ρ3(π(x)+2)+(6f4+3f3)·ρ2(π(x)+2)+(4f4+3f3+2f2)·ρ(π(x)+2)==2f4·(2x3+3x2+2x)+3f3·(x2+x)+2f2·x(modL)20f4·ρ3(π(x)+2)+(150f4+15f3)·ρ2(π(x)+2)+(500f4+75f3+10f2)·ρ(π(x)+2)==10f4·(2x3+15x2+50x)+15f3·(x2+5x)+10f2·x(modL)4f4·ρ3(π(x)+4)+(6f4+3f3)·ρ2(π(x)+4)+(4f4+3f3+2f2)·ρ(π(x)+4)==2f4·(2x3+3x2+2x)+3f3·(x2+x)+2f2·x(modL)20f4·ρ3(π(x)+4)+(150f4+15f3)·ρ2(π(x)+4)+(500f4+75f3+10f2)·ρ(π(x)+4)==10f4·(2x3+15x2+50x)+15f3·(x2+5x)+10f2·x(modL)4f4·ρ3(π(x)+8)+(6f4+3f3)·ρ2(π(x)+8)+(4f4+3f3+2f2)·ρ(π(x)+8)==2f4·(2x3+3x2+2x)+3f3·(x2+x)+2f2·x(modL)20f4·ρ3(π(x)+8)+(150f4+15f3)·ρ2(π(x)+8)+(500f4+75f3+10f2)·ρ(π(x)+8)==10f4·(2x3+15x2+50x)+15f3·(x2+5x)+10f2·x(modL). (21)

For L=16·kL·Ψ, f4=Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, k3,f{0,1,2,3}, f2=(2k2,f·kL1)·Ψ, k2,f{1,2,3,4}, kL{1,3}, equations from (21) become

4Ψ·ρ3(π(x)+2)+2Ψ·(3+3k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)+2)+2Ψ·(2+3k3,f+2k2,f·kL1)·ρ(π(x)+2)==2Ψ·(2x3+3x2+2x)+2Ψ·3k3,f·(x2+x)+2Ψ·(2k2,f·kL1)·x(mod16·kL·Ψ)20Ψ·ρ3(π(x)+2)+2Ψ·(75+15k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)+2)+2Ψ·(250+75k3,f++5·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(x)+2)=10Ψ·(2x3+15x2+50x)+2Ψ·15k3,f·(x2+5x)++5·(2k2,f·kL1)·2Ψ·x(mod16·kL·Ψ)4Ψ·ρ3(π(x)+4)+2Ψ·(3+3k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)+4)+2Ψ·(2+3k3,f+2f2)·ρ(π(x)+4)==2Ψ·(2x3+3x2+2x)+2Ψ·3k3,f·(x2+x)+2Ψ·(2k2,f·kL1)·x(mod16·kL·Ψ)20Ψ·ρ3(π(x)+4)+2Ψ·(75+15k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)+4)+2Ψ·(250+75k3,f+5·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(x)+4)=10Ψ·(2x3+15x2+50x)+2Ψ·15k3,f·(x2+5x)++5·(2k2,f·kL1)·2Ψ·x(mod16·kL·Ψ)4Ψ·ρ3(π(x)+8)+2Ψ·(3+3k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)+8)+2Ψ·(2+3k3,f+2f2)·ρ(π(x)+8)==2Ψ·(2x3+3x2+2x)+2Ψ·3k3,f·(x2+x)+2Ψ·(2k2,f·kL1)·x(mod16·kL·Ψ)20Ψ·ρ3(π(x)+8)+2Ψ·(75+15k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)+8)+2Ψ·(250+75k3,f+5·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(x)+8)=10Ψ·(2x3+15x2+50x)+2Ψ·15k3,f·(x2+5x)++5·(2k2,f·kL1)·2Ψ·x(mod16·kL·Ψ). (22)

Equations from (22) are fulfilled if and only if

2·ρ3(π(x)+2)+3·(k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(x)+2)+(3k3,f+2k2,fkL+1)·ρ(π(x)+2)==3k3,f·(x2+x)+(2k2,f·kL1)·x+(2x3+3x2+2x)(mod8·kL)10·ρ3(π(x)+2)+15·(k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(x)+2)+5·(15k3,f+2k2,f·kL1+50)·ρ(π(x)+2)==15k3,f·(x2+5x)+5·(2k2,f·kL1)·x+5·(2x3+15x2+50x)(mod8·kL)2·ρ3(π(x)+4)+3·(k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(x)+4)+(3k3,f+2k2,f·kL+1)·ρ(π(x)+4)==3k3,f·(x2+x)+(2k2,f·kL1)·x+(2x3+3x2+2x)(mod8·kL)10·ρ3(π(x)+4)+15·(k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(x)+4)+(250+75k3,f+5·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(x)+4)==15k3,f·(x2+5x)+5·(2k2,f·kL1)·x+5·(2x3+15x2+50x)(mod8·kL)2·ρ3(π(x)+8)+3·(k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(x)+8)+(3k3,f+2k2,f·kL+1)·ρ(π(x)+8)==3k3,f·(x2+x)+(2k2,f·kL1)·x+(2x3+3x2+2x)(mod8·kL)10·ρ3(π(x)+8)+15·(k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(x)+8)+5·(15k3,f+2k2,f·kL1+50)·ρ(π(x)+8)==15k3,f·(x2+5x)+5·(2k2,f·kL1)·x+5·(2x3+15x2+50x)(mod8·kL). (23)

For x=0, equations from (20) become

2·ρ3(2)+3·(k3,f+1)·ρ2(2)+(3k3,f+2k2,fkL+1)·ρ(2)=0(mod8·kL)10·ρ3(2)+15·(k3,f+3)·ρ2(2)+5·(15k3,f+2k2,f·kL1+50)·ρ(2)=0(mod8·kL)2·ρ3(4)+3·(k3,f+1)·ρ2(4)+(3k3,f+2k2,f·kL+1)·ρ(4)=0(mod8·kL)10·ρ3(4)+15·(k3,f+3)·ρ2(4)+(250+75k3,f+5·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(4)=0(mod8·kL)2·ρ3(8)+3·(k3,f+1)·ρ2(8)+(3k3,f+2k2,f·kL+1)·ρ(8)=0(mod8·kL)10·ρ3(8)+15·(k3,f+3)·ρ2(8)+5·(15k3,f+2k2,f·kL1+50)·ρ(8)=0(mod8·kL) (24)

or

ρ(2)/2·2ρ2(2)+3ρ(2)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(2)+1)+2k2,f·kL=0(mod4·kL)5·ρ(2)/2·2ρ2(2)+3·5·ρ(2)+49+3k3,f·(ρ(2)+5)+2k2,f·kL=0(mod4·kL)ρ(4)/4·2ρ2(4)+3ρ(4)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(4)+1)+2k2,f·kL=0(mod2·kL)5·ρ(4)/4·2ρ2(4)+3·5·ρ(4)+49+3k3,f·(ρ(4)+5)+2k2,f·kL=0(mod2·kL)ρ(8)/8·2ρ2(8)+3ρ(8)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(8)+1)+2k2,f·kL=0(modkL)5·ρ(8)/8·2ρ2(8)+3·5·ρ(8)+49+3k3,f·(ρ(8)+5)+2k2,f·kL=0(modkL). (25)

For kL=1 and k2,f=2k2,f1, equations from (25) are fulfilled if and only if

(2ρ2(2)+3ρ(2)+2)+3k3,f·(ρ(2)+1)+k2,f=0(mod4)(2ρ2(2)+3·5·ρ(2)+2·52)+3k3,f·(ρ(2)+5)+k2,f=0(mod4)(2ρ2(4)+3ρ(4)+2)+3k3,f·(ρ(4)+1)+k2,f=0(mod2)(2ρ2(4)+3·5·ρ(4)+2·52)+3k3,f·(ρ(4)+5)+k2,f=0(mod2) (26)

or

2ρ1+2+2k3,f·ρ1+3k3,f+k2,f=0(mod4)k3,f+k2,f=0(mod2) (27)

or

2ρ1·(k3,f+1)+2+3k3,f+k2,f=0(mod4)k3,f+k2,f=0(mod2). (28)

Equations from (28) are fulfilled if and only if k3,f=1 and k2,f{3,7}, or k3,f=3 and k2,f{1,5}.

For kL=3, equations from (25) are fulfilled if and only if

ρ(2)/2·2ρ2(2)+3ρ(2)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(2)+1)+6k2,f=0(mod12)ρ(4)/4·2ρ2(4)+3ρ(4)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(4)+1)+6k2,f=0(mod6)ρ(8)/8·2ρ2(8)+3ρ(8)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(8)+1)+6k2,f=0(mod3) (29)

or

ρ(2)/2·2ρ2(2)+3ρ(2)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(2)+1)+6k2,f=0(mod12)ρ(4)/4·2ρ2(4)+1+3k3,f=0(mod6)ρ(8)/8·2ρ2(8)+1=0(mod3). (30)

With ρ2=(6k2,ρ1)·Ψ, ρ3=k3,ρ·2Ψ, and ρ4=Ψ, we have

ρ(2)/2=ρ1+8·k3,ρ·Ψ+6·Ψ(mod12)ρ(4)/4=ρ1+2·k3,ρ·Ψ(mod6)ρ(8)/8=ρ1+2·k3,ρ·Ψ(mod3) (31)

and

2·ρ2(2)=8·(ρ1+8·k3,ρ·Ψ+6·Ψ)2(mod12)2·ρ2(4)=2·(ρ1+2·k3,ρ·Ψ)2(mod6)2·ρ2(8)=2·(ρ1+2·k3,ρ·Ψ)2(mod3). (32)

With (31) and (32), (30) is equivalent to

8·(ρ1+8·k3,ρ·Ψ+6·Ψ)3+6·(k3,f+1)·(ρ1+8·k3,ρ·Ψ+6·Ψ)2++(3k3,f+6k2,f+1)·(ρ1+8·k3,ρ·Ψ+6·Ψ)=0(mod12)2·(ρ1+2·k3,ρ·Ψ)3+(3k3,f+1)·(ρ1+2·k3,ρ·Ψ)=0(mod6)2·(ρ1+2·k3,ρ·Ψ)3+(ρ1+2·k3,ρ·Ψ)=0(mod3). (33)

By exhaustive searching by means software programs, it can be verified that equations from (33) are fulfilled if and only if k3,f=1 and k2,f{2,4}, or k3,f=3 and k2,f{1,3}.

For x=1, equations from (20) become

ρ(π(1)+2)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(1)+2)+3ρ(π(1)+2)+2)++3f3·(ρ(π(1)+2)+1)+2f2)=14f4+6f3+2f2(modL)5·ρ(π(1)+2)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(1)+2)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+2)+2·52)++3f3·(ρ(π(1)+2)+5)+2f2)=5·134f4+18f3+2f2(modL)ρ(π(1)+4)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(1)+4)+3ρ(π(1)+4)+2)++3f3·(ρ(π(1)+4)+1)+2f2)=14f4+6f3+2f2(modL)5·ρ(π(1)+4)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(1)+4)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+4)+2·52)++3f3·(ρ(π(1)+4)+5)+2f2)=5·134f4+18f3+2f2(modL)ρ(π(1)+8)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(1)+8)+3ρ(π(1)+8)+2)++3f3·(ρ(π(1)+8)+1)+2f2)=14f4+6f3+2f2(modL)5·ρ(π(1)+8)·(2f4·(2ρ2(π(1)+8)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+8)+2·52)++3f3·(ρ(π(1)+8)+5)+2f2)=5·134f4+18f3+2f2(modL). (34)

For L=16·kL·Ψ, f4=Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, k3,f{0,1,2,3}, f2=(2k2,f·kL1)·Ψ, k2,f{1,2,3,4}, kL{1,3}, equations from (34) become

ρ(π(1)+2)·2Ψ·(2ρ2(π(1)+2)+3ρ(π(1)+2)+1++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+2)+1)+2k2,fkL)2Ψ·6+6k3,f+2k2,fkL=0(mod16·kL·Ψ)5·2Ψ·ρ(π(1)+2)·(2ρ2(π(1)+2)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+2)+2·521++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+2)+5)+2k2,fkL)5·2Ψ·66+18k3,f+2k2,fkL=0(mod16·kL·Ψ)ρ(π(1)+4)·2Ψ·(2ρ2(π(1)+4)+3ρ(π(1)+4)+1++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+4)+1)+2k2,fkL)2Ψ·(6+6k3,f+2k2,fkL)=0(mod16·kL·Ψ)5·ρ(π(1)+4)·2Ψ·(2ρ2(π(1)+4)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+4)+2·521++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+4)+5)+2k2,fkL)5·2Ψ·66+18k3,f+2k2,fkL=0(mod16·kL·Ψ)ρ(π(1)+8)·2Ψ·(2ρ2(π(1)+8)+3ρ(π(1)+8)+1++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+8)+1)+2k2,fkL)2Ψ·(6+6k3,f+2k2,fkL)=0(mod16·kL·Ψ)5·ρ(π(1)+8)·2Ψ·(2ρ2(π(1)+8)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+8)+2·521++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+8)+5)+2k2,fkL)5·2Ψ·66+18k3,f+2k2,fkL=0(mod16·kL·Ψ). (35)

Equations from (35) are fulfilled if and only if

ρ(π(1)+2)·2ρ2(π(1)+2)+3ρ(π(1)+2)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+2)+1)+2k2,fkL6+6k3,f+2k2,fkL=0(mod8·kL)5·ρ(π(1)+2)·(2ρ2(π(1)+2)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+2)+2·521++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+2)+5)+2k2,fkL)5·66+18k3,f+2k2,fkL=0(mod8·kL)ρ(π(1)+4)·2ρ2(π(1)+4)+3ρ(π(1)+4)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+4)+1)+2k2,fkL(6+6k3,f+2k2,fkL)=0(mod8·kL)5·ρ(π(1)+4)·(2ρ2(π(1)+4)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+4)+2·521++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+4)+5)+2k2,fkL)5·66+18k3,f+2k2,fkL=0(mod8·kL)ρ(π(1)+8)·2ρ2(π(1)+8)+3ρ(π(1)+8)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+8)+1)+2k2,fkL(6+6k3,f+2k2,fkL)=0(mod8·kL)5·ρ(π(1)+8)·(2ρ2(π(1)+8)+3·5·ρ(π(1)+8)+2·521++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+8)+5)+2k2,fkL)5·66+18k3,f+2k2,fkL=0(mod8·kL). (36)

For kL=1 and k2,f=2k2,f1, equations from (36) are fulfilled if and only if

ρ(π(1)+2)·(2ρ2(π(1)+2)+3ρ(π(1)+2)+2++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+2)+1)+k2,f)+1+2k3,f+7k2,f=0(mod8)5·ρ(π(1)+2)·(2ρ2(π(1)+2)+7·ρ(π(1)+2)+2++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+2)+5)+k2,f)+1+6k3,f+3k2,f=0(mod8)ρ(π(1)+4)·(2ρ2(π(1)+4)+3ρ(π(1)+4)+2++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+4)+1)+k2,f)+(1+2k3,f+7k2,f)=0(mod8)5·ρ(π(1)+4)·(2ρ2(π(1)+4)+7·ρ(π(1)+4)+2++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+4)+5)+k2,f)+1+6k3,f+3k2,f=0(mod8)ρ(π(1)+8)·(2ρ2(π(1)+8)+3ρ(π(1)+8)+2++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+8)+1)+k2,f)+(1+2k3,f+7k2,f)=0(mod8)5·ρ(π(1)+8)·(2ρ2(π(1)+8)+7·ρ(π(1)+8)+2++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+8)+5)+k2,f)+1+6k3,f+3k2,f=0(mod8). (37)

We have

ρ(π(1)+2)(mod8)=1+ρ(2)+2·π(1)·(2ρ4·(2π2(1)+2·22+3·2·π(1))+
+3ρ3·(π(1)+2)+2ρ2)(mod8)=
=1+2·(ρ1+2ρ2)+6ρ3·(f1+f2+f3+f4)2+(4ρ3+4ρ2)·(f1+f2+f3+f4)(mod8)=
=1+2·(ρ1+2k2,ρkΨ)+4k3,ρkΨ·(f1+k2,fkΨ+kΨ)2+4k2,ρkΨ·(f1+k2,fkΨ+kΨ)(mod8)=
=1+2·(ρ1+2k2,ρkΨ)+4k3,ρkΨ·(1+(k2,f)2+1+2f1k2,fkΨ+2f1kΨ+2k2,f)+
+4f1k2,ρkΨ+4k2,ρ·(k2,f+1)(mod8)=
=1+2ρ1+4k3,ρ(k2,f)2kΨ+4k2,ρ·(k2,f+1)(mod8), (38)
ρ2(π(1)+2)(mod8)=5+4ρ1(mod8), (39)
ρ3(π(1)+2)(mod8)=5+6ρ1+4k3,ρ(k2,f)2kΨ+4k2,ρ·(k2,f+1)(mod8), (40)
ρ(π(1)+4)(mod8)=1+ρ(4)+4·π(1)·(2ρ4·(2π2(1)+2·42+3·4·π(1))+
+3ρ3·(π(1)+4)+2ρ2)(mod8)=1+4ρ1(mod8), (41)
ρ2(π(1)+4)(mod8)=1(mod8), (42)
ρ(π(1)+8)(mod8)=1+ρ(8)+8·π(1)·(2ρ4·(2π2(1)+2·82+3·8·π(1))+
+3ρ3·(π(1)+8)+2ρ2)(mod8)=1(mod8). (43)

Thus, equations from (36) are equivalent to

2ρ3(π(1)+2)+3·(k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(1)+2)++(2+3k3,f+k2,f)·ρ(π(1)+2)+1+2k3,f+7k2,f=0(mod8)2ρ3(π(1)+2)+(7k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(1)+2)++(2+3k3,f+k2,f)·ρ(π(1)+2)+1+6k3,f+3k2,f=0(mod8)(1+4ρ1)·2+3k3,f+k2,f+(6+5k3,f+7k2,f)=0(mod8)(1+4ρ1)·2+3k3,f+5k2,f+(6+5k3,f+3k2,f)=0(mod8) (44)

or

2ρ3(π(1)+2)+3·(k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(1)+2)++(2+3k3,f+k2,f)·ρ(π(1)+2)+1+2k3,f+7k2,f=0(mod8)2ρ3(π(1)+2)+(7k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(1)+2)++(2+3k3,f+k2,f)·ρ(π(1)+2)+1+6k3,f+3k2,f=0(mod8)4ρ1·(k3,f+k2,f)=0(mod8). (45)

The third equation from (45) is fulfilled if and only if k3,f=1 and k2,f{1,5}, or k3,f=3 and k2,f{3,7}. It can be verified that these values also fulfill the first two equations from (45).

For kL=3, equations from (36) are fulfilled if and only if

ρ(π(1)+2)·2ρ2(π(1)+2)+3ρ(π(1)+2)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+2)+1)+6k2,f++18·1+k3,f+k2,f=0(mod24)5·ρ(π(1)+2)·(2ρ2(π(1)+2)+15·ρ(π(1)+2)+1++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+2)+5)+6k2,f)+6·1+k3,f+3k2,f=0(mod24)ρ(π(1)+4)·2ρ2(π(1)+4)+3ρ(π(1)+4)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+4)+1)+6k2,f++18·(1+k3,f+k2,f)=0(mod24)5·ρ(π(1)+4)·(2ρ2(π(1)+4)+15·ρ(π(1)+4)+1++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+4)+5)+6k2,f)+6·1+k3,f+3k2,f=0(mod24)ρ(π(1)+8)·2ρ2(π(1)+8)+3ρ(π(1)+8)+1+3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+8)+1)+6k2,f++18·(1+k3,f+k2,f)=0(mod24)5·ρ(π(1)+8)·(2ρ2(π(1)+8)+15·ρ(π(1)+8)+1++3k3,f·(ρ(π(1)+8)+5)+6k2,f)+6·1+k3,f+3k2,f=0(mod24). (46)

With

π(1)(mod24)=(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)(mod24), (47)

we have

ρ(π(1)+2)(mod24)=1+ρ(2)+2·π(1)·(2ρ4·(2π2(1)+2·22+3·2·π(1))+
+3ρ3·(π(1)+2)+2ρ2)(mod24)=
=1+2·(ρ1+2ρ2+4ρ3+8ρ4)+8ρ4·π3(1)+6ρ3π2(1)+(8ρ4+12ρ3+4ρ2)·π(1)=
=1+2ρ1+16k3,ρkΨ+12kΨ+8kΨ·π3(1)+12k3,ρkΨ·π2(1)+4kΨ·(f1+2k3,fkΨ)(mod24), (48)
ρ2(π(1)+2)(mod24)=1+4ρ1·(ρ1+1)+8k3,ρkΨ·(2k3,ρkΨ+2ρ1+1)+
+16k3,ρ2·π6(1)+16kΨ·π4(1)+8kΨ·(2+ρ1+2k3,ρkΨ)·π3(1)+16kΨ·π2(1)+
+8kΨ·(1+2ρ1+k3,ρkΨ)·(f1+2k3,fkΨ)mod24), (49)
ρ3(π(1)+2)(mod24)=1+2ρ1·(4ρ12+6ρ1+3)+4kΨ·(4k3,ρ3kΨ2+3)+
+8kΨ3·π9(1)+16kΨ3·π3(1)+12k3,ρkΨ·π2(1)+12kΨf1(mod24), (50)
ρ(π(1)+4)(mod24)=1+ρ(4)+4·π(1)·(2ρ4·(2π2(1)+2·42+3·4·π(1))+
+3ρ3·(π(1)+4)+2ρ2)(mod24)=
=1+ρ(4)+16ρ4·π3(1)+12ρ3·π2(1)+(16ρ4+8ρ2)·π(1)(mod24)=
=1+4·(ρ1+4ρ2+16ρ3+16ρ4)+16ρ4·(f1+f2+f3+f4)3+12ρ3·(f1+f2+f3+f4)2+
+(16ρ4+8ρ2)·(f1+f2+f3+f4)(mod24)=
=1+4·(ρ1+8k3,ρkΨ)+16kΨ·(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)3+
+8kΨ·(f1+2k3,fkΨ)(mod24), (51)
ρ2(π(1)+4)(mod24)=1+8ρ1·(2ρ1+1)+16k3,ρkΨ·(k3,ρkΨ+ρ1+1)+
+16k3,ρ2·π6(1)+16kΨ2·π4(1)+8kΨ·(1+ρ1+2k3,ρkΨ)·π3(1)+16kΨ2·π2(1)+
+8kΨ·(2+2ρ1+k3,ρkΨ)·(f1+2k3,fkΨ)mod24), (52)
ρ3(π(1)+4)(mod24)=1+4ρ1·(4ρ12+3)+8kΨ3k3,ρ3+16kΨ3·π9(1)+8kΨ3·π3(1)(mod24), (53)
ρ(π(1)+8)(mod24)=1+ρ(8)+8·π(1)·(2ρ4·(2π2(1)+2·82+3·8·π(1))+
+3ρ3·(π(1)+8)+2ρ2)(mod24)=1+ρ(8)+8ρ4·π3(1)+8·(2ρ2+ρ4)·π(1)=
=1+8·(ρ1+2k3,ρkΨ)+8kΨ·(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)3+
+16kΨ·(f1+2k3,fkΨ)(mod24), (54)
ρ2(π(1)+4)(mod24)=1+16ρ1·(ρ1+1)+8k3,ρkΨ·(2k3,ρkΨ+2ρ1+1)+
+16k3,ρ2·π6(1)+16kΨ2·π4(1)+8kΨ·(2+ρ1+2k3,ρkΨ)·π3(1)+16kΨ2·π2(1)+
+8kΨ·(1+2ρ1+k3,ρkΨ)·(f1+2k3,fkΨ)mod24), (55)
ρ3(π(1)+8)(mod24)=1+8ρ13+16kΨ3k3,ρ3+8kΨ3·π9(1)+16kΨ3·π3(1)(mod24). (56)

Taking into account Equations (47)–(56), it can be verified, by exhaustive searching by means of Matlab that equations from system (46) are fulfilled if and only if k3,f=1 and k2,f{1,3}, or k3,f=3 and k2,f{2,4}.

From solutions of (28), (33), (45), and (46), it results that the interleaver pattern from Figure 1 always appears for x1=0 or x1=1, when k3,f{1,3} and k2,f{1,2,3,4}. For an interleaver pattern as in Figure 1, the weight of the codeword for classical nominal 1/3 rate turbo codes with two RSC codes having generator matrix G=[1,15/13], is equal to 12+4·3+3·4=36, because each of the four error patterns with a weight of three leads to a parity weight of three, and each of the three error patterns with a weight of four leads to a parity weight of four. Because the interleaver pattern from Figure 1 always appears in the previous conditions, it results that the minimum distance is upper bounded by the value of 36. □

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Critical interleaver pattern of size twelve for 4-PP-based interleavers.

Theorem 2.

Let the interleaver length be of the form given in (5). Then, the minimum distance of the classical nominal 1/3 rate turbo code—with two RSC codes concatenated in parallel, having the generator matrix G=[1,15/13] (in octal form), 4-PP interleavers, and fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1), with coefficients f4=Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, f2=(2k2,f·kL1)·Ψ, kL{1,3}, when k3,f{0,2} and k2,f{1,2,3,4} or when k3,f{1,3} and k2,f{2,4}—is upper bounded by the value of 28.

Proof. 

We consider the interleaver patterns of size four shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

The four elements of permutation π(·) indicated in Figure 2 are written in detail below.

x1π(x1)x1+7π(x1+7)(modL)x2π(x2)=π(x1)+7(modL)x2+7π(x2+7)=π(x1+7)+7(modL). (57)

Writing x2=ρ(π(x2))=ρ(π(x1)+7) in the fourth equation from (57), with x1=x, we have

π(ρ(π(x)+7)+7)=π(x+7)+7(modL). (58)

Equation (58) is equivalent to

7·ρ(π(x)+7)·2f4·(2ρ2(π(x)+7)+3·7·ρ(π(x)+7)+2·72)+3f3·(ρ(π(x)+7)+7)+2f2=
=7·x·2f4·(2x2+3·7·x+2·72)+3f3·(x+7)+2f2(modL) (59)

or

28f4·ρ3(π(x)+7)+(294f4+21f3)·ρ2(π(x)+7)+(1372f4+147f3+14f2)·ρ(π(x)+7)=
=14x·(2x2+21x+98)·f4+21x·(x+7)·f3+14x·f2(modL). (60)

For L=16·kL·Ψ, f4=Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, k3,f{0,1,2,3}, f2=(2k2,f·kL1)·Ψ, k2,f{1,2,3,4}, kL{1,3}, Equation (60) becomes

14·2Ψ·ρ3(π(x)+7)+2Ψ·(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)+7)+
+2Ψ·(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(x)+7)=
=7x·(2x2+21x+98)·2Ψ+21x·(x+7)·k3,f·2Ψ+
+7x·(2k2,f·kL1)·2Ψ(mod16·kL·Ψ). (61)

Equation (61) is fulfilled if and only if

14·ρ3(π(x)+7)+(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)+7)+
+(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(x)+7)=
=7x·(2x2+21x+98)+21x·(x+7)·k3,f+7x·(2k2,f·kL1)(mod8·kL), (62)

where

ρ(π(x)+7)(mod8·kL)=x+ρ(7)+7·π(x)·(2ρ4·(2π2(x)+2·72+3·7·π(x))+
+3ρ3·(π(x)+7)+2ρ2)(mod8·kL)=x+ρ(7)+28ρ4·π3(x)+
+21·(14ρ4+ρ3)·π2(x)+7·(196ρ4+21ρ3+2ρ2)·π(x)(mod8·kL). (63)

For x=0, x=1, and x=3, Equation (62) becomes

14·ρ3(7)+(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(7)+
+(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(7)=0(mod8·kL), (64)
14·ρ3(π(1)+7)+(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(π(1)+7)+
+(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(1)+7)=
=847+168·k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1)(mod8·kL), (65)

and

14·ρ3(π(3)+7)+(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(π(3)+7)+
+(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(3)+7)=
=3759+630·k3,f+21·(2k2,f·kL1)(mod8·kL), (66)

respectively.

For kL=1, k2,f=2k2,f1 and k2,ρ=2k2,ρ1, Equation (63) becomes

ρ(π(x)+7)(mod8)=x+ρ(7)+4ρ4·π3(x)+(6ρ4+5ρ3)·π2(x)+(4ρ4+3ρ3+6ρ2)·π(x)(mod8)=
=x+7ρ1+kΨ·(6k3,ρ+k2,ρ+1)+4kΨ·π3(x)+
+2kΨ·(k3,ρ+3)·π2(x)+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+3k2,ρ+2)·π(x)(mod8), (67)

and Equations (64)–(66) become

6·ρ3(7)+(5k3,f+3)·ρ2(7)+(3k3,f+7k2,f+6)·ρ(7)=0(mod8), (68)

where

ρ(7)(mod8)=7ρ1+kΨ·(6k3,ρ+k2,ρ+1)(mod8), (69)
6·ρ3(π(1)+7)+(5k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(1)+7)+
+(3k3,f+7k2,f+6)·ρ(π(1)+7)+k2,f+1=0(mod8), (70)

where

ρ(π(1)+7)(mod8)=1+7ρ1+kΨ·(6k3,ρ+k2,ρ+1)+
+4kΨ·(f1+k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+kΨ)3+2kΨ·(k3,ρ+3)·(f1+k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+kΨ)2+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+3k2,ρ+2)·(f1+k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+kΨ)(mod8), (71)

and

6·ρ3(π(3)+7)+(5k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(3)+7)+
+(3k3,f+7k2,f+6)·ρ(π(3)+7)+2k3,f+3k2,f+1=0(mod8), (72)

where

ρ(π(3)+7)(mod8)=3+7ρ1+kΨ·(6k3,ρ+k2,ρ+1)+
+4kΨ·(3f1+k2,fkΨ+6k3,fkΨ+kΨ)3+2kΨ·(k3,ρ+3)·(3f1+k2,fkΨ+6k3,fkΨ+kΨ)2+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+3k2,ρ+2)·(3f1+k2,fkΨ+6k3,fkΨ+kΨ)(mod8), (73)

respectively.

For kL=3, Equation (63) becomes

ρ(π(x)+7)(mod24)=x+ρ(7)+4ρ4·π3(x)+3·(2ρ4+7ρ3)·π2(x)+
+(4ρ4+3ρ3+14ρ2)·π(x)(mod24)=
=x+7ρ1+2kΨ·(7k3,ρ+3k2,ρ)+4kΨ·π3(x)+6kΨ·(7k3,ρ+1)·π2(x)+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+6k2,ρ+7)·π(x)(mod24) (74)

and Equations (64)–(66) become

14·ρ3(7)+3·(7k3,f+1)·ρ2(7)+(3k3,f+18k2,f+7)·ρ(7)=0(mod24), (75)

where

ρ(7)(mod24)=7ρ1+2kΨ·(7k3,ρ+3k2,ρ)(mod24), (76)
14·ρ3(π(1)+7)+3·(7k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(1)+7)+
+(3k3,f+18k2+7)·ρ(π(1)+7)+6k2,f=0(mod24), (77)

where

ρ(π(1)+7)(mod24)=1+7ρ1+2kΨ·(7k3,ρ+3k2,ρ)+
+4kΨ·(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)3+6kΨ·(7k3,ρ+1)·(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)2+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+6k2,ρ+7)·(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)(mod24), (78)

and

14·ρ3(π(3)+7)+3·(7k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(3)+7)+
+(3k3,f+18k2+7)·ρ(π(3)+7)+6·(3k3,f+3k2,f+1)=0(mod24), (79)

where

ρ(π(3)+7)(mod24)=3+7ρ1+2kΨ·(7k3,ρ+3k2,ρ)+
+4kΨ·(3f1+6k2,fkΨ+6k3,fkΨ)3+6kΨ·(7k3,ρ+1)·(3f1+6k2,fkΨ+6k3,fkΨ)2+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+6k2,ρ+7)·(3f1+6k2,fkΨ+6k3,fkΨ)(mod24), (80)

respectively.

The four elements of permutation π(·) indicated in Figure 3 are written in detail below

x2π(x2)x2+7π(x2+7)(modL)x1π(x1)=π(x2)+7(modL)x1+7π(x1+7)=π(x2+7)+7(modL). (81)

Writing x2=ρ(π(x2))=ρ(π(x1)7) in the fourth equation from (81), with x1=x, we have

π(ρ(π(x)7)+7)=π(x+7)7(modL). (82)

For L=16·kL·Ψ, f4=Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, k3,f{0,1,2,3}, f2=(2k2,f·kL1)·Ψ, k2,f{1,2,3,4}, kL{1,3}, Equation (82) is fulfilled if and only if

14·ρ3(π(x)7)+(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(π(x)7)+
+(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(x)7)=
=7x·(2x2+21x+98)+21x·(x+7)·k3,f+7x·(2k2,f·kL1)(mod8·kL), (83)

where

ρ(π(x)7)(mod8·kL)=x+ρ(7)7·π(x)·(2ρ4·(2π2(x)+2·723·7·π(x))+
+3ρ3·(π(x)7)+2ρ2)(mod8·kL)=x+ρ(7)28ρ4·π3(x)+21·(14ρ4ρ3)·π2(x)+
7·(196ρ421ρ3+2ρ2)·π(x)(mod8·kL). (84)

For x=0, x=1, and x=3, Equation (84) becomes

14·ρ3(7)+(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(7)+
+(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(7)=0(mod8·kL), (85)
14·ρ3(π(1)7)+(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(π(1)7)+
+(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(1)7)=
=847+168·k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1)(mod8·kL), (86)

and

14·ρ3(π(3)7)+(147+21k3,f)·ρ2(π(3)7)+
+(686+147k3,f+7·(2k2,f·kL1))·ρ(π(3)7)=
=3759+630·k3,f+21·(2k2,f·kL1)(mod8·kL), (87)

respectively.

For kL=1, k2,f=2k2,f1, and k2,ρ=2k2,ρ1, Equation (84) becomes

ρ(π(x)7)(mod8)=x+ρ(1)+4ρ4·π3(x)+3·(2ρ4+ρ3)·π2(x)+
+(4ρ4+3ρ3+2ρ2)·π(x)(mod8)=
=x+ρ1+kΨ·(2k3,ρ+k2,ρ+1)+4kΨ·π3(x)+6kΨ·(k3,ρ+1)·π2(x)+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+k2,ρ+2)·π(x)(mod8), (88)

and Equations (85)–(87) become

6·ρ3(1)+(5k3,f+3)·ρ2(1)+(3k3,f+7·k2,f+6)·ρ(1)=0(mod8), (89)

where

ρ(1)(mod8)=ρ1+kΨ·(2k3,ρ+k2,ρ+1)(mod8), (90)
6·ρ3(π(1)7)+(5k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(1)7)+
+(3k3,f+7·k2,f+6)·ρ(π(1)7)+k2,f+1=0(mod8), (91)

where

ρ(π(1)7)(mod8)=1+ρ1+k2,ρkΨ+k3,ρ·2kΨ+kΨ+4kΨ·(f1+k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+kΨ)3+
+6kΨ·(k3,ρ+1)·(f1+k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+kΨ)2+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+k2,ρ+2)·(f1+k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+kΨ)(mod8), (92)

and

6·ρ3(π(3)7)+(5k3,f+3)·ρ2(π(3)7)+(3k3,f+7·k2,f+6)·ρ(π(3)7)+
+2k3,f+3k2,f+1=0(mod8), (93)

where

ρ(π(3)7)(mod8)=3+ρ1+kΨ·(2k3,ρ+k2,ρ+1)+4kΨ·(f1+3k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+3kΨ)3+
+6kΨ·(k3,ρ+1)·(f1+3k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+3kΨ)2+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+k2,ρ+2)·(f1+3k2,fkΨ+k3,f·2kΨ+3kΨ)(mod8), (94)

respectively.

For kL=3, Equation (84) becomes

ρ(π(x)7)(mod24)=x+ρ(7)+20ρ4·π3(x)+3·(2ρ4+ρ3)·π2(x)+
+(20ρ4+3ρ3+10ρ2)·π(x)(mod24)=x+17·(ρ1+6k2,ρkΨ+10k3,ρkΨ)+
+20kΨ·π3(x)+6kΨ·(k3,ρ+1)·π2(x)+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+6k2,ρ+5)·π(x)(mod24), (95)

and Equations (85)–(87) become

14·ρ3(7)+3·(7k3,f+1)·ρ2(7)+
+(3k3,f+18k2,f+7)·ρ(7)=0(mod24), (96)

where

ρ(7)(mod24)=17·(ρ1+6k2,ρkΨ+10k3,ρkΨ)(mod24), (97)
14·ρ3(π(1)7)+3·(7k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(1)7)+
+(3k3,f+18k2,f+7)·ρ(π(1)7)+6k2,f=0(mod24), (98)

where

ρ(π(1)7)(mod24)=1+17·(ρ1+6k2,ρkΨ+10k3,ρkΨ)+
+20kΨ·(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)3+6kΨ·(k3,ρ+1)·(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)2+
+2kΨ·(3k3,ρ+6k2,ρ+5)·(f1+6k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)(mod24), (99)

and

14·ρ3(π(3)7)+3·(7k3,f+1)·ρ2(π(3)7)+
+(3k3,f+18k2,f+7)·ρ(π(3)7)+6·(3k3,f+3k2,f+1)=0(mod24), (100)

where

ρ(π(3)7)(mod24)=3+17·(ρ1+6k2,ρkΨ+10k3,ρkΨ)+
+12kΨ·(f1+2k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)3+6kΨ·(k3,ρ+1)·(f1+2k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)2+
+6kΨ·(3k3,ρ+6k2,ρ+5)·(f1+2k2,fkΨ+2k3,fkΨ)(mod24), (101)

respectively.

Solutions of Equations (68), (70), (72), (89), (91), and (93) for variables k3,f, k2,f, and f1(mod8), which fulfill the results from Lemma 2, are given in Table 9 and Table 10. It can be observed that they can be summarized as in Table 11.

Solutions of equations (75), (77), (79), (96), (98), and (100) in variables k3,f, k2,f, f1(mod48), which fulfill the results from Lemma 2, are given in Table 12 and Table 13. It can be observed that they can be summarized as in Table 14.

From Table 11 and Table 14, it results that an interleaver pattern as in Figure 2 or Figure 3 always appears for x1=0 or x1=1 or x1=3, when k3,f{0,2} and k2,f{1,2,3,4} or when k3,f{1,3} and k2,f{2,4}. For an interleaver pattern as in Figure 2 or Figure 3, the weight of the codeword for classical nominal 1/3 rate turbo codes with two RSC codes having generator matrix G=[1,15/13], is equal to 4+4·6=28, because each of the four error patterns with weight of 2 lead to parity weight of 6. Because an interleaver pattern as in Figure 2 or Figure 3 always appears in the previous conditions, it results that the minimum distance is upper bounded by the value of 28. □

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Critical interleaver pattern of size four for 4-PP-based interleavers.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Critical interleaver pattern of size four for 4-PP-based interleavers.

Table 9.

Solutions of Equations (68), (70), (72), (89), (91), and (93) for k3,f{0,2}.

Equation kΨ k3,f k2,f f1(mod8)
(68) 1 0 1 or 5 3
0 3 or 7 7
2 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 3
3 0 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 7
2 1 or 5 7
2 3 or 7 3
(70) 1 0 1 or 5 5
0 3 or 7 1
2 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 5
3 0 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 1
2 1 or 5 1
2 3 or 7 5
(89) 1 0 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 1
2 1 or 5 1
2 3 or 7 5
3 0 1 or 5 5
0 3 or 7 1
2 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 5
(91) 1 0 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 7
2 1 or 5 7
2 3 or 7 3
3 0 1 or 5 3
0 3 or 7 7
2 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 3
(93) 1 0 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 3
2 1 or 5 3
2 3 or 7 7
3 0 1 or 5 7
0 3 or 7 3
2 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 1

Table 10.

Solutions of Equations (68), (70), (72), (89), (91), and (93) for k3,f{1,3}.

Equation kΨ k3,f k2,f f1(mod8)
(68) 1 or 3 1 7 1 or 3 or 5 or 7
3 3 3 or 7
3 7 1 or 5
(70) 1 or 3 1 3 1 or 5
1 7 3 or 7
3 7 1 or 3 or 5 or 7
(89) 1 or 3 1 7 1 or 3 or 5 or 7
3 3 1 or 5
3 7 3 or 7
(91) 1 or 3 1 3 3 or 7
1 7 1 or 5
3 7 1 or 3 or 5 or 7
(93) 1 or 3 1 3 1 or 5
1 7 3 or 7
3 3 1 or 3 or 5 or 7

Table 11.

Solutions of Equations (68), (70), (72), (89), (91), and (93) summarized from Table 9 and Table 10.

k3,f k2,f f1(mod8)
0 or 2 1 or 3 or 5 or 7 1 or 3 or 5 or 7
1 or 3 3 or 7 1 or 3 or 5 or 7

Table 12.

Solutions of Equations (75), (77), and (79).

Equation kΨ k3,f k2,f f1(mod48)
(75) {1,5, 0 1 or 3 {11,19} for kΨ{1,5}, {7,23} for kΨ{7,11}
7,11} 2 or 4 {7,23}
1 4 {3,5,9,11,15,17,21,23} for kΨ{1,7},
{1,3,7,9,13,15,19,21} for kΨ{5,11}
2 1 or 3 {3,19} for kΨ=1, {3,11} for kΨ=5,
{7,15} for kΨ=7, {15,23} for kΨ=11
2 or 4 {3,19} for kΨ{1,7}, {3,11} for kΨ{5,11}
3 2 {7,11,19,23}
4 {1,5,13,17}
(77) {1,5, 0 1 or 3 {5,13} for kΨ{1,5}, {1,17} for kΨ{7,11}
7,11} 2 or 4 {1,17}
1 2 {5,9,17,21} for kΨ{1,7},
{1,9,13,21} for kΨ{5,11},
4 {3,11,15,23} for kΨ{1,7},
{3,7,15,19} for kΨ{5,11}
2 1 or 3 {13,21} for kΨ=1, {5,21} for kΨ=5,
{1,9} for kΨ=7, {9,17} for kΨ=11
2 or 4 {13,21} for kΨ{1,7}, {5,21} for kΨ{5,11}
3 4 {1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23}
(79) {1,5, 0 1 or 3 {1,17} for kΨ{1,5}, {5,13} for kΨ{7,11}
7,11} 2 or 4 {5,13}
1 2 {3,11,15,23} for kΨ{1,7},
{3,7,15,19} for kΨ{5,11},
4 {5,9,17,21} for kΨ{1,7},
{1,9,13,21} for kΨ{5,11}
2 1 or 3 {1,9} for kΨ=1, {9,17} for kΨ=5,
{13,21} for kΨ=7, {5,21} for kΨ=11
2 or 4 {1,9} for kΨ{1,7}, {9,17} for kΨ{5,11}
3 2 {1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23}

Table 13.

Solutions of Equations (96), (98), and (100).

Equation kΨ k3,f k2,f f1(mod48)
(96) {1,5, 0 1 or 3 {1,17} for kΨ{1,5}, {5,13} for kΨ{7,11}
7,11} 2 or 4 {5,13}
1 4 {3,5,9,11,15,17,21,23} for kΨ{1,7},
{1,3,7,9,13,15,19,21} for kΨ{5,11}
2 1 or 3 {13,21} for kΨ=1, {5,21} for kΨ=5,
{1,9} for kΨ=7, {9,17} for kΨ=11
2 or 4 {13,21} for kΨ{1,7}, {5,21} for kΨ{5,11}
3 2 {7,11,19,23}
4 {1,5,13,17}
(98) {1,5, 0 1 or 3 {7,23} for kΨ{1,5}, {11,19} for kΨ{7,11}
7,11} 2 or 4 {7,23}
1 2 {3,11,15,23} for kΨ{1,7},
{3,7,15,19} for kΨ{5,11},
4 {5,9,17,21} for kΨ{1,7},
{1,9,13,21} for kΨ{5,11}
2 1 or 3 {7,15} for kΨ=1, {15,23} for kΨ=5,
{3,19} for kΨ=7, {3,11} for kΨ=11
2 or 4 {3,19} for kΨ{1,7}, {3,11} for kΨ{5,11}
3 4 {1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23}
(100) {1,5, 0 1 or 3 {11,19} for kΨ{1,5}, {7,23} for kΨ{7,11}
7,11} 2 or 4 {11,19}
1 2 {5,9,17,21} for kΨ{1,7},
{1,9,13,21} for kΨ{5,11},
4 {3,11,15,23} for kΨ{1,7},
{3,7,15,19} for kΨ{5,11}
2 1 or 3 {3,19} for kΨ=1, {3,11} for kΨ=5,
{7,15} for kΨ=7, {15,23} for kΨ=11
2 or 4 {7,15} for kΨ{1,7}, {15,23} for kΨ{5,11}
3 2 {1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23}

Table 14.

Solutions of Equations (75), (77), (79), (96), (98), and (100) summarized from Table 12 and Table 13.

k3,f k2,f f1(mod48)
0 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 {1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23}
2 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 {1,3,7,9,13,15,19,21} for kΨ{1,7},
{3,5,9,11,15,17,21,23} for kΨ{5,11}
1 2 or 4 {3,5,9,11,15,17,21,23} for kΨ{1,7},
{1,3,7,9,13,15,19,21} for kΨ{5,11}
3 2 or 4 {1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23}

Combining the results from Theorems 1 and 2, it results that the upper bound of 36 is reached only for k3,f{1,3} and k2,f{1,3}, kL{1,3}. Thus, the task for finding good 4-PPs is facilitated with this result, because coefficients f4, f3, and f2 have only four possible combinations.

We note that from the LTE interleaver lengths [13], there exist 25 lengths of the form (5); namely 48, 80, 112, 176, 208, 240, 272, 304, 336, 368, 464, 496, 528, 560, 592, 624, 656, 688, 752, 816, 848, 880, 912, 944, and 976. From these, for the lengths 40, 208, 304, 496, 592, 624, 688, 912, and 976, restriction conditions (6) on coefficients are not required, and thus, the result in the paper is fully general. Examples of 4-PP interleavers that reach the upper bound of 36 are those from [17] for the interleaver lengths 368, 464, and 496, when dual trellis termination [31] is used.

4. Remarks and Examples

4.1. Remarks

In this subsection, we make some remarks regarding the upper bounds on the minimum distance derived in [19] and those on the minimum distance derived in this paper. From Lemma 3.2 and Table 2 in [19], it results that an upper bound on minimum distance for turbo codes with any degree PP interleavers is equal to 36 in the following conditions:

  • (1)

    The PPs can be represented by a parallel linear PP (PLPP) with the minimum number of linear PPs (LPPs) from the PLPP representation equal to two or 14.

  • (2)

    The coefficients of the first degree term of LPPs from the PLPP representation are all equal to each other. We denote by Deq the minimum number of LPPs from the PLPP representation fulfilling this condition.

In the following, we prove that 4-PPs fulfilling the conditions from Theorem 1 can be represented by PLPPs with the value of Deq greater than two. For this task, it is enough to prove that these 4-PPs do not allow a PLPP representation with Deq=2 LPPs. A 4-PP allows a PLPP representation with Deq component LPPs if and only if the following condition is fulfilled

f(Deq·y+Deq+i)f(Deq·y+i)=f(Deq+i)f(i)(modL),
i{0,1,,Deq1},y{1,2,,L/Deq2}. (102)

With f(x) from (1) fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1) and with L as in (5), Equation (102) is equivalent to

Ψ·2Deq4y·(2y2+3y+2)+12Deq3iy·(y+1)+12Deq2i2y+2k3,fΨ·3Deq3y·(y+1)+6Deq2iy+
+k2,fΨ·Deq2·2y=0(mod16kLΨ),i{0,1,,Deq1},y{1,2,,16kLΨ/Deq2}, (103)

or

Deq4y·(2y2+3y+2)+6Deq3iy·(y+1)+6Deq2i2y+k3,f·3Deq2y·Deq·(y+1)+2i+k2,fDeq2·y=
=0(mod8kL),i{0,1,,Deq1},y{1,2,,8kL1}. (104)

Because kL{1,3}, we can write 3=kL·(kL1). Thus, Equation (104) is equivalent to

Deq4y·(2y2+3y+2)+2·kL·(kL1)·Deq3iy·(y+1)+2·kL·(kL1)·Deq2i2y+
+k3,f·kL·(kL1)·Deq2y·Deq·(y+1)+2i+k2,fDeq2·y=0(mod8kL),
i{0,1,,Deq1},y{1,2,,8kL1}. (105)

For Deq=2, Equation (105) is equivalent to

8y3+4·(k2,f+2)·y=0(mod8kL),y{1,2,,8kL1}, (106)

or

2y3+(k2,f+2)·y=0(mod2kL),y{1,,2kL1}. (107)

For the coefficients of 4-PPs given in Theorem 1 we have k2,f(mod2)=1 when kL=1 and k2,f(mod6)=5 when kL=3. Thus (107) is equivalent to

y=0(mod2),fory=1, (108)

when kL=1, and to

2y3+y=0(mod6),y{1,2,,5}, (109)

when kL=3.

It is clear that equalities (108) and (109) are not fulfilled for y=1. Therefore, it results that the 4-PPs given in Theorem 1 do not allow a PLPP representation with Deq=2 component LPPs.

We can have Deq=3 only when kL=3, because 3L for kL=1. For Deq=3 and kL=3, Equation (105) is equivalent to

18y3+3y2·(1+6i+2i2+3k3,f)+3y·(6+6i+3k3,f+2ik3,f+3k2,f)=0(mod24),
i{0,1,2},y{1,2,,23}, (110)

or

6y3+y2·(1+6i+2i2+3k3,f)+y·(6+6i+3k3,f+2ik3,f+3k2,f)=0(mod8),
i{0,1,2},y{1,2,,7}. (111)

Because there is no cubic null polynomial modulo 8 with the coefficient of the third term degree equal to six, it results that the 4-PPs from Theorem 1 can not be represented by a PLPP with three component LPPs.

For Deq=4, Equation (105) is equivalent to

8y3+8·(2k2,f+1)·y=0(mod8kL),y{1,2,,8kL1}, (112)

or

y3+(2k2,f+1)·y=0(modkL),y{1,,kL1}. (113)

For kL=1, Equation (113) is, obviously, fulfilled. For kL=3, because k2,f(mod3)=2, Equation (113) becomes

y3+2y=0(mod3),y{1,2}. (114)

It can be easily verified that the equality from (114) is fulfilled for y{1,2}.

To show that the 4-PPs established in Theorem 1 can be represented by a PLPP with Deq=4 LPPs, we still have to prove that all the coefficients of the first term degree of the four LPPs are equal to each other. For that, we have to show that

f(y+4)f(y)=f(4)f(0)(modL),y{1,2,3}. (115)

Equation (115) is equivalent to

f4·(4·y3·4+6·y2·42+4·y·43)+f3·(3·y2·4+3·y·42)+f2·2·y·4=0(modL),y{1,2,3}; (116)

or, with f4=Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, f2=k2,f·Ψ, and L=16kLΨ,

2y3+3k3,fy2+(k2,f+2)·y=0(mod2kL),y{1,2,3}. (117)

For the 4-PPs established in Theorem 1, we have 3k3,f(mod2kL)=kL and (k2,f+2)(mod2kL)=1, kL{1,3}. Then, for kL=1 and kL=3, Equation (117) becomes

y2+y=0(mod2),y{1,2,3} (118)

and

2y3+3y2+y=0(mod6),y{1,2,3}, (119)

respectively. It can be easily verified that the equalities from (118) and (119) are fulfilled for y{1,2,3}. Thus, the 4-PPs established in Theorem 1 always allow a PLPP representation with Deq=4 LPPs. Therefore, from Table 2 in [19] it results that the tightest upper bound derived in [19] is equal to 52. Thus, the upper bound of 36, derived in Theorem 1, is much tighter. The examples of 4-PPs given in the next subsection show that this upper bound can be reached.

4.2. Examples

Table 15 shows some CPPs and 4-PPs with optimum minimum distance for several LTE interleaver lengths of the form given in (5). We note that for all these 4-PPs we have Deq=4, and thus, the best upper bound derived in [19] is equal to 52. Minimum distances (dmin) and corresponding multiplicities (Ndmin), spread factors (D), nonlinearity degrees (ζ), and refined nonlinearity degrees (ζ) for each CPP and each 4-PP are also given in Table 15. As it can be observed, CPPs have optimum distances greater than those of 4-PPs (38 compared to 36) and the corresponding multiplicities for CPPs are equal to about a half of those for 4-PPs. These relation between the multiplicities for CPPs and 4-PPs with optimum distances is explained by means of nonlinearity degrees. In [21], it was proven that CPPs with optimum distance have the nonlinearity degree equal to ζCPP,dminopt=8. In Appendix A, it is proven that the nonlinearity degree of 4-PPs for interleaver lengths of the form (5), fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1), is equal to

ζ4-PP=4whenk3,f{1,3}8whenk3,f{0,2}, (120)

where the coefficient of the third term of 4-PP is f3=k3,f·2Ψ. Because 4-PPs with optimum distance have k3,f{1,3}, it results that their nonlinearity degree is equal to ζ4-PPdminopt=4=ζCPPdminopt/2. Thus, the result for the multiplicities is explained.

Table 15.

Minimum distances (dmin) and corresponding multiplicities (Ndmin), spread factors (D), nonlinearity degrees (ζ), and refined nonlinearity degrees (ζ) for cubic permutation polynomials (CPPs) and for fourth degree permutation polynomials (4-PPs) with optimum minimum distance.

L CPP dmin Ndmin ζ ζ D 4-PP dmin Ndmin ζ ζ D
592 222x3+148x2+39x 38 625 8 5 20 37x4+222x3+ 36 1102 4 4 30
+37x2+393x
656 82x3+164x2+185x 38 620 8 5 22 41x4+246x3+ 36 1230 4 4 32
(from [18]) +41x2+217x
688 86x3+0x2+21x 38 652 8 5 24 43x4+258x3+ 36 1294 4 4 32
+43x2+137x
752 94x3+188x2+541x 38 716 8 5 26 47x4+282x3+ 36 1422 4 4 32
(from [18]) +47x2+249x
816 34x3+0x2+19x 38 782 8 7 28 17x4+34x3+ 36 1556 4 4 30
+85x2+9x
848 318x3+212x2+157x 38 812 8 5 28 53x4+318x3+ 36 1614 4 4 32
(from [18]) +53x2+169x
912 114x3+114x2+287x 38 878 8 4 30 19x4+38x3+ 36 1748 4 4 18
(from [18]) +95x2+5x
944 354x3+0x2+179x 38 910 8 5 32 59x4+354x3+ 36 1806 4 4 38
(from [18]) +59x2+317x
976 122x3+0x2+307x 38 942 8 5 32 61x4+366x3+ 36 1870 4 4 38
(from [18]) +61x2+389x

We also note that the good QPPs reported in Table XIII from [21] have the minimum distance equal to 38 and the corresponding multiplicities are approximately equal to those for 4-PPs from Table 15 in this paper. The results for multiplicities are explained by the fact that QPPs given in [21] have the nonlinearity degree ζQPPdminopt=4=ζ4-PPdminopt.

Taking into account the above, it is expected that CPPs and QPPs for these interleaver lengths to lead to better error rate performances compared to 4-PPs.

An estimation of asymptotic improvement in terms of the error rate for CPP and QPP interleavers compared to 4-PP interleavers can be given if we compare the upper bounds on error rates for distance spectra of the turbo codes truncated at the first term. For an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel with the signal to noise ratio SNR, the frame error rate (FER) for a block code with coding rate Rc, minimum distance dmin, and the corresponding multiplicity Ndmin, is upper bounded by

FERTUBerfc(FER)<TUBexp(FER), (121)

where

TUBerfc(FER)=0.5·Ndmin·erfcRc·dmin·SNR=Ndmin·1π·Rc·dmin·SNR+et2dt (122)

and

TUBexp(FER)=0.5·Ndmin·eRc·dmin·SNR. (123)

From Table 15 it results that the multiplicity of the codewords of weight dmin is approximately equal to L for CPP interlevears and to 2L for 4-PP interleavers. From the QPPs reported in Table XIII from [21], it results that for QPPs, the best minimum distance is equal to 38 and the corresponding multiplicity is approximately equal to 2L. Thus, if we use the upper bounds with TUBexp(FER) from (123), the FER for QPP, CPP, and 4-PP interleavers, is approximately upper bounded by

FERQPP<0.5·2L·eRc·38·SNR, (124)
FERCPP<0.5·L·eRc·38·SNR, (125)

and

FER4-PP<0.5·2L·eRc·36·SNR, (126)

respectively.

From (124)–(126), it results that when considering the interleaver lengths of the form given in (5) and turbo codes of nominal 1/3 coding rate with RSC component codes with generator matrix G=[1,15/13], the asymptotic coding gain for QPPs compared to 4-PPs, is equal to

GcQPP,4-PP(TUBexp(FER))=10·log1038360.235dB (127)

and the asymptotic coding gain for CPPs compared to 4-PPs, for a given FER value, is equal to

GcCPP,4-PP(TUBexp(FER))=10·log10383610·log101+log10(2)log10(FER/L). (128)

For example, for a target FER=3·106 and for interleaver length L=656, the coding gain from (128) becomes GcCPP,4-PP(TUBexp(FER))0.395 dB. Increasing the interleaver length, GcCPP,4-PP(TUBexp(FER)) resulting from (128) decreases easily. For an increase of interleaver length with a factor of approximately 25 compared to 656, the coding gain from (128) decreases with about 0.023 dB.

In Figure 4, the FER, TUBerfc(FER), and TUBexp(FER) curves for 4-PP, CPP, and QPP of interleaver length L = 656 are shown. The 4-PP and the CPP are those from Table 15, and the QPP is 246x2+21x(mod656) given in [21]. For FER curves, the Max-Log-MAP algorithm with a scaling coefficient of the extrinsec information of 0.75 was used. We note that the considered multiplicities for TUBerfc(FER) and TUBexp(FER) curves are the estimated ones; i.e., 2L, L, and 2L, for 4-PP, CPP, and QPP, respectively. For FER=3·106, from Figure 4, it results that

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Frame error rate (FER) and truncated upper bound of FER (TUB(FER)) curves for interleaver length L = 656.

  • (1)

    The coding gains resulting from FER curves are GcCPP,4-PP(FER)=0.393 dB and GcQPP,4-PP(FER)=0.229 dB and

  • (2)

    The coding gains resulting from TUBerfc(FER) curves are GcCPP,4-PP(TUBerfc(FER))=0.409 dB and GcQPP,4-PP(TUBerfc(FER))=0.235 dB.

We observe that these coding gains are very close to those previously estimated by the TUBexp(FER) upper bounds.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we obtained the upper bounds of the minimum distance for turbo codes when using 4-PP interleavers. The component RSC codes were those from the LTE standard and 1/3 nominal coding rate. The interleaver lengths in question were of the form (5), and condition (6) was applied for 4-PP coefficients when for a prime pi, 3(pi1). The two obtained upper bounds have the values of 28 and 36 for different classes of 4-PP coefficients. The result obtained in this paper has theoretical importance. The highest upper bound for 4-PPs (i.e., 36) is smaller than that for CPPs or QPPs (i.e., 38), while the corresponding multiplicities are about twice as high as those for CPPs and approximately equal to those for QPPs. Thus, it is expected that CPPs and QPPs for the interleaver lengths in question are better compared to 4-PPs.

Appendix A

In [32], an efficient algorithm for the computing nonlinearity degree of a 4-PP was given. We remember that for interleaver lengths of the form (5), the coefficients of 4-PPs fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1), are equivalent to the following ones: f4=Ψ, f3=k3,f·2Ψ, with k3,f{0,1,2,3}, f2=(2kLk2,f1)·Ψ, with k2,f{1,2,3,4} and kL{1,3}. Then, we have

gcd(4f4,L)=4Ψ, (A1)
gcd(6,L)=2kL, (A2)
gcd(2,L)=2. (A3)
k0,f4=4f4gcd(4f4,L1·L/gcd(6,L)·τ3gcd(4f4,L)modLgcd(4f4,L)=
=4Ψ4Ψ1·8Ψ·τ34Ψmod16kLΨ4Ψ=2τ3(mod4kL)=2τ3. (A4)

For

k0=k0,f4+L/gcd(4f4,L)·i=2τ3+4kL·i, (A5)

we have

3f3k06f4k02(modL)=3k3,f·2Ψ·(2τ3+4kL·i)6Ψ·(2τ3+4kL·i)2(mod16kLΨ)=
=12Ψ·(τ3+2kL·i)·(k3,f2τ34kL·i)(mod16kLΨ), (A6)
L/gcd(2,L)·τ2(modL)=8kLΨ·τ2(mod16kLΨ), (A7)
2f2k03f3k02+4f4k03(modL)=2·(2kLk2,f1)·Ψ·(2τ3+4kL·i)3k3,f·2Ψ·(2τ3+4kL·i)2+
+4Ψ·(2τ3+4kL·i)3(mod16kLΨ)=4Ψ·(τ3+2kL·i)·
·2kLk2,f13k3,f·(2τ3+4kL·i)+(2τ3+4kL·i)2(mod16kLΨ) (A8)
(L/gcd(6,L)·τ3L/gcd(2,L)·τ2)(modL)=
=8Ψ·(τ3+kL·τ2)(mod16kLΨ). (A9)

Then condition 3f3k06f4k02(modL)=L/gcd(2,L)·τ2(modL) is equivalent to

12Ψ·(τ3+2kL·i)·(k3,f2τ34kL·i)(mod16kLΨ)=8kLΨ·τ2(mod16kLΨ)

or

3·(τ3+2kL·i)·(k3,f2τ34kL·i)(mod4kL)=2kL·τ2(mod4kL)

or

3·(τ3+2kL·i)·(k3,f2τ3)(mod4kL)=2kL·τ2(mod4kL); (A10)

and condition 2f2k03f3k02+4f4k03(modL)=(L/gcd(6,L)·τ3L/gcd(2,L)·τ2)(modL) is equivalent to

4Ψ·(τ3+2kL·i)·2kLk2,f13k3,f·(2τ3+4kL·i)+(2τ3+4kL·i)2(mod16kLΨ)=
=8Ψ·(τ3+kL·τ2)(mod16kLΨ)

or

(τ3+2kL·i)·2kLk2,f13k3,f·(2τ3+4kL·i)+(2τ3+4kL·i)2(mod4kL)=
=2·(τ3+kL·τ2)(mod4kL)

or

(τ3+2kL·i)·2kLk2,f16k3,f·τ3+8τ32(mod4kL)=2·(τ3+kL·τ2)(mod4kL). (A11)

Because L/gcd(6,L)·τ3=8Ψ·τ3, we have gcd(4f4,L)L/gcd(6,L)·τ3, τ3{0,1,,2kL1}. Then, with Equations (A1)–(A11), Algorithm 2 from [32] becomes Algorithm A1 in this paper. Run Algorithm A1 for every k3,f{0,1,2,3}, k2,f{1,2,3,4}, and kL{1,3}, (120) result.

Algorithm 1: Algorithm for computing the nonlinearity degree ζ for a 4-PP for interleaver lengths of the form (5) and the coefficients of 4-PP fulfilling conditions (6) when 3(pi1).
input: Values kL for the interleaver length, and k3,f, k2,f for the 4-PP.
output: Nonlinearity degree ζ for the 4-PP.
Inline graphic
ζ16kL/Nk0;

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.T.; data curation, L.T.; investigation, J.R.; methodology, L.T. and D.T.; project administration, L.T.; software, A.-M.R.; validation, J.R.; writing—original draft, L.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a National Research Grant—ARUT of the TUIASI, project number GnaC2018_39.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Shao S., Hailes P., Wang Y.-Y., Wu J.-Y., Maunder R.G., Al-Hashimi B.M., Hanzo L. Survey of turbo, LDPC, and polar decoder ASIC implementations. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2019;21:2309–2333. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2019.2893851. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Arora K., Singh J., Randhawa Y.S. A survey on channel coding techniques for 5G wireless networks. Telecommun. Syst. 2019 doi: 10.1007/s11235-019-00630-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Berrou C., Glavieux A., Thitimajshima P. Near Shannon limit error-correcting coding and decoding: Turbo-codes; Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 1993); Geneva, Switzerland. 23–26 May 1993; pp. 1064–1070. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.MacKay D.J.C., Neal R.M. Near Shannon limit performance of low density parity check codes. Electron. Lett. 1996;32:457–458. doi: 10.1049/el:19961141. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Arikan E. Channel polarization: A method for constructing capacity-achieving codes for symmetric binary-input memoryless channels. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory. 2009;55:3051–3073. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2009.2021379. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rosnes E., i Amat A.G. Performance analysis of 3-D turbo codes. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory. 2011;57:3707–3720. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2011.2133610. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Banerjee S., Chattopadhyay S. Evaluation of system performance by adding a fourth dimension to turbo code. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2018;31:e3450. doi: 10.1002/dac.3450. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Banerjee S., Chattopadhyay S. Performance analysis of four dimensional turbo code (4D-TC) using moment based simplified augmented state diagram (MSASD) approach: Extension to LTE system. Wirel. Person. Commun. 2019;108:2077–2102. doi: 10.1007/s11277-019-06510-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Banerjee S., Chattopadhyay S. Superposition modulation-based new structure of four-dimensional turbo code (4D-TC) using modified interleaver and its application in WiMAX & LTE systems. Person. Ubiquitous Comput. 2019;23:943–959. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sun J., Takeshita O.Y. Interleavers for turbo codes using permutation polynomials over integer rings. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory. 2005;51:101–119. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Crozier S., Guinand P. High-performance low-memory interleaver banks for turbo-codes; Proceedings of the IEEE 54th Vehicular Technology Conference, VTC Fall 2001; Atlantic City, NJ, USA. 7–11 October 2001; pp. 2394–2398. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Berrou C., Saoter Y., Douillard C., Kerouedan S., Jezequel M. Designing good permutations for turbo codes: Towards a single model; Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Communications; Paris, France. 20–24 June 2004; pp. 341–345. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.3GPP TS 36.212 V8.3.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Multiplexing and channel coding (Release 8) [(accessed on 23 July 2009)];2008 Available online: http://www.etsi.org.
  • 14.Takeshita O.Y. Permutation polynomial interleavers: An algebraic-geometric perspective. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory. 2007;53:2116–2132. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2007.896870. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rosnes E. On the minimum distance of turbo codes with quadratic permutation polynomial interleavers. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory. 2012;58:4781–4795. doi: 10.1109/TIT.2012.2192095. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ryu J. Permutation polynomials of higher degrees for turbo code interleavers. IEICE Trans. Commun. 2012;E95-B:3760–3762. doi: 10.1587/transcom.E95.B.3760. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Trifina L., Ryu J., Tarniceriu D. Up to five degree permutation polynomial interleavers for short length LTE turbo codes with optimum minimum distance; Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Symposium on Signals, Circuits and Systems (ISSCS); Iasi, Romania. 13–14 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Trifina L., Tarniceriu D. On the equivalence of cubic permutation polynomial and ARP interleavers for turbo codes. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2017;65:473–485. doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2016.2628744. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ryu J., Trifina L., Balta H. The limitation of permutation polynomial interleavers for turbo codes and a scheme for dithering permutation polynomials. AEU Int. J. Electron. Commun. 2015;69:1550–1556. doi: 10.1016/j.aeue.2015.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Trifina L., Tarniceriu D., Ryu J., Rotopanescu A.-M. Some Lengths for Which CPP Interleavers Have Weaker Minimum Distances Than QPP Interleavers. [(accessed on 7 December 2019)]; Available online: http://telecom.etti.tuiasi.ro/tti/papers/PDFs/Some%20lengths%20for%20which%20CPPs%20have%20weaker%20minimum%20distances%20than%20QPPs.pdf.
  • 21.Trifina L., Tarniceriu D., Ryu J., Rotopanescu A.-M. Upper Bounds on the Minimum Distance for Turbo Codes Using CPP Interleavers. [(accessed on 7 December 2019)]; Available online: http://telecom.etti.tuiasi.ro/tti/papers/PDFs/UB%20of%20dmin%20for%20CPPs%20of%20L_16p_48p.pdf.
  • 22.Trifina L., Tarniceriu D. A coefficient test for fourth degree permutation polynomials over integer rings. AEU Int. J. Electron. Commun. 2016;70:1565–1568. doi: 10.1016/j.aeue.2016.09.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Trifina L., Tarniceriu D., Rotopanescu A.-M., Ursu E. The inverse of a fourth degree permutation polynomial; Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of Mathematical Society of Moldova; Chisinau, Moldova. 28 September–1 October 2019; pp. 255–260. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Garello R., Pierleoni P., Benedetto S. Computing the free distance of turbo codes and serially concatenated codes with interleavers: Algorithms and applications. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2001;19:800–812. doi: 10.1109/49.924864. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rosnes E., Ytrehus Y. Improved algorithms for the determination of turbo-code weight distributions. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2005;53:20–26. doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2004.840632. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Crozier S., Guinand P., Hunt A. Computing the minimum distance of turbo-codes using iterative decoding techniques; Proceedings of the 22th Biennial Symposium on Communications; Kingston, ON, Canada. 31 May–3 June 2004; pp. 306–308. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ould-Cheikh-Mouhamedou Y., Crozier S., Guinand P., Kabal P. Comparison of distance measurement methods for turbo codes; Proceedings of the 9th Canadian Workshop on Information Theory (CWIT-05); Montreal, QC, Canada. 5–8 June 2005; pp. 36–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Crozier S., Guinand P., Hunt A. Estimating the minimum distance of large-block turbo codes using iterative multiple-impulse methods; Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Related Topics; Munich, Germany. 3–7 April 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ould-Cheikh-Mouhamedou Y. Reducing the complexity of distance measurement methods for circular turbo codes that use structured interleavers. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2015;28:1572–1579. doi: 10.1002/dac.2735. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hardy G.H., Wright E.M. An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK: 1975. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Guinand P., Lodge J. Trellis termination for turbo encoders; Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Symposium on Communications; Kingston, ON, Canada. 29 May–1 June 1994; pp. 389–392. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Trifina L., Tarniceriu D., Rotopanescu A.-M. Nonlinearity degree for CPP, 4-PP, and 5-PP interleavers for turbo codes; Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI); Pitesti, Romania. 27–29 June 2019. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Entropy are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES