Thanks Joe. Interesting. It could be, I suppose, that with large ntrials the mr2syms are helping us find more decodes, but they are rejected by the soft distance check.
In any case, I agree that we should just stick with the current erasures-only scheme. but let's keep sfrsd3 on the side and see what it does when we get to testing real signals. Steve k9an > On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:27 AM, Joe Taylor <j...@princeton.edu> wrote: > > Hi Steve > > I played with your mr2 insertion code a bit. I agree that the > second-best symbols don't seem to help us much. > > I posted two new plots of decodes vs. ntrials here: > > http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/decodes_vs_ntrials.pdf > http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/decodes_vs_ntrials3.pdf > > The first one is like before, but extended out to ntrials=1,000,000. > Interestingly, only 10 more good decodes (plus 5 bad ones) were found at > trial numbers above 156,000. However, 44 good decodes (and no bad ones_ > were found between 10,000 and 100,000. > > The second plot compares results with erasures only (solid line) and > with erasures and mr2 substitutions (dotted line). As you had noticed, > with substitutions we get to a stated number of decodes in a smaller > number of trials, up to around ntrials=1000. Above ntrials=10,000 there > seems to be no gain. Moreover, the substitutions code is 1.6 times > slower. > > It seems we're better off using erasures only, with the soft information > used to compute a soft distance for each potential codeword. > > -- Joe > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
