I have attached the sfrsd2.c that I used to produce the results reported below. Steve k9an
sfrsd2.c
Description: Binary data
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Steven Franke <s.j.fra...@icloud.com> wrote: > > Joe, > Reporting on results of this evening’s tests on -24db gaussian noise > no-fading (gnnf) data. As always in these tests, the number of test files is > 1000. > > I started with sfrsd2 from the current r5970 and opened up the acceptance > criterion to nhard+nsoft<81. The purpose of doing this is to find out how > many potentially good decodes are in the set of candidates that are presented > to the decoder. > > I ran this sfrsd2 in rsdtest using matched sf metrics and sf gnnf erasure > probabilities. I used your s3_1000.bin file. > > ntrials ngood > 0 5 > 1 26 > 10 206 > 100 511 > 1000 736 > 10000 854 + 3bad > > I’d call this very good performance. > > Next, I dropped the sfrsd2.c that was used with rsdtest back into the current > wsjt-x, which I set up to use 10000 trials. I zero’d the ntest threshold. > Using the sf metrics and using my batch of -24db files, I get only 735 > decodes - about the same as I was getting with ntrials=1000 in rsdtest. > > So this seems to support my notion that something may not be completely right > with the syncing or final peakup of dt and f0, or some other thing upstream > from demod64a in this latest version. Maybe the next step should be for me to > drop the same sfrsd2.c into whatever version you used to generate the > s3_1000.bin file. Do you remember what version that was? > > Steve k9an > >> On Oct 15, 2015, at 6:32 PM, Steven Franke <s.j.fra...@icloud.com> wrote: >> >> Joe, >> >>> I conclude that for these files the candidate selection is OK >>> (preferably with a somewhat higher threshold for ntest), but sfrsd is >>> not decoding as many as it "should". I suspect that for marginal >>> signals either different metrics or different values in the probability >>> matrix will yield better results. >> >> Hmm. >> >> I was totally focused on hf performance and the differences between the >> number of BM only decodes between the old and new sync schemes. I see now >> that I have broken something for the -24dB gaussian-noise no-fading case… >> I’ll investigate. >> >> Steve k9an >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > 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
