Partial-response maximum-likelihood: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:37, 19 January 2020

Revision as of 13:19, 11 March 2020

Line 7:

== Theoretical development ==

[[File:Class 4 Partial-Response Eye Diagram.jpg|thumb|Continuous-time Partial-Response (class 4) and corresponding 'eye pattern']]

'''Partial-response''' was first proposed by Adam Lender in 1963.<ref>A. Lender, "[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6373379 The duobinary technique for high-speed data transmission]", Trans. AIEE, Part I: Communication and Electronics, Vol. 82 , No. 2 , pp. 214-218, May 1963</ref> The method was generalized by Kretzmer in 1966. Kretzmer also classified the several different possible responses,<ref>E. Kretzmer, "[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1089288 Generalization of a TechinqueTechnique for Binary Data Communication]", IEEE Trans. Comm., Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 67-68 Feb. 1966</ref> for example, PR1 is duobinary and PR4 is the response used in the classical PRML. In 1970, Kobayashi and Tang recognized the value of PR4 for the [[magnetic recording]] channel.<ref>H. Kobayashi and D. Tang, "[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5391640 Application of Partial-response Channel Coding to Magnetic Recording Systems]", IBM J. Res. Dev., Vol, 14, No. 4, pp. 368-375, July 1970</ref>

'''[[Maximum-likelihood]]''' decoding using the eponymous [[Viterbi algorithm]] was proposed in 1967 by [[Andrew Viterbi]] as a means of decoding [[convolutional codes]].<ref>A. Viterbi, "[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1054010 Error bounds for convolutional codes and an asymptotically optimum decoding algorithm]", IEEE Trans. Info. Theory, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 260-269, Apr. 1967</ref>