1 / 24

Sublinear-Time Error-Correction and Error-Detection

Sublinear-Time Error-Correction and Error-Detection. Luca Trevisan U.C. Berkeley luca@eecs.berkeley.edu. Contents. Survey of results on error-correcting codes with sub-linear time checking and decoding procedures Most of the results not proved by the speaker

jesse
Download Presentation

Sublinear-Time Error-Correction and Error-Detection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Sublinear-Time Error-Correction and Error-Detection Luca Trevisan U.C. Berkeley luca@eecs.berkeley.edu

  2. Contents • Survey of results on error-correcting codes with sub-linear time checking and decoding procedures • Most of the results not proved by the speaker • Some of the results not yet proved by anybody

  3. Error-correction

  4. Error-detection

  5. Minimum Distance

  6. Ideally • Constant information rate • Linear minimum distance • Very efficient decoding Sipser-Spielman: linear time deterministic procedure

  7. Sub-linear time decoding? • Must be probabilistic • Must have some probability of incorrect decoding • Even so, is it possible?

  8. Reasons to be interested • Sub-linear time decoding useful for worst-case to average-case reductions, and in information-theoretic Private Information Retrieval • Sub-linear time checking arises in PCP • Useful in practice?

  9. Hadamard Code

  10. “Constant time” decoding

  11. Analysis

  12. A Lower Bound • If: the code is linear, the alphabet is small, and the decoding procedure uses two queries • Then exponential encoding length is necessary Goldreich-Trevisan, Samorodnitsky

  13. More trade-offs • For k queries and binary alphabet: • More complicated formulas for bigger alphabet

  14. Construction without polynomials

  15. Negative result 1 • Suppose C:{0,1}^n -> {0,1}^m is code with decoding procedure that reads only k bits of corrupted encoding • Pick random x, compute C(x), project C(x) on m^{(k-1)/k}coordinates, prove that it still contains W(n) bits of info. about x. • Then it must be m=W(n^{k/(k-1)}) Katz-Trevisan

  16. Negative Result 2 • Suppose C:{0,1}^n -> {0,1}^m is linear code with decoding procedure that reads only 2 bits of corrupted encoding • Then there are vectors a1…am in {0,1}^n such that for each i=1,…,n there are W(m)disjoint pairs j1,j2 such that aj1 xor aj2 = ei • Then it must be m=exp(W(n)) Goldreich-Trevisan, Samorodnitksy

  17. Checking polynomial codes • Consider encoding with multivariate low-degree polynomials • Given p, pick random z, do the decoding for p(z), compare with actual value of p(z) • “Simple” case of low-degree test. Rejection prob. proportional to distance from code. Rubinfeld-Sudan

  18. Bivariate Low Degree Test • A degree-d bivariate polynomial p:F x F -> F is represented as 2|F| elements of F^d (the univariate polynomial qa (y) = p(a,y) for each a and the polynomial rb(x) = p(x,b) for each b • Test: pick random a and b, read qa and rb, check that qa(b)=rb(a)

  19. Analysis • If |F| is a constant factor bigger than d, then rejection probability is proportional to distance from code Arora-Safra, ALMSS, Polishuck-Spielman

  20. Efficiency of Decoding vs Checking

  21. Tensor Product Codes • Suppose we have a linear code C with codewords in {0,1}^m. • Define new code C’ with codewords in {0,1}^(mxm); • a “matrix” is a codeword of C’ if each row and each column is codeword for C • If C has lots of codeword and large minimum distance, same true for C’

  22. Generalization of the Bivariate Low Degree Test • Suppose C has K codewords • Define code C’’ over alphabet [K], with codewords of length 2m • C’’ has as many codewords as C’ • For each codeword yof C’, corresponding codeword in C’’ contains value of each row and each column of y • Test: pick a random “row” and a random “column”, check intersection agrees • Analysis?

  23. Negative Results? • No known lower bound for locally checkable codes • Possible to get encoding length n^(1+o(1)) and checking with O(1) queries and {0,1} alphabet? • Possible to get encoding length O(n) with O(1) queries and small alphabet?

  24. Applications? • Better locally decodable codes have applications to PIR • General/simple analysis of checkable proofs could have application to PCP (linear-length PCP, simple proof of the PCP theorem) • Applications to the practice of fault-tolerant data storage/transmission?

More Related