Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 42 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 53 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 17 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 13 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 101 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 217 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 474 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

AG codes have no list-decoding friends: Approaching the generalized Singleton bound requires exponential alphabets (2308.13424v2)

Published 25 Aug 2023 in cs.IT, cs.DM, math.CO, and math.IT

Abstract: A simple, recently observed generalization of the classical Singleton bound to list-decoding asserts that rate $R$ codes are not list-decodable using list-size $L$ beyond an error fraction $\frac{L}{L+1} (1-R)$ (the Singleton bound being the case of $L=1$, i.e., unique decoding). We prove that in order to approach this bound for any fixed $L >1$, one needs exponential alphabets. Specifically, for every $L>1$ and $R\in(0,1)$, if a rate $R$ code can be list-of-$L$ decoded up to error fraction $\frac{L}{L+1} (1-R -\varepsilon)$, then its alphabet must have size at least $\exp(\Omega_{L,R}(1/\varepsilon))$. This is in sharp contrast to the situation for unique decoding where certain families of rate $R$ algebraic-geometry (AG) codes over an alphabet of size $O(1/\varepsilon2)$ are unique-decodable up to error fraction $(1-R-\varepsilon)/2$. Our bounds hold even for subconstant $\varepsilon\ge 1/n$, implying that any code exactly achieving the $L$-th generalized Singleton bound requires alphabet size $2{\Omega_{L,R}(n)}$. Previously this was only known only for $L=2$ under the additional assumptions that the code is both linear and MDS. Our lower bound is tight up to constant factors in the exponent -- with high probability random codes (or, as shown recently, even random linear codes) over $\exp(O_L(1/\varepsilon))$-sized alphabets, can be list-of-$L$ decoded up to error fraction $\frac{L}{L+1} (1-R -\varepsilon)$.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (14)
  1. Randomly punctured Reed–Solomon codes achieve list-decoding capacity over linear-sized fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09445, 2023.
  2. The probabilistic method. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
  3. Improved field size bounds for higher order MDS codes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11262, 2022.
  4. Lower bounds for maximally recoverable tensor codes and higher order MDS codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 68(11):7125–7140, 2022.
  5. Generic Reed-Solomon codes achieve list-decoding capacity. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 1488–1501, 2023.
  6. Combinatorial limitations of average-radius list-decoding. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(10):5827–5842, 2014.
  7. A tower of Artin-Schreier extensions of function fields attaining the Drinfeld-Vlădut bound. Inventiones mathematicae, 121(1):211–222, 1995.
  8. Singleton-type bounds for list-decoding and list-recovery, and related results. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 2565–2570. IEEE, 2022.
  9. Randomly punctured Reed-Solomon codes achieve the list decoding capacity over polynomial-size alphabets. In FOCS 2023, to appear, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01403, 2023.
  10. Morris Plotkin. Binary codes with specified minimum distance. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 6(4):445–450, 1960.
  11. Ron M Roth. Higher-order MDS codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 68(12):7798–7816, 2022.
  12. Richard Singleton. Maximum distance q𝑞qitalic_q-nary codes. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 10(2):116–118, April 1964.
  13. Combinatorial list-decoding of Reed-Solomon codes beyond the Johnson radius. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2020, pages 538–551, 2020.
  14. Modular curves, Shimura curves, and Goppa codes, better than Varshamov-Gilbert bound. Mathematische Nachrichten, 109(1):21–28, 1982.
Citations (10)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com