Synchronization Strings: List Decoding for Insertions and Deletions
February 23, 2018 Β· Declared Dead Β· π International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Bernhard Haeupler, Amirbehshad Shahrasbi, Madhu Sudan
arXiv ID
1802.08663
Category
cs.IT: Information Theory
Cross-listed
cs.DS
Citations
46
Venue
International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming
Last Checked
6 months ago
Abstract
We study codes that are list-decodable under insertions and deletions. Specifically, we consider the setting where a codeword over some finite alphabet of size $q$ may suffer from $Ξ΄$ fraction of adversarial deletions and $Ξ³$ fraction of adversarial insertions. A code is said to be $L$-list-decodable if there is an (efficient) algorithm that, given a received word, reports a list of $L$ codewords that include the original codeword. Using the concept of synchronization strings, introduced by the first two authors [STOC 2017], we show some surprising results. We show that for every $0\leqΞ΄<1$, every $0\leqΞ³<\infty$ and every $Ξ΅>0$ there exist efficient codes of rate $1-Ξ΄-Ξ΅$ and constant alphabet (so $q=O_{Ξ΄,Ξ³,Ξ΅}(1)$) and sub-logarithmic list sizes. We stress that the fraction of insertions can be arbitrarily large and the rate is independent of this parameter. Our result sheds light on the remarkable asymmetry between the impact of insertions and deletions from the point of view of error-correction: Whereas deletions cost in the rate of the code, insertion costs are borne by the adversary and not the code! We also prove several tight bounds on the parameters of list-decodable insdel codes. In particular, we show that the alphabet size of insdel codes needs to be exponentially large in $Ξ΅^{-1}$, where $Ξ΅$ is the gap to capacity above. Our result even applies to settings where the unique-decoding capacity equals the list-decoding capacity and when it does so, it shows that the alphabet size needs to be exponentially large in the gap to capacity. This is sharp contrast to the Hamming error model where alphabet size polynomial in $Ξ΅^{-1}$ suffices for unique decoding and also shows that the exponential dependence on the alphabet size in previous works that constructed insdel codes is actually necessary!
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Information Theory
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
A Vision of 6G Wireless Systems: Applications, Trends, Technologies, and Open Research Problems
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Towards Smart and Reconfigurable Environment: Intelligent Reflecting Surface Aided Wireless Network
π
π
The Cartographer
Wireless Communications with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Opportunities and Challenges
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces for Energy Efficiency in Wireless Communication
π
π
The Cartographer
An Overview of Signal Processing Techniques for Millimeter Wave MIMO Systems
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted