Paper detail

Two Theorems in List Decoding

We prove the following results concerning the list decoding of error-correcting codes: (i) We show that for \textit{any} code with a relative distance of $δ$ (over a large enough alphabet), the following result holds for \textit{random errors}: With high probability, for a $ρ\le δ-\eps$ fraction of random errors (for any $\eps>0$), the received word will have only the transmitted codeword in a Hamming ball of radius $ρ$ around it. Thus, for random errors, one can correct twice the number of errors uniquely correctable from worst-case errors for any code. A variant of our result also gives a simple algorithm to decode Reed-Solomon codes from random errors that, to the best of our knowledge, runs faster than known algorithms for certain ranges of parameters. (ii) We show that concatenated codes can achieve the list decoding capacity for erasures. A similar result for worst-case errors was proven by Guruswami and Rudra (SODA 08), although their result does not directly imply our result. Our results show that a subset of the random ensemble of codes considered by Guruswami and Rudra also achieve the list decoding capacity for erasures. Our proofs employ simple counting and probabilistic arguments.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.