affine invariant lccs and ltcs
play

Affine Invariant LCCs and LTCs Sivakanth Gopi Joint work with Arnab - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Affine Invariant LCCs and LTCs Sivakanth Gopi Joint work with Arnab Bhattacharya (Indian Institute of Science) Error Correcting Code : finite alphabet, : set of coordinates of size $ : set of all functions from


  1. Affine Invariant LCCs and LTCs Sivakanth Gopi Joint work with Arnab Bhattacharya (Indian Institute of Science)

  2. Error Correcting Code • Σ : finite alphabet, Χ : set of coordinates of size 𝑂 • Σ $ : set of all functions from Χ → Σ • Hamming distance, Δ 𝑔, 𝑕 = Pr -∈$ 𝑔 𝑦 ≠ 𝑕 𝑦 • 𝐷 ⊂ Σ $ : Error correcting code with minimum distance 𝜀 if Δ 𝑔, 𝑕 ≥ 𝜀 for all 𝑔, 𝑕 ∈ 𝐷 6:Χ → Σ Corrupted word 𝑔 Codeword 𝑔: Χ → Σ Corruptions 6 < 𝜀 Corrector A Δ 𝑔, 𝑔 2 What if I am interested in correcting only 6? one coordinate of 𝑔

  3. Locally Correctable Code (LCC) • Can correct any coordinate of a corrupted codeword by querying only 𝑠 locations 6:Χ → Σ Corrupted word 𝑔 Codeword 𝑔: Χ → Σ Corruptions 6 ≤ 𝜀 Δ 𝑔, 𝑔 𝑠 queries 𝑦 ∈ Χ 𝑔 𝑦 Local Corrector A w.h.p 6,𝐷 ≤ 𝜀, locally? How do we know if Δ 𝑔

  4. Locally Testable Code (LTC) • Can test closeness to the code by querying only 𝑠 locations 6:Χ → Σ 𝑔 𝑠 queries Accepts w.p > = 6 ∈ 𝐷 > if 𝑔 Local Tester A Rejects w.p > = 6,𝐷 > 𝜀/4 > if Δ 𝑔

  5. What’s known? • In this talk, constant query: 𝑠 = 𝑃(1) , constant alphabet: Σ = O(1) , • Let Χ = N, the length of messages we can encode is log|𝐷| Bounds on log|𝐷| Lower Bound Upper Bound log 𝑂 𝑃 log𝑂 2-query LCC [Hadamard Code] [KdW04] (log𝑂) MNO 𝑂 ONO/ M/P 𝑠 -query LCC ( 𝑠 ≥ 3 ) [Reed Muller Codes] [KT00,KdW04,Woo07] 𝑠 -query LTC ( 𝑠 ≥ 2 ) 𝑂/𝑞𝑝𝑚𝑧𝑚𝑝𝑕(𝑂) 𝑃(𝑂) [BS05,Din07] [Trivial]

  6. Local codes from invariance • LCCs and LTCs need to satisfy many local constraints ∀𝑔 ∈ 𝐷 , Γ 𝑔 𝑦 O ,⋯ , 𝑔 𝑦 M = 1 • Let 𝐻 be a group acting on Χ and so 𝐻 also acts on functions 𝑔: Χ → Σ as 𝛿 𝑔 (𝑦) = 𝑔 ∘ 𝛿(𝑦) • Let code 𝐷 ⊂ Σ $ be invariant under this action i.e. ∀𝑔 ∈ 𝐷, 𝛿 ∈ 𝐻: 𝑔 ∘ 𝛿 ∈ 𝐷 • Local constraint on 𝑦 O , ⋯ , 𝑦 M ⇒ Local constraint on 𝛿 𝑦 O , ⋯, 𝛿 𝑦 M for all 𝛿 ∈ 𝐻 ∀𝑔 ∈ 𝐷, 𝛿 ∈ 𝐻 Γ 𝑔 𝛿(𝑦 O ) , ⋯, 𝑔 𝛿(𝑦 M ) = 1

  7. Affine invariant codes • Kaufman and Sudan in ‘07 • 𝔾: any finite field. Let Χ = 𝔾 ] and let 𝐻 = Aff(n, 𝔾) be the group of invertible affine maps from 𝔾 ] → 𝔾 ] • A code 𝐷 ⊂ Σ 𝔾 a which is invariant under the action of Aff(𝑜, 𝔾) is called affine invariant i.e. ∀𝑔 ∈ 𝐷, ∀ℓ ∈ Aff(𝑜, 𝔾), 𝑔 ∘ ℓ ∈ 𝐷 • Example • Reed-Muller code of degree 𝑒 : set of polynomial functions of degree ≤ 𝑒 from 𝔾 ] → 𝔾 • If 𝑔 𝑦 is a degree ≤ 𝑒 polynomial and ℓ 𝑦 = 𝐵𝑦 + 𝑐 , then 𝑔 ℓ 𝑦 is also a degree ≤ 𝑒 polynomial • Irreducible polynomials, products of two degree 𝑒 polynomials... Can we construct good LCCs or LTCs using affine invariance?

  8. Main Results Locally Correctable Codes If 𝐷 ⊂ Σ 𝔾 a is an 𝑠 -query affine invariant LCC then log 𝐷 ≤ 𝑃 M, 𝔾 , i (𝑜 MNO ) (Note that 𝑜 = log |𝔾| 𝑂 , where 𝑂 is length of the code) • Achieved by Reed-Muller codes of degree 𝑠 − 1 Locally Testable Codes If 𝐷 ⊂ Σ 𝔾 a is an 𝑠 -query affine invariant LTC then log 𝐷 ≤ 𝑃 M, 𝔾 , i (𝑜 MNP ) • Achieved by Lifted Codes of [GKS’13] • [Ben-Sasson, Sudan ‘11] proved the same bounds when Σ is a subfield of 𝔾 and 𝐷 is a linear code over Σ

  9. Higher Order Fourier Analysis

  10. Gowers uniformity norms ] → ℂ as • Define multiplicative derivative of 𝑔: 𝔾 j Δ v 𝑔 𝑦 = 𝑔 𝑦 + ℎ 𝑔 𝑦 ] → ℂ • Gowers uniformity norm of order 𝑒 + 1 of 𝑔: 𝔾 j O/P w | 𝑔 | p qrs = 𝔽 -,v s ,⋯,v qrs ∈𝔾 a Δ v s ⋯ Δ v qrs 𝑔 𝑦 ] → 𝔾 j is • If 𝑔 𝑦 = 𝜕 m - where 𝜕 : 𝑞 no root of unity and 𝑕: 𝔾 j a degree 𝑒 polynomial then O/P w | 𝑔 | p qrs = 𝔽 -,v s ,⋯,v qrs ∈𝔾 a 𝜕 y zs ⋯y zqrs m - = 1 • Inverse Gowers theorem [Tao, Ziegler ’11]: (𝑞 > 𝑒) If | 𝑔 | p qrs = Ω 1 then 𝑔 is correlated with the phase of a degree 𝑒 polynomial • For 𝑞 ≤ 𝑒 , we get non-classical polynomials

  11. Von Neumann inequality • If | 𝑔 | p { ≪ 1 , then cannot find 𝑔 at ℓ 𝑦 } from the values of 𝑕 at ℓ 𝑦 O ,⋯ ℓ 𝑦 M for a random ℓ ∈ ~ Aff(𝔾 j , 𝑜) ≤ 2 M | 𝑔 | p { 𝔽 ℓ 𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 } Γ 𝑕 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 O , ⋯ , 𝑕 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 M • Proof: expand Γ in Fourier basis, make linear change of ƒ doesn’t 𝑕 ‚ variables to get expressions like depend on 𝑨 ‚ ƒ −𝑨 O + ∑𝑨 ‚ ⋯𝑕 M ƒ −𝑨 M + ∑𝑨 ‚ 𝔽 • s ,⋯,• { 𝑔 ∑𝑨 ‚ 𝑕 O • and repeatedly apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality ƒ −𝑨 O + ∑𝑨 ‚ ⋯𝑕 M ƒ −𝑨 M + ∑𝑨 ‚ 𝔽 • s ,⋯,• { 𝑔 ∑𝑨 ‚ 𝑕 ≤ | 𝑔 | p { O

  12. Proof sketch for LCCs

  13. Some simplifications • Assume Σ = −1,1 , 𝔾 = 𝔾 j for some prime 𝑞 > 𝑠 • Assume perfect recovery for codewords Codeword word 𝑔: Χ → Σ 𝑦 O 𝑦 P 𝑦 M Local Corrector A 𝑦 ∈ Χ Γ - s ,⋯,- { 𝑔 𝑦 O ,𝑔 𝑦 P ,⋯ , 𝑔 𝑦 M = 𝑔(𝑦) 𝑦 O ,𝑦 P ,⋯, 𝑦 M ∼ ℳ -

  14. Proof Sketch • Step 1 : Show that any two distinct codewords 𝑔, 𝑕 ∈ 𝐷 must be 2 𝜗 -far in 𝑉 M -norm i.e. |𝑔 − 𝑕| p { > 2𝜗 (von Neumann inequality) • Step 2 : Construct a small 𝜗 -net 𝒪 for the set of all functions in 𝑉 M -norm (Inverse Gowers theorem) • 𝒪 = {red points}, 𝐷 = {green points}, two green dots cannot fall in the same ball! • 𝐷 ≤ 𝒪 𝜗 > 2𝜗

  15. Proof of Step 1 • Intuitively, if |𝑔 − 𝑕| p { < 2𝜗 then the local corrector cannot distinguish between 𝑔 ∘ ℓ,𝑕 ∘ ℓ for a random ℓ ∈ Aff 𝑜, 𝔾 j • But 𝑔 ∘ ℓ, 𝑕 ∘ ℓ are valid codewords by invariance and the corrector should distinguish them – Contradiction! Codeword word 𝑔 ∘ ℓ: Χ → Σ 𝑦 P 𝑦 O 𝑦 M 𝑔 ∘ ℓ(𝑦) ? Local Corrector A 𝑦 ∈ Χ Γ - s ,⋯,- { 𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 O , ⋯, 𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 M 𝑦 O ,𝑦 P ,⋯, 𝑦 M ∼ ℳ - 𝑕 ∘ ℓ(𝑦) ?

  16. Proof of Step 1 - [ A ‘∘ℓ outputs 𝑔 ∘ ℓ(𝑦) ] – Pr - [ A ‘∘ℓ outputs 𝑕 ∘ ℓ(𝑦) ] Pr • = 1 − Pr - [𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 = 𝑕 ∘ ℓ(𝑦)] • = Δ 𝑔,𝑕 ≥ 𝑒𝑗𝑡𝑢(𝐷) • O - [ A ‘∘ℓ outputs 𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 ] − Pr - [ A ‘∘ℓ outputs 𝑕 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 ] P 𝔽 ℓ Pr • 𝔽 ℓ 𝔽 - 𝔽 - s ,⋯,- { ∼ℳ ˜ 𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 − 𝑕 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 Γ - s ,⋯,- { 𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 O ,⋯ ,𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 M • 𝔽 - 𝔽 - s ,⋯,- { ∼ℳ ˜ 𝔽 ℓ 𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 − 𝑕 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 Γ - s ,⋯,- { 𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 O ,⋯ ,𝑔 ∘ ℓ 𝑦 M • ≤ 2 M 𝑔 − 𝑕 p { (von Neumann inequality) ™‚š› œ Therefore 𝑔 − 𝑕 p { ≥ 2 = 2𝜗 • P {

  17. Proof of Step 2 (small 𝜗 -net) • Decomposition theorem ( Green, Tao, Ziegler’11 ) ] → −1,1 can be ∀𝜗, 𝑠 ∃𝑙(𝜗, 𝑠) such that: any ℎ: 𝔾 j 𝜗 -approximated by a function of 𝑙 degree 𝑠 − 1 polynomials in 𝑉 M - norm ℎ − Γ 𝑞 O , ⋯, 𝑞 p { < 𝜗 • A degree 𝑠 − 1 polynomial has 𝑜 MNO coefficients • Gives an epsilon-net of size 𝒪 = exp 𝑃 j,M 𝑜 MNO • Thus 𝐷 ≤ 𝒪 = exp 𝑃 j,M 𝑜 MNO QED!

  18. Open Questions • We show “tight” bounds on the size of affine invariant constant query LCCs and LTCs • Improve the dependence on 𝑠, 𝔾 , |Σ| • Can we prove similar bounds for a more general class of codes? Codes invariant under some group action and some additional properties? • Can we use sparse hypergraph regularity lemmas to understand the hypergraph structure of local codes? ARIGATO GOZAIMASU!

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend