اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدOn the next-to-minimal weight of projective Reed-Muller codes
104
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In this paper we present several values for the next-to-minimal weights of projective Reed-Muller codes. We work over $mathbb{F}_q$ with $q geq 3$ since in IEEE-IT 62(11) p. 6300-6303 (2016) we have determined the complete values for the next-to-minimal weights of binary projective Reed-Muller codes. As in loc. cit. here we also find examples of codewords with next-to-minimal weight whose set of zeros is not in a hyperplane arrangement.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Projective Reed-Muller codes were introduced by Lachaud, in 1988 and their dimension and minimum distance were determined by Serre and S{o}rensen in 1991. In coding theory one is also interested in the higher Hamming weights, to study the code perfor
mance. Yet, not many values of the higher Hamming weights are known for these codes, not even the second lowest weight (also known as next-to-minimal weight) is completely determined. In this paper we determine all the values of the next-to-minimal weight for the binary projective Reed-Muller codes, which we show to be equal to the next-to-minimal weight of Reed-Muller codes in most, but not all, cases.
We study affine cartesian codes, which are a Reed-Muller type of evaluation codes, where polynomials are evaluated at the cartesian product of n subsets of a finite field F_q. These codes appeared recently in a work by H. Lopez, C. Renteria-Marquez a
nd R. Villareal and, in a generalized form, in a work by O. Geil and C. Thomsen. Using methods from Grobner basis theory we determine the second Hamming weight (also called next-to-minimal weight) for particular cases of affine cartesian codes and also some higher Hamming weights of this type of code.
Reed-Muller (RM) codes are among the oldest, simplest and perhaps most ubiquitous family of codes. They are used in many areas of coding theory in both electrical engineering and computer science. Yet, many of their important properties are still und
er investigation. This paper covers some of the recent developments regarding the weight enumerator and the capacity-achieving properties of RM codes, as well as some of the algorithmic developments. In particular, the paper discusses the recent connections established between RM codes, thresholds of Boolean functions, polarization theory, hypercontractivity, and the techniques of approximating low weight codewords using lower degree polynomials. It then overviews some of the algorithms with performance guarantees, as well as some of the algorithms with state-of-the-art performances in practical regimes. Finally, the paper concludes with a few open problems.
Projective Reed-Muller codes correspond to subcodes of the Reed-Muller code in which the polynomials being evaluated to yield codewords, are restricted to be homogeneous. The Generalized Hamming Weights (GHW) of a code ${cal C}$, identify for each di
mension $ u$, the smallest size of the support of a subcode of ${cal C}$ of dimension $ u$. The GHW of a code are of interest in assessing the vulnerability of a code in a wiretap channel setting. It is also of use in bounding the state complexity of the trellis representation of the code. In prior work by the same authors, a code-shortening algorithm was employed to derive upper bounds on the GHW of binary projective, Reed-Muller (PRM) codes. In the present paper, we derive a matching lower bound by adapting the proof techniques used originally for Reed-Muller (RM) codes by Wei. This results in a characterization of the GHW hierarchy of binary PRM codes.
A projective Reed-Muller (PRM) code, obtained by modifying a (classical) Reed-Muller code with respect to a projective space, is a doubly extended Reed-Solomon code when the dimension of the related projective space is equal to 1. The minimum distanc
e and dual code of a PRM code are known, and some decoding examples have been represented for low-dimensional projective space. In this study, we construct a decoding algorithm for all PRM codes by dividing a projective space into a union of affine spaces. In addition, we determine the computational complexity and the number of errors correctable of our algorithm. Finally, we compare the codeword error rate of our algorithm with that of minimum distance decoding.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
