skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Lower Bounds for Constant Query Affine-Invariant LCCs and LTCs

Published:27 April 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Affine-invariant codes are codes whose coordinates form a vector space over a finite field and which are invariant under affine transformations of the coordinate space. They form a natural, well-studied class of codes; they include popular codes such as Reed-Muller and Reed-Solomon. A particularly appealing feature of affine-invariant codes is that they seem well suited to admit local correctors and testers. In this work, we give lower bounds on the length of locally correctable and locally testable affine-invariant codes with constant query complexity. We show that if a code C ⊂ ΣKn is an r-query affine invariant locally correctable code (LCC), where K is a finite field and Σ is a finite alphabet, then the number of codewords in C is at most exp(OK,r,|Σ|(nr−1)). Also, we show that if C ⊂ ΣKn is an r-query affine invariant locally testable code (LTC), then the number of codewords in C is at most exp(OK,r,|Σ|(nr−2)). The dependence on n in these bounds is tight for constant-query LCCs/LTCs, since Guo, Kopparty, and Sudan (ITCS’13) constructed affine-invariant codes via lifting that have the same asymptotic tradeoffs. Note that our result holds for non-linear codes, whereas previously, Ben-Sasson and Sudan (RANDOM’11) assumed linearity to derive similar results. Our analysis uses higher-order Fourier analysis. In particular, we show that the codewords corresponding to an affine-invariant LCC/LTC must be far from each other with respect to Gowers norm of an appropriate order. This then allows us to bound the number of codewords, using known decomposition theorems, which approximate any bounded function in terms of a finite number of low-degree non-classical polynomials, up to a small error in the Gowers norm.

References

  1. Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy. 1998. Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. J. ACM 45, 3 (1998), 501--555. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Sanjeev Arora and Shmuel Safra. 1998. Probabilistic checking of proofs: A new characterization of NP. J. ACM 45, 1 (1998), 70--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Boaz Barak, Zeev Dvir, Amir Yehudayoff, and Avi Wigderson. 2011. Rank bounds for design matrices with applications to combinatorial geometry and locally correctable codes. ACM, 519--528.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Omer Barkol, Yuval Ishai, and Enav Weinreb. 2007. On locally decodable codes, self-correctable codes, and t-private PIR. Springer, 311--325. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Eli Ben-Sasson, Noga Ron-Zewi, and Madhu Sudan. 2012. Sparse affine-invariant linear codes are locally testable. IEEE, 561--570. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Eli Ben-Sasson and Madhu Sudan. 2004. Robust locally testable codes and products of codes. 286--297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Eli Ben-Sasson and Madhu Sudan. 2008. Short PCPs with polylog query complexity. 38, 2 (2008), 551--607.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Eli Ben-Sasson and Madhu Sudan. 2011. Limits on the rate of locally testable affine-invariant codes. Springer, 412--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Arnab Bhattacharyya and Abhishek Bhowmick. 2015. Using higher-order Fourier analysis over general fields. Preprint arXiv:1505.00619 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnab Bhattacharyya, Zeev Dvir, Amir Shpilka, and Shubhangi Saraf. 2011. Tight lower bounds for 2-query LCCs over finite fields. In 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE, 638--647.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Abhishek Bhowmick and Shachar Lovett. 2015a. Bias vs structure of polynomials in large fields, and applications in effective algebraic geometry and coding theory. Preprint arXiv:1506.02047 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Abhishek Bhowmick and Shachar Lovett. 2015b. The list decoding radius of Reed-Muller codes over small fields. In Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Manuel Blum and Sampath Kannan. 1995. Designing programs that check their work. J. ACM 42, 1 (1995), 269--291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Manuel Blum, Michael Luby, and Ronitt Rubinfeld. 1993. Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 47, 3 (1993), 549--595. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Benny Chor, Eyal Kushilevitz, Oded Goldreich, and Madhu Sudan. 1998. Private information retrieval. J. ACM 45, 6 (1998), 965--981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Irit Dinur. 2007. The PCP theorem by gap amplification. J. ACM 54, 3 (2007), 12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Zeev Dvir, Shubhangi Saraf, and Avi Wigderson. 2014. Breaking the quadratic barrier for 3-LCC’s over the reals. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, 784--793. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Zeev Dvir and Amir Shpilka. 2007. Locally decodable codes with two queries and polynomial identity testing for depth 3 circuits. 36, 5 (2007), 1404--1434.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Oded Goldreich, Howard Karloff, Leonard J. Schulman, and Luca Trevisan. 2012. Lower bounds for linear locally decodable codes and private information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity. IEEE, 175--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Oded Goldreich and Madhu Sudan. 2006. Locally testable codes and PCPs of almost-linear length. J. ACM 53, 4 (July 2006), 558--655. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. William T. Gowers. 2001. A new proof of Szemerédi’s theorem. 11, 3 (2001), 465--588.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ben Green. 2006. Montreal lecture notes on quadratic Fourier analysis. Preprint arXiv:math/0604089 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Alan Guo, Swastik Kopparty, and Madhu Sudan. 2013. New affine-invariant codes from lifting. ACM, 529--540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Alan Xinyu Guo. 2013. Some Closure Features of Locally Testable Affine-invariant Properties. Master’s thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Venkatesan Guruswami, Madhu Sudan, Ameya Velingker, and Carol Wang. 2015. Limitations on testable affine-invariant codes in the high-rate regime. SIAM, 1312--1325. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. T. Kasami, S. Lin, and W. W. Peterson. 1967. Some results on cyclic codes which are invariant under the affine group and their applications. Inform. and Comput. 11, 5--6 (1967), 475--496.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonathan Katz and Luca Trevisan. 2000. On the efficiency of local decoding procedures for error-correcting codes. ACM, 80--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Tali Kaufman and Madhu Sudan. 2008. Algebraic property testing: The role of invariance. ACM, 403--412.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Iordanis Kerenidis and Ronald de Wolf. 2003. Exponential lower bound for 2-query locally decodable codes via a quantum argument. ACM, 106--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Richard J. Lipton. 1990. Efficient checking of computations. Springer, 207--215. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Or Meir. 2009. Combinatorial construction of locally testable codes. 39, 2 (2009), 491--544.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Madhu Sudan, Luca Trevisan, and Salil Vadhan. 1999. Pseudorandom generators without the XOR lemma. ACM, 537--546. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Terence Tao. 2012. Higher Order Fourier Analysis. Vol. 142. American Mathematical Soc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Terence Tao and Tamar Ziegler. 2012. The inverse conjecture for the Gowers norm over finite fields in low characteristic. 16, 1 (2012), 121--188.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Madhur Tulsiani and Julia Wolf. 2014. Quadratic Goldreich-Levin theorems. SIAM J. Comput. 43, 2 (2014), 730--766. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Michael Viderman. 2015. Explicit strong LTCs with inverse poly-log rate and constant soundness. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 22 (2015), 20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. David Woodruff. 2007. New lower bounds for general locally decodable codes. In Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), Vol. 14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. David P. Woodruff. 2012. A quadratic lower bound for three-query linear locally decodable codes over any field. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 27, 4 (2012), 678--686. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Sergey Yekhanin. 2011. Locally decodable codes. In Computer Science--Theory and Applications. Springer, 289--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Lower Bounds for Constant Query Affine-Invariant LCCs and LTCs

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!