Bounds for Dispersers, Extractors, and Depth-Two Superconcentrators
SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics
Extractors and pseudorandom generators
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Randomness Extractors and their Many Guises
FOCS '02 Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
On the Complexity of Hardness Amplification
CCC '05 Proceedings of the 20th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity
Combinatorial bounds for list decoding
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
List decoding from erasures: bounds and code constructions
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
Algorithmic results in list decoding
Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science
Pseudorandomness and Average-Case Complexity Via Uniform Reductions
Computational Complexity
The Complexity of Local List Decoding
APPROX '08 / RANDOM '08 Proceedings of the 11th international workshop, APPROX 2008, and 12th international workshop, RANDOM 2008 on Approximation, Randomization and Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Techniques
Limits to List Decoding Random Codes
COCOON '09 Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Computing and Combinatorics
A lower bound on list size for list decoding
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
Hi-index | 0.06 |
A q-ary error-correcting code C⊆{1,2,...,q}n is said to be list decodable to radius ρ with list size L if every Hamming ball of radius ρ contains at most L codewords of C. We prove that in order for a q-ary code to be list-decodable up to radius (1–1/q)(1–ε)n, we must have L = Ω(1/ε2). Specifically, we prove that there exists a constant cq0 and a function fq such that for small enough ε 0, if C is list-decodable to radius (1–1/q)(1–ε)n with list size cq/ε2, then C has at most fq(ε) codewords, independent of n. This result is asymptotically tight (treating q as a constant), since such codes with an exponential (in n) number of codewords are known for list size L = O(1/ε2). A result similar to ours is implicit in Blinovsky [Bli] for the binary (q=2) case. Our proof works for all alphabet sizes, and is technically and conceptually simpler.