Search for: All records

Locally Decodable Codes (LDCs) are error-correcting codes C:Σⁿ → Σ^m, encoding messages in Σⁿ to codewords in Σ^m, with super-fast decoding algorithms. They are important mathematical objects in many areas of theoretical computer science, yet the best constructions so far have codeword length m that is super-polynomial in n, for codes with constant query complexity and constant alphabet size. In a very surprising result, Ben-Sasson, Goldreich, Harsha, Sudan, and Vadhan (SICOMP 2006) show how to construct a relaxed version of LDCs (RLDCs) with constant query complexity and almost linear codeword length over the binary alphabet, and used them to obtain significantly-improved constructions of Probabilistically Checkable Proofs. In this work, we study RLDCs in the standard Hamming-error setting, and introduce their variants in the insertion and deletion (Insdel) error setting. Standard LDCs for Insdel errors were first studied by Ostrovsky and Paskin-Cherniavsky (Information Theoretic Security, 2015), and are further motivated by recent advances in DNA random access bio-technologies. Our first result is an exponential lower bound on the length of Hamming RLDCs making 2 queries (even adaptively), over the binary alphabet. This answers a question explicitly raised by Gur and Lachish (SICOMP 2021) and is the first exponential lower bound for RLDCs. Combined with the results of Ben-Sasson et al., our result exhibits a "phase-transition"-type behavior on the codeword length for some constant-query complexity. We achieve these lower bounds via a transformation of RLDCs to standard Hamming LDCs, using a careful analysis of restrictions of message bits that fix codeword bits. We further define two variants of RLDCs in the Insdel-error setting, a weak and a strong version. On the one hand, we construct weak Insdel RLDCs with almost linear codeword length and constant query complexity, matching the parameters of the Hamming variants. On the other hand, we prove exponential lower bounds for strong Insdel RLDCs. These results demonstrate that, while these variants are equivalent in the Hamming setting, they are significantly different in the insdel setting. Our results also prove a strict separation between Hamming RLDCs and Insdel RLDCs. 

Locally Decodable Codes (LDCs) are error-correcting codes for which individual message symbols can be quickly recovered despite errors in the codeword. LDCs for Hamming errors have been studied extensively in the past few decades, where a major goal is to understand the amount of redundancy that is necessary and sufficient to decode from large amounts of error, with small query complexity. Despite exciting progress, we still don't have satisfactory answers in several important parameter regimes. For example, in the case of 3-query LDCs, the gap between existing constructions and lower bounds is superpolynomial in the message length. In this work we study LDCs for insertion and deletion errors, called Insdel LDCs. Their study was initiated by Ostrovsky and Paskin-Cherniavsky (Information Theoretic Security, 2015), who gave a reduction from Hamming LDCs to Insdel LDCs with a small blowup in the code parameters. On the other hand, the only known lower bounds for Insdel LDCs come from those for Hamming LDCs, thus there is no separation between them. Here we prove new, strong lower bounds for the existence of Insdel LDCs. In particular, we show that 2-query linear Insdel LDCs do not exist, and give an exponential lower bound for the length of all q-query Insdel LDCs with constant q. For q ≥ 3 our bounds are exponential in the existing lower bounds for Hamming LDCs. Furthermore, our exponential lower bounds continue to hold for adaptive decoders, and even in private-key settings where the encoder and decoder share secret randomness. This exhibits a strict separation between Hamming LDCs and Insdel LDCs. Our strong lower bounds also hold for the related notion of Insdel LCCs (except in the private-key setting), due to an analogue to the Insdel notions of a reduction from Hamming LCCs to LDCs. Our techniques are based on a delicate design and analysis of hard distributions of insertion and deletion errors, which depart significantly from typical techniques used in analyzing Hamming LDCs.