Tolerant Locally Testable Codes

An error-correcting code is said to be locally testable if it has an efficient spot-checking procedure that can distinguish codewords from strings that are far from every codeword, looking at very few locations of the input in doing so. Locally testable codes (LTCs) have generated a lot of interest over the years, in large part due to their connection to Probabilistically checkable proofs (PCPs). The ability to correct errors that occur during transmission is one of the big advantages of using a code. Hence, from a coding-theoretic angle, local testing is potentially more useful if in addition to accepting codewords, it also accepts strings that are close to a codeword (in contrast, local testers can have arbitrary behavior on such strings, which potentially annuls the benefits of error-correction). This would imply that when the tester accepts, one can follow-up the testing with a (more expensive) decoding procedure to correct the errors and recover the transmitted codeword, while if the tester rejects, we can save the effort of running the more expensive decoding algorithm. In this work, we define such testers, which we call tolerant testers following some recent work in property testing [13]. We revisit some recent constructions of LTCs and show how one can make them locally testable in a tolerant sense. While we do not optimize the parameters, the main message from our work is that there are explicit tolerant LTCs with similar parameters to LTCs.

[1]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Robust pcps of proximity, shorter pcps and applications to coding , 2004, STOC '04.

[2]  Venkatesan Guruswami,et al.  Improved decoding of Reed-Solomon and algebraic-geometry codes , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[3]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  Tolerant Versus Intolerant Testing for Boolean Properties , 2005, Computational Complexity Conference.

[4]  László Babai,et al.  Locally testable cyclic codes , 2003, 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings..

[5]  Venkatesan Guruswami,et al.  Improved decoding of Reed-Solomon and algebraic-geometric codes , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[6]  D. Spielman,et al.  Expander codes , 1996 .

[7]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Robust PCPs of Proximity, Shorter PCPs, and Applications to Coding , 2004, SIAM J. Comput..

[8]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Robust locally testable codes and products of codes , 2004, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[9]  Ronitt Rubinfeld,et al.  Tolerant property testing and distance approximation , 2006, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[10]  Irit Dinur,et al.  The PCP theorem by gap amplification , 2006, STOC.

[11]  Oded Goldreich,et al.  Locally testable codes and PCPs of almost-linear length , 2006, JACM.

[12]  Daniel A. Spielman,et al.  Nearly-linear size holographic proofs , 1994, STOC '94.

[13]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems , 1998, JACM.

[14]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Probabilistic checking of proofs; a new characterization of NP , 1992, Proceedings., 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[15]  Oded Goldreich,et al.  Short Locally Testable Codes and Proofs (Survey) , 2005, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[16]  Dana Ron,et al.  Testing Polynomials over General Fields , 2006, SIAM J. Comput..

[17]  Madhu Sudan,et al.  Some improvements to total degree tests , 1995, Proceedings Third Israel Symposium on the Theory of Computing and Systems.

[18]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Simple PCPs with poly-log rate and query complexity , 2005, STOC '05.