Abstract
Lowrank paritycheck (LRPC) codes are rankmetric codes over finite fields, which have been proposed by Gaborit et al. (Proceedings of the workshop on coding and cryptography WCC, vol 2013, 2013) for cryptographic applications. Inspired by a recent adaption of Gabidulin codes to certain finite rings by Kamche et al. (IEEE Trans Inf Theory 65(12):7718–7735, 2019), we define and study LRPC codes over Galois rings—a wide class of finite commutative rings. We give a decoding algorithm similar to Gaborit et al.’s decoder, based on simple linearalgebraic operations. We derive an upper bound on the failure probability of the decoder, which is significantly more involved than in the case of finite fields. The bound depends only on the rank of an error, i.e., is independent of its free rank. Further, we analyze the complexity of the decoder. We obtain that there is a class of LRPC codes over a Galois ring that can decode roughly the same number of errors as a Gabidulin code with the same code parameters, but faster than the currently best decoder for Gabidulin codes. However, the price that one needs to pay is a small failure probability, which we can bound from above.
1 Introduction
Rankmetric codes are sets of matrices whose distance is measured by the rank of their difference. Over finite fields, the codes have found various applications in network coding, cryptography, spacetime coding, distributed data storage, and digital watermarking. The first rankmetric codes were introduced in [6, 9, 22] and are today called Gabidulin codes. Motivated by cryptographic applications, Gaborit et al. introduced lowrank paritycheck (LRPC) in [1, 10]. They can be seen as the rankmetric analogs of lowdensity paritycheck codes in the Hamming metric. LRPC codes have since had a stellar career, as they are already the core component of a secondround submission to the currently running NIST standardization process for postquantum secure publickey cryptosystems [17]. They are suitable in this scenario due to their weak algebraic structure, which prevents efficient structural attacks. Despite this weak structure, the codes have an efficient decoding algorithm, which in some cases can decode up to the same decoding radius as a Gabidulin code with the same parameters, or even beyond [1]. A drawback is that for random errors of a given rank weight, decoding fails with a small probability. However, this failure probability can be upperbounded [1, 10] and decreases exponentially in the difference between maximal decoding radius and error rank. The codes have also found applications in powerline communications [29] and network coding [19].
Codes over finite rings, in particular the ring of integers modulo m, have been studied since the 1970s [3, 4, 24]. They have, for instance, be used to unify the description of good nonlinear binary codes in the Hamming metric, using a connection via the Gray mapping from linear codes over \(\mathbb {Z}_4\) with high minimum Lee distance [12]. This Gray mapping was generalized to arbitrary moduli m of \(\mathbb {Z}_m\) in [5]. Recently, there has been an increased interest in rankmetric codes over finite rings due to the following applications. Network coding over certain finite rings was intensively studied in [7, 11], motivated by works on nestedlatticebased network coding [8, 18, 26, 28] which show that network coding over finite rings may result in more efficient physicallayer network coding schemes. Kamche et al. [14] showed how lifted rankmetric codes over finite rings can be used for error correction in network coding. The result uses a similar approach as [23] to transformation the channel output into a rankmetric errorerasure decoding problem. Another application of rankmetric codes over finite rings are spacetime codes. It was first shown in [15] how to construct spacetime codes with optimal ratediversity tradeoff via a rankpreserving mapping from rankmetric codes over Galois rings. This result was generalized to arbitrary finite principal ideal rings in [14]. The use of finite rings instead of finite fields has advantages since the rankpreserving mapping can be chosen more flexibly. Kamche et al. also defined and extensively studied Gabidulin codes over finite principal ideal rings. In particular, they proposed a Welch–Berlekamplike decoder for Gabidulin codes and a Gröbnerbasisbased decoder for interleaved Gabidulin codes [14].
Motivated by these recent developments on rankmetric codes over rings, in this paper we define and analyze LRPC codes over Galois rings. Essentially, we show that Gaborit et al.’s construction and decoder work as well over these rings, with only a few minor technical modifications. The core difficulty of proving this result is the significantly more involved failure probability analysis, which stems from the weaker algebraic structure of rings compared to fields: the algorithm and proof are based on dealing with modules over Galois rings instead of vector spaces over finite fields, which behave fundamentally different since Galois rings are usually not integral domains. We also provide a thorough complexity analysis. The results can be summarized as follows.
1.1 Main results
Let p be a prime and r, s be positive integers. A Galois ring \({R}\) of cardinality \(p^{rs}\) is a finite Galois extension of degree s of the ring \(\mathbb {Z}_{p^r}\) of integers modulo the prime power \(p^r\). As modules over \({R}\) are not always free (i.e., have a basis), matrices over \({R}\) have a rank and a free rank, which is always smaller or equal to the rank. We will introduce these and other notions formally in Sect. 2.
In Sect. 3, we construct a family of rankmetric codes and a corresponding family of decoders with the following properties: Let \(m,n,k,\lambda \) be positive integers such that \(\lambda \) is greater than the smallest divisor of m and k fulfills \(k \le \tfrac{\lambda 1}{\lambda } n\). The constructed codes are subsets \(\mathcal {C}\subseteq {R}^{m \times n}\) of cardinality \(\mathcal {C} = {R}^{mk}\). Seen as a set of vectors over an extension ring of \({R}\), the code is linear w.r.t. this extension ring. We exploit this linearity in the decoding algorithm.
Furthermore, let t be a positive integer with \(t < \min \!\left\{ \tfrac{m}{\lambda (\lambda +1)/2}, \tfrac{nk+1}{\lambda }\right\} \). Let \(\varvec{C}\in \mathcal {C}\) be a (fixed) codeword and let \(\varvec{E}\in {R}^{m \times n}\) be chosen uniformly at random from all matrices of rank t (and arbitrary free rank). Then, we show in Sect. 5 that the proposed decoder in Sect. 4 recovers the codeword \(\varvec{C}\) with probability at least
Hence, depending on the relation of \(p^s\) and t, the success probability is positive for
and converges exponentially fast to 1 in the difference \(t_\mathrm {max}t\). Note that for \(\lambda =2\) and \(m>\tfrac{3}{2}(nk+1)\), we have \(t_\mathrm {max} = \lfloor \tfrac{nk}{2}\rfloor \).
The decoder has complexity \(\tilde{O}(\lambda ^2 n^2 m)\) operations in \({R}\) (see Sect. 6). In Sect. 7, we present simulation results.
Example 1
Consider the case \(p=2\), \(s=4\), \(r=2\), \(m=n=101\), \(k=40\), and \(\lambda =2\). Then, the decoder in Sect. 4 can correct up to \(t_\mathrm {max} = \lfloor \tfrac{nk}{2}\rfloor = 30\) errors with success probability at least \(12^{6}\). For \(t=24\) errors, the success probability is already \(\approx 12^{46}\) and for \(t=18\), it is \(\approx 12^{102}\). A Gabidulin code as in [14], over the same ring and the same parameters, can correct any error of rank up to 30 (i.e., the same maximal radius). However, the currently fastest decoder for Gabidulin codes over rings [14] has a larger complexity than the LRPC decoder in Sect. 4.
The results of this paper were partly presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory 2020 [21]. Compared to this conference version, we generalize the results in two ways: first, we consider LRPC codes over the more general class of Galois rings instead of the integers modulo a prime power. This is a natural generalization since Galois rings share with finite fields many of the properties needed for dealing with the rank metric. Indeed, they constitute the common point of view between finite fields and rings of integers modulo a prime power. Second, the conference version only derives a bound on the failure probability for errors whose free rank equals their rank. For some applications, this is no restriction since the error can be designed, but for most communications channels, we cannot influence the error and need to correct also errors of arbitrary rank profile. Hence, we provide a complete analysis of the failure probability for all types of errors.
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Notation
Let A be any commutative ring. We denote modules over A by calligraphic letters, vectors as bold small letters, and matrices as bold capital letters. We denote the set of \(m\times n\) matrices over the ring A by \(A^{m\times n}\) and the set of row vectors of length n over A by \(A^{n} = A^{1\times n}\). Rows and columns of \(m\times n\) matrices are indexed by \(1,\ldots ,m\) and \(1,\ldots ,n\), where \(X_{i,j}\) denotes the entry in the ith row and jth column of the matrix \(\varvec{X}\). Moreover, for an element a in a ring A, we denote by \({{\,\mathrm{Ann}\,}}(a)\) the ideal \({{\,\mathrm{Ann}\,}}(a) = \{b \in A \mid ab = 0\}\).
2.2 Galois rings
A Galois ring \({R}:={{\,\mathrm{GR}\,}}(p^r,s)\) is a finite local commutative ring of characteristic \(p^r\) and cardinality \(p^{rs}\), which is isomorphic to \(\mathbb {Z}[z]/(p^r,f(z))\), where f(z) is a polynomial of degree s that is irreducible modulo p. Let \(\mathfrak {m}\) be the unique maximal ideal of \({R}\). It is also wellknown that \({R}\) is a finite chain ring and all its ideals are powers of \(\mathfrak {m}\) such that r is smallest positive integer r for which \(\mathfrak {m}^r = \{0\}\). Since Galois rings are principal ideal rings, \(\mathfrak {m}\) is generated by one ring element. We will call such a generator \(g_\mathfrak {m}\) (which is unique up to invertible multiples). Note that in a Galois ring this element can always be chosen to be p. Moreover, \({R}/\mathfrak {m}\) is isomorphic to the finite field \(\mathbb {F}_{p^s}\).
In this setting, it is wellknown that there exists a unique cyclic subgroup of \({R}^*\) of order \(p^s1\), which is generated by an element \(\eta \). The set \(T_s := \{0\}\cup \langle \eta \rangle \) is known as Teichmüller set of \({R}\). Every element \(a\in {R}\) has hence a unique representation as
We will refer to this as the Teichmüller representation of a. For Galois rings, this representation coincides with the padic expansion. If, in addition, one chooses the polynomial h(z) to be a Hensel lift of a primitive polynomial in \(\mathbb {F}_p[x]\) of degree s, then the element \(\eta \) can be taken to be one of the roots of h(z). Here, for Hensel lift of a primitive polynomial \(\bar{h}(z)\in \mathbb {F}_p[z]\), we mean that \(h(x)\in \mathbb {Z}_{p^r}[z]\) is such that the canonical projection of h(z) over \(\mathbb {F}_p[z]\) is \(\bar{h}(z)\) and h(z) divides \(z^{p^s1}1\) in \(\mathbb {Z}_{p^r}[z]\). The interested reader is referred to [2, 16] for a deeper understanding on Galois rings.
It is easy to see that the number of units in \({R}\) is given by
Example 2
Let \(p=2\), \(s=1\), \(r=3\), and \({R}= \{0,1,\ldots ,7\}\). We have that \(\mathfrak {m}= \{0,2,4,6\}\) and \({R}/\mathfrak {m}= \{0,1\} = \mathbb {F}_2\). Thus, \(g_\mathfrak {m}= 2\). The set \(\{1\}\) is the unique cyclic subgroup of \({R}^*=\{1,3,5,7\}\) of order \(p^s1 = 1\) which is generated by \(\eta =1\) and \(T_s = \{0,1\}\). Then, the Teichmüller representation of \(a=5\) is given by \( a = 1\cdot g_\mathfrak {m}^0 + 0 \cdot g_\mathfrak {m}^1 + 1 \cdot g_\mathfrak {m}^2\).
Example 3
Let \(p=2\), \(s=3\), \(r=3\), and let us construct \({R}= {{\,\mathrm{GR}\,}}(8,3)\). Consider the ring \(\mathbb {Z}_{8}\), and \(h(z):=z^3+6z^2+5z+7\in \mathbb {Z}_{8}[z]\). The canonical projection of the polynomial h(z) over \(\mathbb {F}_2[z]\) is \(z^3+z+1\) which is primitive, and hence irreducible, in \(\mathbb {F}_2[z]\). Thus, we have
Clearly, \(\mathfrak {m}=(2){R}\) and we can choose \(g_\mathfrak {m}=2\). Moreover, if \(\eta \) is a root of h(z), then we also have \({R}\cong \mathbb {Z}_8[\eta ]\), and every element can be represented as \(a_0+a_1\eta +a_2\eta ^2\), for \(a_0,a_1,a_2\in \mathbb {Z}_{8}\). On the other hand, the polynomial h(z) divides \(x^71\) in \(\mathbb {Z}_8[z]\) and therefore it is a Hensel lift of \(z^3+z+1\). This implies that \(\eta \) has order 7, and the Teichmüller set is \(T_3=\{0,\eta , \eta ^2,\ldots ,\eta ^7=1\}\). If we take the element \(a=5+3\eta ^2\), then, it can be verified that its Teichmüller represntation is \(a=\eta ^6+\eta ^4g_\mathfrak {m}+\eta ^5g_\mathfrak {m}^2=\eta ^6+\eta ^4\cdot 2+\eta ^5\cdot 4\).
2.3 Extensions of Galois rings
Let \(h(z) \in {R}[z]\) be a polynomial of degree m such that the leading coefficient of h(z) is a unit and h(z) is irreducible over the finite field \({R}/\mathfrak {m}\). Then, the Galois ring \({R}[z]/(h(z))\) is denoted by \({S}\). We have that \({S}\) is the Galois ring \({{\,\mathrm{GR}\,}}(p^r,sm)\), with maximal ideal \(\mathfrak {M}= \mathfrak {m}{S}\). Moreover, it is known that subrings of Galois rings are Galois rings and that for every \(\ell \) dividing m there exists a unique subring of \({S}\) which is a Galois extension of degree \(\ell \) of \({R}\). These are all subrings of \({S}\) that contain \({R}\). In particular there exists a unique copy of \({R}\) in \({S}\), and we can therefore consider (with a very small abuse of notation) \({R}\subseteq {S}\). In particular, we have that \(g_\mathfrak {m}\) is also the generator of \(\mathfrak {M}\) in \({S}\).
As for \({R}\), also \({S}\) contains a unique cyclic subgroup of order \(p^{sm}1\), and we can consider the Teichmüller set \(T_{sm}\) as the union of such a subgroup together with the 0 element. Hence, every \(a\in {S}\) has a unique representation as
The number of units in \({S}\) is given by
From now on and for the rest of the paper, we will always denote by \({R}\) the Galois ring \({{\,\mathrm{GR}\,}}(p^r,s)\), and by \({S}\) the Galois ring \({{\,\mathrm{GR}\,}}(p^r,sm)\).
2.4 Smith normal form
The Smith normal form is welldefined for both \({R}\) and \({S}\), i.e., for \(\varvec{A}\in {R}^{m \times n}\), there are invertible matrices \(\varvec{S}\in {R}^{m \times m}\) and \(\varvec{T}\in {R}^{n \times n}\) such that
is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries \(d_1,\ldots ,d_{\min \{n,m\}}\) with
where the \(0 \le i_1 \le i_2 \le \cdots \le i_{\min \{n,m\}} \le r\). The same holds for matrices over \({S}\), where we replace \(\mathfrak {m}\) by \(\mathfrak {M}\) (note that \(\mathfrak {M}^r=\{0\}\) and \(\mathfrak {M}^{r1}\ne \{0\}\) for the same r). The rank and the free rank of \(\varvec{A}\) (w.r.t. a ring \(A \in \{{S},{R}\}\)) is defined by \(\mathrm {rk}(\varvec{A}) := \{ i\in \{1,\ldots ,\min \{m,n\}\}: \varvec{D}_{i,i} \not = 0 \}\) and \(\mathrm {frk}(\varvec{A}) := \{ i \in \{1,\ldots ,\min \{m,n\}\} :\varvec{D}_{i,i} \text { is a unit} \}\), respectively, where \(\varvec{D}\) is the diagonal matrix of the Smith normal form w.r.t. the ring R.
2.5 Modules over finite chain rings
The ring \({S}\) is a free module over \({R}\) of rank m. Hence, elements of \({S}\) can be treated as vectors in \({R}^m\) and linear independence, \({R}\)subspaces of \({S}\) and the \({R}\)linear span of elements are welldefined. Let \(\varvec{\gamma }=[\gamma _1,\ldots ,\gamma _m]\) be an ordered basis of \({S}\) over \({R}\). By utilizing the module space isomorphism \({S}\cong {R}^m\), we can relate each vector \(\varvec{a}\in {S}^{n}\) to a matrix \(\varvec{A}\in {R}^{m\times n}\) according to \({{\,\mathrm{ext}\,}}_{\gamma } : {S}^{n} \rightarrow {R}^{m\times n}, \varvec{a}\mapsto \varvec{A}\), where \(a_j = \sum _{i=1}^{m} A_{i,j} \gamma _{i}\), \(j \in \{1,\ldots ,n\}\). The (free) rank norm \(({{\,\mathrm{f}\,}})\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}(\varvec{a})\) is the (free) rank of the matrix representation \(\varvec{A}\), i.e., \(\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}(\varvec{a}) := \mathrm {rk}(\varvec{A})\) and \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}(\varvec{a}) := \mathrm {frk}(\varvec{A})\), respectively.
Example 4
Let \(p=2\), \(s=1\), \(r=3\) as in Example 2, \(h(z) = z^3+z+1\) and
Using a polyomial basis \(\varvec{\gamma }=[1,z,z^2]\), the matrix representation of \(\varvec{a}\) is
and the Smith normal form of \(\varvec{A}\) is given by
It can be observed that \(d_1, d_2 \in \mathfrak {m}^0 \setminus \mathfrak {m}^1 = \{1,3,5,7\}\) and \(d_3 \in \mathfrak {m}^1 \setminus \mathfrak {m}^2 = \{2,6\}\) and thus \(\mathrm {rk}(\varvec{A}) = \mathrm {rk}(\varvec{D}) = 3\) and \(\mathrm {frk}(\varvec{A})= \mathrm {frk}(\varvec{D})= 2\). It follows that \(\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}(\varvec{a}) = 3\) and \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}(\varvec{a}) = 2\).
Let \(a = \sum _{i=1}^{m} a_i \gamma _i \in {S}\), where \(a_i \in {R}\). The following statements are equivalent (cf. [14, Lemma 2.4]):

a is a unit in \({S}\).

At least one \(a_i\) is a unit in \({R}\).

\(\{a\}\) is linearly independent over \({R}\).
The \({R}\)linear module that is spanned by \(v_1,\ldots ,v_{\ell } \in {S}\) is denoted by \(\langle v_1,\ldots ,v_\ell \rangle _{{R}} := \big \{\sum _{i=1}^{\ell } a_i v_i : a_i \in {R}\big \}\). The \({R}\)linear module that is spanned by the entries of a vector \(\varvec{a}\in {S}^{n}\) is called the support of \(\varvec{a}\), i.e., \(\mathrm {supp}_\mathrm {R}(\varvec{a}) := \langle a_1,\ldots ,a_n \rangle _{{R}}\). Further, \({\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) denotes the product module of two submodules \({\mathcal {A}}\) and \({\mathcal {B}}\) of \({S}\), i.e., \({\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}:= \langle a \cdot b \, : \, a \in {\mathcal {A}}, \, b \in {\mathcal {B}}\rangle \).
2.6 Valuation in Galois rings
We define the valuation of \(a \in {R}\setminus \{0\}\) as the unique integer \(v(a) \in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\) such that
and set \(v(0) := r\). In the same way, the valuation of \(b \in {S}\setminus \{0\}\) as the unique integer \(v(b) \in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\) such that
and \(v(0) = r\).
Let \(\{\gamma _1,\ldots , \gamma _m\}\) be a basis of \({S}\) as \({R}\)module. It is easy to see that for \(a = \sum _{i=1}^{m} a_i \gamma _i \in {S}\setminus \{0\}\), where \(a_i \in {R}\) (not all 0), we have
Example 5
Let \(p=2\), \(s=1\), \(r=3\) as in Example 2, \(h(z) = z^3+z+1\) and let \(a=1\), \(b=2\), \(c=4 \in {R}\). Since \(a \in \mathfrak {m}^0 \setminus \mathfrak {m}^1=\{1,3,5,7\}\), \(b \in \mathfrak {m}^1 \setminus \mathfrak {m}^2 = \{2,6\}\), and \(c \in \mathfrak {m}^2 \setminus \mathfrak {m}^3=\{4\}\), one obtains \(v(a) =0\), \(v(b) = 1\) and \(v(c)=2\).
Furthermore, let \(d=2z^2+1\), \(e=4z^2+2z+2\), \(f=4z^2+4\), where \(d\in \mathfrak {M}^0\setminus \mathfrak {M}^1\), \(e\in \mathfrak {M}^1\setminus \mathfrak {M}^2\) and \(f\in \mathfrak {M}^2\setminus \mathfrak {M}^3\). It follows that \(v(d)=0\), \(v(e)=1\) and \(v(f)=2\). Since an element is a unit if and only if its valuation is equal to 0, only the elements a and d are units.
2.7 Rank profile of a module and mingensets
Let \({\mathcal {M}}\) be an \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) and \(d_1,\ldots ,d_n\) be diagonal entries of a Smith normal form of a matrix whose row space is \({\mathcal {M}}\). Define the rank profile of \({\mathcal {M}}\) to be the polynomial
where
Note that \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}(x)\) is independent of the chosen matrix and Smith normal form since the diagonal entries \(d_i\) are unique up to multiplication by a unit. We can easily read the free rank and rank from the rank profile
Example 6
Consider the ring \({R}={{\,\mathrm{GR}\,}}(8,3)\) as defined in Example 3, where as generator of \(\mathfrak {m}\) we take \(g_\mathfrak {m}=2\). Take a module \({\mathcal {M}}\) whose diagonal matrix in the Smith normal form is
We have
On \(\mathbb {Z}[x]/(x^r)\), we define the following partial order \(\preceq \).
Definition 1
Let \(a(x),b(x) \in \mathbb {Z}[x]/(x^r)\). We say that \(a(x) \preceq b(x)\) if for every \(i\in \{0,\ldots , r1\}\) we have
Remark 1
The partial order \(\preceq \) on rank profiles is compatible with the containment of submodules. That is, if \(M_1\subseteq M_2\) then \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1} \preceq \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_2}\). Clearly the opposite implication is not true in general.
For \(\varvec{D}\) and \(\varvec{T}\) as in the Smith normal form of a matrix over \({R}\), observe that the nonzero rows of the matrix \(\varvec{D}\varvec{T}^{1}\) produce a set of generators for the \({R}\)module generated by the rows of \(\varvec{A}\), which is minimal and of the form
A generating set coming from the Smith Normal Form as described above will be called \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis. Alternatively, a \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis for a \({R}\)module \({\mathcal {M}}\) is a generating set \(\{b_{i,\ell _i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le \ell _i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i \}\) such that \(v(b_{i,\ell _i})=i\). Moreover, every \({R}\)submodule of \({R}^n\) can be seen as the rowspace of a matrix, and hence it decomposes as
where \(\varGamma ^{(i)}:=\{a_{i,\ell _i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le \ell _i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i \}\). It is easy to see that \(\langle \varGamma ^{(i)}\rangle _{{R}}\) is a free module. However, this decomposition depends on the chosen \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis \(\varGamma \).
For a module \(\mathcal {M}\) with \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis \(\varGamma = \{g_\mathfrak {m}^ia_{i,\ell _i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le \ell _i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i \}\), we have the following: Let \(e \in \mathcal {M}\) and
be two different representations of e in the \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis with coefficients \(e_{i,\ell _i},e'_{i,\ell _i} \in {R}\), respectively. Then, we have
for all \(0\le i \le r1\) and \(1 \le \ell _i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\). This is due to the fact that by definition of \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis, the set \(\{a_{i,\ell _i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le \ell _i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\}\) is linear independent over \({R}\), and hence \((e_{i,\ell _i}  e'_{i,\ell _i}) g_\mathfrak {m}^{i}=0\) for every \(i,\ell _i\). Therefore, the representation of an element in \({\mathcal {M}}\) with respect to a \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis have uniquely determined coefficients \(e_{i,\ell _i}\) modulo \({{\,\mathrm{Ann}\,}}(g_\mathfrak {m}^i)=\mathfrak {m}^{ri}\).
Lemma 1
Let \({\mathcal {M}}\) be an \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) with rankprofile \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}\) and let \(j \in \{1,\ldots ,r1\}\). Then, the rankprofile of \(\mathfrak {m}^j{\mathcal {M}}\) is given by
In particular, the rank of \(\mathfrak {m}^j{\mathcal {M}}\) is equal to \(\phi ^{\mathfrak {m}^j{\mathcal {M}}}(1)=\sum \limits _{i=0}^{r1j}\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\).
Proof
Let \(g_\mathfrak {m}\) be a generator of \(\mathfrak {m}\). If \(\varGamma =\{g_\mathfrak {m}^ia_{i,\ell _i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le \ell _i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i \}\) is a \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis for M, then it is easy to see that
is a \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis for \(\mathfrak {m}^j{\mathcal {M}}\). Hence, the first j coefficients of \(\phi ^{\mathfrak {m}^j{\mathcal {M}}}(x)\) are equal to zero, while the remaining ones are the jth shift of the first \(rj\) coefficients of \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}(x)\). \(\square \)
Proposition 1
For any pair of \({R}\)submodules \({\mathcal {M}}_1, {\mathcal {M}}_2\) of \({S}\), we have
Proof
Let \(g_\mathfrak {m}\) be a generator of \(\mathfrak {m}\). Let \({\mathcal {M}}_1, {\mathcal {M}}_2\) be two \({R}\)submodules with rankprofile \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1}\) and \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_2}\) respectively. Then, there exist a minimal generating set of \({\mathcal {M}}_1\) given by
and a minimal generating set of \(M_2\) given by
In particular, the product set \(\varGamma _1\cdot \varGamma _2\) is a generating set of \({\mathcal {M}}_1 \cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2\). Hence
The general inequality for the truncated sums then follows by considering the rank of the submodule \(\mathfrak {m}^j({\mathcal {M}}_1 \cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2)\) and Lemma 1. \(\square \)
3 LRPC codes over Galois rings
Definition 2
Let \(k,n,\lambda \) be positive integers with \(0<k<n\). Furthermore, let \(\mathcal {F}\subseteq {S}\) be a free \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) of rank \(\lambda \). A lowrank paritycheck (LRPC) code with parameters \(\lambda ,n,k\) is a code with a paritycheck matrix \(\varvec{H}\in {S}^{(nk) \times n}\) such that \({{\,\mathrm{rk}\,}}_{{S}} \varvec{H}= \mathrm {frk}_{{S}} \varvec{H}= nk\) and \(\mathcal {F}= \langle H_{1,1},\ldots ,H_{(nk),n} \rangle _{{R}}\).
Note that an LRPC code is a free submodule of \({S}^n\) of rank k. This means that the cardinality of the code is \({S}^k = {R}^{mk} = p^{r s m k}\). We define the following three additional properties of the paritycheck matrix that we will use throughout the paper to prove the correctness of our decoder and to derive failure probabilities. As for rankmetric codes over finite fields, we can interpret vectors over \({S}\) as matrices over \({R}\) by the \({R}\)module isomorphism \({S}\simeq {R}^m\). In particular, an LRPC code can be seen as a subset of \({R}^{m \times n}\).
Definition 3
Let \(\lambda \), \(\mathcal {F}\), and \(\varvec{H}\) be defined as in Definition 2. Let \(f_1,\ldots ,f_\lambda \in {S}\) be a free basis of \(\mathcal {F}\). For \(i=1,\ldots ,nk\), \(j=1,\ldots ,n\), and \(\ell =1,\ldots ,\lambda \), let \(h_{i,j,\ell } \in {R}\) be the unique elements such that \(H_{i,j} = \sum _{\ell = 1}^{\lambda } h_{i,j,\ell } f_{\ell }\). Define
Then, \(\varvec{H}\) has the

1.
uniquedecoding property if \(\lambda \ge \tfrac{n}{nk}\) and \(\mathrm {frk}\left( \varvec{H}_{\mathrm {ext}} \right) = \mathrm {rk}\left( \varvec{H}_{\mathrm {ext}} \right) = n\),

2.
maximalrowspan property if every row of the paritycheck matrix \(\varvec{H}\) spans the entire space \(\mathcal {F}\),

3.
unity property if every entry \(H_{i,j}\) of \(\varvec{H}\) is chosen from the set \(H_{i,j} \in \tilde{\mathcal {F}} := \left\{ \textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{\lambda } \alpha _i f_i \, : \, \alpha _i \in {R}^* \cup \{0\} \right\} \subseteq \mathcal {F}\).
Furthermore, we say that \(\mathcal {F}\) has the basering property if \(1 \in \mathcal {F}\).
In the original papers about LRPC codes over finite fields, [1, 10], some of the properties of Definition 3 are used without explicitly stating them.
We will see in Sect. 4.2 that the uniquedecoding property together with a property of the error guarantees that erasure decoding always works (i.e., that the full error vector can be recovered from knowing the support and syndrome of an error). This property is also implicitly used in [10]. It is, however, not very restrictive: if the paritycheck matrix entries \(H_{i,j}\) are chosen uniformly at random from \(\mathcal {F}\), this property is fulfilled with the probability that a random \(\lambda (nk) \times n\) matrix has full (free) rank n. This probability is arbitrarily close to 1 for increasing difference of \(\lambda (nk)\) and n (cf. [20] for the field and Lemma 7 in Sect. 5.2 for the ring case).
We will use the maximalrowspan property to prove a bound on the failure probability of the decoder in Sect. 5. It is a sufficient condition that our bound (in particular Theorem 3 in Sect. 5) holds. Although not explicitly stated, [1, Proposition 4.3] must also assume a similar or slightly weaker condition in order to hold. It does not hold for arbitrary paritycheck matrices as in [1, Definition 4.1] (see the counterexample in Remark 4 in Sect. 5). This is again not a big limitation in general for two reasons: first, the ideal codes in [1, Definition 4.2] appear to automatically have this property, and second, a random paritycheck matrix has this property with high probability.
In the case of finite fields, the unity property is no restriction at all since the units of a finite field are all nonzero elements. That is, we have \(\tilde{\mathcal {F}} = \mathcal {F}\). Over rings, we need this additional property as a sufficient condition for one of our failure probability bounds (Theorem 3 in Sect. 5). It is not a severe restriction in general, since
which is relatively close to 1 for large \(p^s\) and comparably small \(\lambda \).
Finally, Gaborit et al. [10] also used the basering property of \(\mathcal {F}\). In contrast to the other three properties in Definition 3, this property only depends on \(\mathcal {F}\) and not on \(\varvec{H}\). We will also assume this property to derive a bound on the probability of one possible cause of a decoding failure event in Sect. 5.3.
4 Decoding
4.1 The main decoder
Fix \(\lambda \) and \(\mathcal {F}\) as in Definition 2. Let \(f_1,\ldots ,f_\lambda \in {S}\) be a free basis of \(\mathcal {F}\). Note that since the \(f_i\) are linearly independent, the sets \(\{f_i\}\) are linearly independent, which by the discussion in Sect. 2 implies that all the \(f_i\) are units in \({S}\). Hence, \(f_i^{1}\) exists for each i. We will discuss erasure decoding (Line 6) in Sect. 4.2.
Algorithm 1 recovers the support \({\mathcal {E}}\) of the error \(\varvec{e}\) if \({\mathcal {E}}' = {\mathcal {E}}\). A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for this to be fulfilled is that we have \({\mathcal {S}}= {\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\). Furthermore, we will see in Sect. 4.2 that we can uniquely recover the error vector \(\varvec{e}\) from its support \({\mathcal {E}}\) and syndrome \(\varvec{s}\) if the the paritycheck matrix fulfills the unique decoding property and we have \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}} \phi ^{\mathcal {F}}\). Hence, decoding works if the following three conditions are fulfilled:

1.
\(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}} \phi ^{\mathcal {F}}\), (product condition).

2.
\({\mathcal {S}}= {\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\), (syndrome condition)

3.
\(\bigcap _{i=1}^{\lambda } {\mathcal {S}}_i = {\mathcal {E}}\), (intersection condition),
We call the case that at least one of the three conditions is not fulfilled a (decoding) failure. We will see in the next section (Sect. 5) that whether an error results in a failure depends solely on the error support \({\mathcal {E}}\). Furthermore, given an error support that is drawn uniformly at random from the modules of a given rank profile \(\phi \), the failure probability can be upperbounded by a function that depends only on the rank of the module (i.e., \(\phi ^{\mathcal {E}}(1)\)).
In Sect. 6, we will analyze the complexity of Algorithm 1. The proofs in that section also indicate how the algorithm can be implemented in practice.
Remark 2
Note that the success conditions above imply that for an error of rank \(\phi ^{\mathcal {E}}(1) = t\), we have \(\lambda t \le m\) (due to the product condition) as well as \(\lambda \ge \tfrac{n}{nk}\) (due to the uniquedecoding property). Combined, we obtain \(t \le m\tfrac{nk}{n} = m(1R)\), where \(R := \tfrac{k}{n}\) is the rate of the LRPC code.
4.2 Erasure decoding
As its name suggests, the unique decoding property of the paritycheck matrix is related to unique erasure decoding, i.e., the process of obtaining the full error vector \(\varvec{e}\) after having recovered its support. The next lemma establishes this connection.
Lemma 2
(Unique Erasure Decoding) Given a paritycheck matrix \(\varvec{H}\) that fulfills the uniquedecoding property. Let \({\mathcal {E}}\) be a free support of rank \(t \le \tfrac{m}{\lambda }\). If \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}} = \phi ^{\mathcal {E}}\phi ^\mathcal {F}\), then, for any syndrome \(\varvec{s}\in {S}^{nk}\), there is at most one error vector \(\varvec{e}\in {S}^n\) with support \({\mathcal {E}}\) that fulfills \(\varvec{H}\varvec{e}^\top = \varvec{s}^\top \).
Proof
Let \(f_1,\ldots ,f_\lambda \) be a basis of the free module \(\mathcal {F}\). Furthermore, let \(\varepsilon _1,\ldots ,\varepsilon _t\) be an \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of \(\mathcal {M}\). To avoid too complicated sums in the derivation below, we use a slightly different notation as in the definition of \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis and write \(\varepsilon _j = g_\mathfrak {m}^{v(\varepsilon _j)} \varepsilon _j^*\) for all \(j=1,\ldots ,t\), where \(\varepsilon ^*_j \in {S}^*\) are units.
Due to \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}} = \phi ^{\mathcal {E}}\phi ^\mathcal {F}\), we have that \(f_i \varepsilon _\kappa \) for \(i=1,\ldots ,\lambda \) and \(\kappa =1,\ldots ,t\) is an \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of the product space \({\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\). Any entry of the paritycheck matrix \(\varvec{H}\) has a unique representation \(H_{i,j} = \sum _{\ell = 1}^{\lambda } h_{i,j,\ell } f_{\ell }\) for \(h_{i,k,\ell } \in {R}\). Furthermore, any entry of error vector \(\varvec{e}= [e_1,\ldots ,e_n]\) can be represented as \(e_j = \sum _{\kappa =1}^{t} e_{j,\kappa } \varepsilon _\kappa \), where the \(e_{j,\kappa } \in {R}\) are unique modulo \(\mathfrak {m}^{rv(\varepsilon _\kappa )}\).
We want to recover the error vector \(\varvec{e}\) from the syndrome \(\varvec{s}= [s_1,\ldots ,s_{nk}]^\top \), which are related by definition as follows:
Hence, for any representation \(e_{j,\kappa }\) of the error \(\varvec{e}\), there is a representation \(s_{i,\ell ,\kappa }\) of \(\varvec{s}\). If we know the latter representation, it is easy to obtain the corresponding \(e_{j,\kappa }\) under the assumed conditions: write
We can rewrite this into t independent linear systems of equations of the form
for each \(\kappa =1,\ldots ,t\), where \(\varvec{H}_{\mathrm {ext}} \in {R}^{(nk)\lambda \times n}\) is independent of \(\kappa \) and defined as in (3).
By the unique decoding property, \(\varvec{H}_{\mathrm {ext}}\) has more rows than columns (i.e, \((nk)\lambda \ge n\)) and full free rank and rank (equal to n). Hence, each system in (4) has a unique solution \(\varvec{e}^{(\kappa )}\).
It is left to show that any representation \(s_{i,\ell ,\kappa }\) of \(\varvec{s}\) in the \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis \(f_i \varepsilon _\kappa \) of \({\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\) yields the same error vector \(\varvec{e}\). Recall that \(s_{i,\ell ,\kappa }\) is unique modulo \(\mathfrak {m}^{rv(\varepsilon _i)}\) (note that \(v(f_i \varepsilon _\kappa ) = v(\varepsilon _\kappa )\)). Assume now that we have a different representation, say
where \(\varvec{\chi } \in {R}^{(nk)\lambda }\). Then the unique solution \({\varvec{e}'}^{(\kappa )}\) of the linear system \({\varvec{s}'}^{(\kappa )} \varvec{H}_\mathrm {ext} {\varvec{e}'}^{(\kappa )}\) is of the form
for some \(\varvec{\mu '} \in {R}^{(nk)\lambda }\). Hence, \({\varvec{e}'}^{(\kappa )} \equiv \varvec{e}^{(\kappa )} \mod \mathfrak {m}^{rv(\varepsilon _\kappa )}\), which means that the two representations \({\varvec{e}'}^{(\kappa )}\) and \(\varvec{e}^{(\kappa )}\) belong to the same error \(\varvec{e}\).
This shows that we can take any representation of the syndrome vector \(\varvec{s}\), solve the system in (4) for \(\varvec{e}^{(\kappa )}\) for \(\kappa =1,\ldots ,t\), and obtain the unique error vector \(\varvec{e}\) corresponding to this syndrome \(\varvec{s}\) and support \({\mathcal {E}}\). \(\square \)
5 Failure probability
Consider an error vector \(\varvec{e}\) that is chosen uniformly at random from the set of error vectors whose support is a module of a given rank profile \(\phi \in \mathbb Z[x]/(x^r)\) and rank \(\phi (1) = t\). In this section, we derive a bound on the failure probability of the LRPC decoder over Galois rings for this error model. The resulting bound does not depend on the whole rank profile \(\phi \), but only on the rank t.
This section is the most technical and involved part of the paper. Therefore, we derive the bound in three steps, motivated by the discussion on failure conditions in Sect. 4: In Sect. 5.1, we derive an upper bound on the failure probability of the product condition. Sect. 5.2 presents a bound on the syndrome condition failure probability conditioned on the event that the product condition is fulfilled. Finally, in Sect. 5.3, we derive a bound on the intersection failure probability, given that the first conditions are satisfied.
The proof strategy is similar to the analogous derivation for LRPC codes over fields by Gaborit et al. [10]. However, our proof is much more involved for several reasons:

we need to take care of the weaker structure of Galois rings and modules over them, e.g., zero divisors and the fact that not all modules have bases and thus module elements may not be uniquely represented in a minimal generating set;

we correct a few (rather minor) technical inaccuracies in the original proof; and

some for finite fields wellknown prerequisite results are, to the best of our knowledge, not known over Galois rings.
Before analyzing the three conditions, we show the following result, whose implication is that if \(\varvec{e}\) is chosen randomly as described above, then the random variable \({\mathcal {E}}\), the support of the chosen error, is also uniformly distributed on the set of modules with rank profile \(\phi \). Note that the analogous statement for errors over a finite field follows immediately from linear algebra, but here, we need a bit more work.
Lemma 3
Let \(\phi (x) \in \mathbb Z[x]/(x^r)\) with nonnegative coefficients and let \({\mathcal {E}}\) be an \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) with rank profile \(\phi (x)\). Then, the number of vectors \(\varvec{e}\in {S}^n\) whose support is equal to \({\mathcal {E}}\) only depends on \(\phi (x)\).
Proof
Let us write \(\phi (x)=\sum _{i=0}^{r1}n_ix^i\) with \(N:=\phi (1)=\sum _{i=0}^{r1}n_i=\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {E}})\), and let \(\varGamma \) be a \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis for \({\mathcal {E}}\). Then, the vector \(\varvec{e}\) whose first N entries are the element of \(\varGamma \) and whose last \(nN\) entries are 0 is a vector whose support is equal to \({\mathcal {E}}\). Moreover, all the vectors in \({S}^n\) whose support is equal to \({\mathcal {E}}\) are of the form \((\varvec{A}\varvec{e}^\top )^\top \), for \(\varvec{A}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n,{R})\). Let us fix a basis of \({S}\) so that we can identify \({S}\) with \({R}^m\). In this representation, \(\varvec{e}^\top \) corresponds to a matrix \(\varvec{D}\varvec{T}\), where
and \(\varvec{T}\in {R}^{n\times m}\) has linearly independent rows over \({R}\). Then, the vectors in \({S}^n\) whose support is equal to \({\mathcal {E}}\) correspond to matrices \(\varvec{A}\varvec{D}\varvec{T}\) for \(\varvec{A}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n,{R})\), and their number is equal to the cardinality of the set
The group \({{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n,{R})\) left acts on \(\mathrm {Vec}({\mathcal {E}},n)\) and, by definition, its action is transitive. Hence, by the orbitstabilizer theorem, we have
where \(\mathrm {Stab}(\varvec{D}\varvec{T})=\mathrm {Stab}_{{{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n,{R})}(\varvec{D}\varvec{T})=\{\varvec{A}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n,{R}) \mid \varvec{A}\varvec{D}\varvec{T}=\varvec{D}\varvec{T}\}\). Hence, we need to count how many matrices \(\varvec{A}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n,{R})\) satisfy
Let us call \(\varvec{S}:=\varvec{A}\varvec{I}_n\) and divide it in \(r+1\) block \(\varvec{S}_i\in {R}^{n\times n_i}\) for \(i\in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\) and \(\varvec{S}_r\in {R}^{n\times (nN)}\). Moreover, do the same with \(\varvec{T}\), dividing it in \(r+1\) blocks \(\varvec{T}_i\in {R}^{n_i\times m}\) for \(i\in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\) and \(\varvec{T}_r\in {R}^{(nN)\times m}\). Therefore, we get
Since the rows of \(\varvec{T}\) are linearly independent over \({R}\), this is true if and only if \(\varvec{S}_i\in \mathfrak {m}^{ri}{R}^{n\times n_i}\). This condition clearly only depends on the values \(n_i\)’s, and hence on \(\phi (x)\). \(\square \)
5.1 Failure of product condition
The product condition means that the product space of the randomly chosen support \({\mathcal {E}}\) and the fixed free module \(\mathcal {F}\) (in which the paritycheck matrix coefficients are contained) has maximal rank profile \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}} \phi ^{\mathcal {F}}\). If \({\mathcal {E}}\) was a free module, the condition would translate to \({\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\) being a free module of rank \(\lambda t\). In fact, our proof strategy reduces the question if \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}} \phi ^{\mathcal {F}}\) to the question whether a free module of rank t, which is related to \({\mathcal {E}}\), results in a product space with the free module \(\mathcal {F}\) of maximal rank profile. Hence, we first study this question for products of free modules. This part of the bound derivation is similar to the case of LRPC codes over finite fields (cf. [1]), but the proofs and counting arguments are more involved since we need to take care of nonunits in the ring.
Lemma 4
Let \(\alpha ',\beta \) be nonnegative integers with \((\alpha '+1)\beta < m\). Further, let \({\mathcal {A}}',{\mathcal {B}}\) be free submodules of \({S}\) of free rank \(\alpha '\) and \(\beta \), respectively, such that also \({\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) is a free submodule of \({S}\) of free rank \(\alpha '\beta \). For an element \(a \in {S}^*\), chosen uniformly at random, let \({\mathcal {A}}:= {\mathcal {A}}' + \langle a \rangle \). Then, we have
Proof
First note that since a is a unit in \({S}\), the mapping \(\varphi _a \, : \, {\mathcal {B}}\rightarrow {S}, ~ b \mapsto ab\) is injective. This means that \(a{\mathcal {B}}\) is a free module with \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}(a{\mathcal {B}})=\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {B}})=\beta \). Let \(b_1,\ldots ,b_\beta \) be a basis of \({\mathcal {B}}\). Then, \(a b_1, \ldots , a b_\beta \) is a basis of \(a{\mathcal {B}}\). Therefore, \({\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) is a free module with \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}) = \alpha \beta +\beta \) if and only if \(a{\mathcal {B}}\cap {\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}= \{0\}\). Hence,
Let c be chosen uniformly at random from \({S}\). Recall that a is chosen uniformly at random from \({S}^*\). Then,
This holds since if c is chosen to be a nonunit in \({S}\), then the statement “\(\exists \, b \in {\mathcal {B}}\setminus \{0\} \, : \, cb \in {\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\)” is always true. To see this, write \(c = g_\mathfrak {m}c'\) for some \(c' \in {S}\). Since \(\beta >0\), there is a unit \(b^* \in {\mathcal {B}}\cap {S}^*\). Choose \(b := g_\mathfrak {m}^{r1}b^* \in {\mathcal {B}}\setminus \{0\}\). Hence, \(c b = g_\mathfrak {m}c' g_\mathfrak {m}^{r1}b^* = 0\), and b is from \({\mathcal {B}}\) and nonzero.
Now we bound the righthand side of (6) as follows
Since \(b^*\) is a unit in \({S}\), for uniformly drawn c, \(c b^*\) is also uniformly distributed on \({S}\). Hence, \(cb^* g_\mathfrak {m}^{j}\) is uniformly distributed on the ideal \(\mathfrak {M}^{j}\) of \({S}\) (the mapping \({S}\rightarrow \mathfrak {M}^j\), \(\chi \mapsto \chi g_\mathfrak {m}^j\) is surjective and maps equally many elements to the same image) and we have \(\Pr \left( cb^* g_\mathfrak {m}^{j} \in {\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\right) = \frac{\left \mathfrak {M}^{j} \cap {\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\right }{\mathfrak {M}^{j}}\). Let \(v_1,\ldots ,v_{\alpha '\beta }\) be a basis of \({\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\). Then, by (2), an element \(c \in {\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) is in \(\mathfrak {M}^{j}\) if and only if it can be written as \(c = \sum _{i} \mu _i v_i\), where \(\mu _i \in \mathfrak {m}^j\) for all i.
Hence, \(\left \mathfrak {M}^{j} \cap {\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\right = \mathfrak {m}^{j}^{\alpha ' \beta }\). Moreover, we have \(\mathfrak {M}^{j} = \mathfrak {m}^{j}^m\), where \(\mathfrak {m}^{j} = p^{s(rj)}\). Overall, we get
Furthermore, we have (note that \(\mathfrak {M}^{j+1} \subseteq \mathfrak {M}^{j}\))
Combining and simplifying (5), (6), (7), and (8) we obtain the desired result. \(\square \)
Lemma 5
Let \({\mathcal {B}}\) be a fixed free submodule of \({S}\) with \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {B}})=\beta \). For a positive integer \(\alpha \) with \(\alpha \beta <m\), let \({\mathcal {A}}\) be drawn uniformly at random from the set of free submodules of \({S}\) of free rank \(\alpha \). Then,
Proof
Drawing a free submodule \({\mathcal {A}}\subseteq {S}\) of rank \(\alpha \) uniformly at random is equivalent to drawing iteratively \({\mathcal {A}}_0 := \{0\}, ~ {\mathcal {A}}_i := {\mathcal {A}}_{i1} + \langle a_i \rangle \) for \(i=1,\ldots ,\alpha \) where for each iteration i, the element \(a_i \in {S}\) is chosen uniformly at random from the set of vectors that are linearly independent of \({\mathcal {A}}_{i1}\). The equivalence of the two random experiments is clear since the possible choices of the sequence \(a_1,\ldots ,a_\alpha \) gives exactly all bases of free \({R}\)submodules of \({S}\) of rank \(\alpha \). Furthermore, all sequences are equally likely and each resulting submodule has the same number of bases that generate it (which equals the number of invertible \(\alpha \times \alpha \) matrices over \({R}\)). We have the following recursive formula for any \(i=1,\ldots ,\alpha \):
where (\(*\)) follows from Lemma 4 by the following additional argument:
where the last inequality is exactly the statement of Lemma 4. By \(\Pr \big (\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}(A_{0}B)<0\big ) = 0\), we get
This proves the claim. \(\square \)
Recall that the error support \({\mathcal {E}}\) is not necessarily a free module. In the following sequence of statements, we will therefore answer the question how the results of Lemmas 4 and 5 can be used to derive a bound on the product condition failure probability. To achieve this, we study the following free modules related to modules of arbitrary rank profile. Note that this part of the proof differs significantly from LRPC codes over finite fields, where all modules are vector spaces, and thus free.
For a module \({\mathcal {M}}\subseteq {S}\) with \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis \(\varGamma \), define \(\mathcal {F}(\varGamma ) \subseteq {S}\) be the free module that is obtained from \({\mathcal {M}}\) as follows: Let us write \(\varGamma =\{g_\mathfrak {m}^ia_{i,\ell _i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le \ell _i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i \}\), where the elements \(a_{i,\ell _i}\) are all reduced modulo \(\mathfrak {M}^{ri}\), that is, the Teichmüller representation of \(a_{i,\ell _i}\) is of the form
This is clearly possible since if we add to \(a_{i,\ell _i}\) an element \(y\in \mathfrak {M}^{ri}=(g_\mathfrak {m}^{ri})\), then \(g_\mathfrak {m}^i(a_{i,\ell _i}+y)=g_\mathfrak {m}^ia_{i,\ell _i}\). At this point, we define \(F(\varGamma ) := \{a_{i,\ell _i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le \ell _i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\}\), and \(\mathcal {F}(\varGamma ):=\langle F(\varGamma )\rangle _{{R}}\). The fact that \(\mathcal {F}(\varGamma )\) is free directly follows from considering its Smith Normal Form, which tells us that in the matrix representation it is spanned by (some of) the rows of an invertible matrix in \({{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(m,{R})\). In particular, we have \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}(\mathcal {F}(\varGamma ))={{\,\mathrm{rk}\,}}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}})\).
Example 7
Let \(p=2\), \(s=1\), \(r=3\) as in Example 2, \(h(z) = z^3+z+1\) and \({\mathcal {M}}\) a module with \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis \(\varGamma = \{1,2z^2+2z,4z^2+2z+2\}\). Then, \({\mathcal {M}}\) has a diagnonal matrix in Smith normal form of
and \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}(z) = 2z+1\). Using the notation above, we observe \(a_{0,1}=1\), \(a_{1,1}=z^2+z\), \(a_{1,2} = z^3+2z^2\) and \(\mathcal {F}(\varGamma ) = \langle \{1,z^2+z,z^3+2z^2\} \rangle _{{R}}\).
At this point, for two different \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped bases \(\varGamma , \Lambda \) of \({\mathcal {M}}\), one could ask whether \(\mathcal {F}(\varGamma )= \mathcal {F}(\Lambda )\). The answer is affirmative, and it can be deduced from the following result.
Proposition 2
Let \(n_0,\ldots ,n_{r1}\in \mathbb {N}\) be nonnegative integers, let \(N:=n_0+\cdots +n_{r1}\) and let \(\varvec{D}\in {R}^{N\times N}\) be a diagonal matrix given by
Moreover, let \(\varvec{T}_1,\varvec{T}_2 \in {R}^{r\times m}\) be such that the rows of \(\varvec{T}_i\) are \({R}\)linearly independent for each \(i\in \{1,2\}\). Then, the rowspaces of \(\varvec{D}\varvec{T}_1\) and \(\varvec{D}\varvec{T}_2\) coincide if and only if for every \(i,j \in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\) there exist \(\varvec{Y}_{i,j}\in {R}^{n_i\times n_j}\) with \(\varvec{Y}_{i,i}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n_i,{R})\) and \(\varvec{Z}_i\in {R}^{n_i\times m}\) such that
where
Proof
The rowspaces of \(\varvec{D}\varvec{T}_1\) and \(\varvec{D}\varvec{T}_2\) coincide if and only if there exists a matrix \(\varvec{X}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(N,{R})\) such that \(\varvec{X}\varvec{D}\varvec{T}_1=\varvec{D}\varvec{T}_2\). Divide \(\varvec{T}_\ell \) in r blocks \(\varvec{T}_{\ell ,i}\in {R}^{n_i \times m}\) for \(i\in \{0,\ldots , r1\}\) and divide \(\varvec{X}\) in \(r\times r\) blocks \(\varvec{X}_{i,j}\in {R}^{n_i\times n_j}\) for \(i,j \in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\). Hence, from \(\varvec{X}\varvec{D}\varvec{T}_1=\varvec{D}\varvec{T}_2\) we get
Since the rows of \(\varvec{T}_{1}\) are \({R}\)linearly independent, (9) implies that \(g_\mathfrak {m}^j\varvec{X}_{i,j} \in g_\mathfrak {m}^i{R}^{n_i\times n_j}\). This shows that
for some \(\varvec{Y}_{i,j}\in {R}^{n_i\times n_j}\). Observe now that \(\varvec{X}=\varvec{U}+g_\mathfrak {m}\varvec{L}\), where
Since \(\varvec{X}\) is invertible and \(g_\mathfrak {m}\varvec{L}\) is nilpotent, then \(\varvec{U}\) is also invertible and hence \(\varvec{Y}_{i,i}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n_i,{R})\), for every \(i\in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\). At this point, observe that \( \varvec{X}\varvec{D}= \varvec{D}\varvec{Y}\), from which we deduce
This implies that the ith block of \(\varvec{T}_2\varvec{Y}\varvec{T}_1 \in {{\,\mathrm{Ann}\,}}(g_\mathfrak {m}^i){R}^{n_i\times m}=g_\mathfrak {m}^{ri}{R}^{n_i\times m}\) and we conclude. \(\square \)
Let \({\mathcal {M}}\) be an \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\). Proposition 2 implies that if we restrict to take a \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis \(\varGamma =\left\{ g_\mathfrak {m}^ia_{i,j_i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le j_i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\right\} \) such that the elements \(a_{i,j_i}\) have Teichmüller representation
then the module \(\mathcal {F}(\varGamma )\) is welldefined and does not depend on the choice of \(\varGamma \).
Definition 4
We define \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}})\) to be the space \(\mathcal {F}(\varGamma )\), where \(\varGamma =\left\{ g_\mathfrak {m}^ia_{i,j_i} \mid 0\le i \le \right. \)\(\left. r1, 1 \le j_i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\right\} \) is any \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis such that the elements \(a_{i,j_i}\) have Teichmüller representation as in (10).
The following two corollaries follow from observations in Proposition 2. We will use them to show that for certain uniformly chosen modules \({\mathcal {M}}\), the corresponding free modules \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}})\) are uniformly chosen from the set of free modules of rank equal to the rank of \({\mathcal {M}}\). The proofs can be found in Appendix A.
Now, for a given \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) we consider all the free modules that comes from a \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis for \({\mathcal {M}}\). More specifically, we set
In fact, even though for the \({R}\)module \({\mathcal {M}}\) there is a unique free module \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}})\) as explained in Definition 4, we have more than one free module \({\mathcal {A}}\) belonging to \(\mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}})\). The exact number of such free modules is given in the following Corollary.
Corollary 1
Let \({\mathcal {M}}\) be an \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) with rank profile \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}(x)\) and rank \(N := {{\,\mathrm{rk}\,}}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}})\). Then
In particular, \(\mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}})\) only depends on \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}(x)\).
Proof
See Appendix A. \(\square \)
Now we estimate an opposite quantity. For a fixed rank profile \(\phi (x)\) with \(\phi (1)\le m\), and given a free \({R}\)submodule \({\mathcal {N}}\) of \({S}\) with free rank \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {N}})=\phi (1)\), for how many \({R}\)submodules \({\mathcal {M}}\) of \({S}\) with rank profile \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}(x)=\phi (x)\) the module \({\mathcal {N}}\) belongs to \(\mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}})\)? Formally, we want to estimate the cardinality of the set
Corollary 2
Let \(\phi (x)=\sum _{i=0}^{r1}n_ix^i\in \mathbb {N}[x]/(x^r)\) such that \(\phi (1)=N\le m\), and let \({\mathcal {N}}\) be a free \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) with free rank \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {N}})=N\). Then
In particular, \(\mathrm {Mod}(\phi ,{\mathcal {N}})\) only depends on \(\phi (x)\).
Proof
See Appendix A. \(\square \)
We need the following lemma to derive a sufficient condition for the product of two modules to have a maximal rank profile.
Lemma 6
Let \({\mathcal {M}}\) be an \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\), and let \({\mathcal {A}}, {\mathcal {B}}\in \mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}})\). Moreover, let \({\mathcal {N}}\) be a free \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\). Then, \({\mathcal {N}}\cdot {\mathcal {A}}\) is free with \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {N}}\cdot {\mathcal {A}})=\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}})\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {N}})\) if and only if \({\mathcal {N}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) is free with \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {N}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}})=\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}})\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {N}})\).
Proof
Let \(A=\{a_{i,j_i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le j_i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\}\) be a basis of \({\mathcal {A}}\) and \(B=\{b_{i,j_i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le j_i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\}\) be a basis of \({\mathcal {B}}\) such that \(\varGamma := \{g_\mathfrak {m}^ia_{i,j_i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le j_i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\}\) and \(\Lambda := \{g_\mathfrak {m}^ib_{i,j_i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le j_i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i\}\) are two \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped bases for \({\mathcal {M}}\), and let \(\varDelta =\{u_1,\ldots ,u_t\}\) be a basis for \({\mathcal {N}}\). Assume that \(\varDelta \cdot A=\{u_{\ell }a_{i,j_i} \}\) has \(\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}})\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {N}})\) linearly independent elements over \({R}\). By symmetry, it is enough to show that this implies \({\mathcal {N}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) is free. By Proposition 2, we know that there exists \(x_{i,j_i} \in {S}\) such that \({\mathcal {B}}=\langle \{a_{i,j_i}+g_\mathfrak {m}x_{i,j_i} \mid 0\le i \le r1, 1 \le j_i \le \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}_i \} \rangle _{{R}}\). Hence, we need to prove that the elements \(\{u_{\ell }(a_{i,j_i}+g_mx_{i,j_i})\}\) are linearly independent over \({R}\). Suppose that there exists \(\lambda _{\ell ,i,j_i}\in {R}\) such that
hence, rearranging the sum, we get
Multiplying both sides by \(g_\mathfrak {m}^{r1}\) we obtain
and since by hypothesis \(\{u_{\ell }a_{i,j_i}\}\) is a basis, this implies \(\lambda _{\ell ,i,j_i}\in {{\,\mathrm{Ann}\,}}(g_\mathfrak {m}^{r1})=\mathfrak {m}\) and therefore there exist \(\lambda '_{\ell ,i,j_i}\in {R}\), such that \(\lambda _{\ell ,i,j_i}=\varvec{g}_\mathfrak {m}\lambda '_{\ell ,i,j_i}\). Thus, (11) becomes
Now, multiplying both sides by \(g_\mathfrak {m}^{r2}\) and with the same reasoning as before, we obtain that all the \(\lambda '_{\ell ,i,j_i}\in \mathfrak {m}\) and the righthand side of (11) belongs to \(\mathfrak {m}^3\). Iterating this process \(r2\) times, we finally get that the righthand side of (11) belongs to \(\mathfrak {m}^r=(0)\), and therefore (11) corresponds to
which, by hypothesis implies \(\lambda _{\ell ,i,j_i}=0\) for every \(\ell ,i,j_i\). This concludes the proof, showing that the elements \(\{u_{\ell }(a_{i,j_i}+g_mx_{i,j_i})\}\) are linearly independent over \({R}\). \(\square \)
With the aid of Lemma 6 we can show that the property for the product of two arbitrary \({R}\)modules \({\mathcal {M}}_1, {\mathcal {M}}_2\) of having maximal rank profile (according to Definition 1) depends on the free modules \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\) and \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}}_2)\) and on their product.
Proposition 3
Let \({\mathcal {M}}_1\) and \({\mathcal {M}}_2\) be submodules of \({S}\). If the product of free modules \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\) and \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}}_2)\) has free rank
then we have
Moreover, if we assume that \(\deg (\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1}(x))+\deg (\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_2}(x))<r\), then also the converse is true. In particular, the converse is true if one of the two modules is free.
Proof
First, observe that by Lemma 6 we can take any pair of \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped bases \(\varGamma _1\) and \(\varGamma _2\) of \({\mathcal {M}}_1\) and \({\mathcal {M}}_2\), respectively. Let us fix
\(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of \({\mathcal {M}}_1\) and
\(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of \({\mathcal {M}}_2\). By hypothesis, the set \(F(\varGamma _1)\cdot F(\varGamma _2)\) contains \(\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}}_2)=t\) linearly independent elements over \({R}\). Let \(\varvec{A}\in {R}^{t\times m}\) be the matrix whose rows are the vectorial representations in \({R}^m\) of the elements in \(F(\varGamma _1)\cdot F(\varGamma _2)\). Clearly, a Smith Normal Form for \(\varvec{A}\) is \(\varvec{A}=\varvec{D}\varvec{T}\) where \(\varvec{D}= ( \varvec{I}_t \mid \varvec{0})\) and \(\varvec{T}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(n,{R})\) is any invertible matrix whose first \(t\times m\) block is equal to \(\varvec{A}\). By definition \(\varGamma _1\cdot \varGamma _2\) is a generating set for \({\mathcal {M}}_1\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2\) and hence \({\mathcal {M}}_1\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2\) is equal to the rowspace of the matrix \(\varvec{A}'\) whose rows are the vectorial representations of the elements in \(\varGamma _1\cdot \varGamma _2\). A row of \(\varvec{A}'\) corresponding to the element \(g_\mathfrak {m}^ia_{i,j_i}g_\mathfrak {m}^sb_{s,\ell _s}\in \varGamma _1\cdot \varGamma _2\) is equal to the row of \(\varvec{A}\) corresponding to the element \(a_{i,j_i}b_{s,\ell _s}\) multiplied by \(g_\mathfrak {m}^{i+s}\). Therefore, \(\varvec{A}'=\varvec{D}'\varvec{A}=\varvec{D}'\varvec{D}\varvec{T}=(\varvec{D}'\mid \varvec{0})\varvec{T}\), where \(\varvec{D}'\) is a \(t\times t\) diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are all of the form \(g_{\mathfrak {m}}^{i+s}\) for suitable i, s. This shows that \(\varvec{A}'=(\varvec{D}'\mid \varvec{0})\varvec{T}\) is a Smith Normal Form for \(\varvec{A}'\) and the rank profile \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2}(x)\) corresponds to \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1}(x)\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_2}(x)\).
On the other hand, if \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2}(x)=\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1}(x)\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_2}(x)\), then the set \(\varGamma _1\cdot \varGamma _2\) is a \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis for \({\mathcal {M}}_1\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2\). Moreover, since \(\deg (\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1}(x))+\deg (\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_2}(x))<r\), we have that \(F(\varGamma _1)\cdot F(\varGamma _2)=F(\varGamma _1\cdot \varGamma _2)\), which is a set of \(\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}}_2)\) nonzero elements. Let \(\varvec{S}\varvec{D}\varvec{T}\) be a Smith normal form for \({\mathcal {M}}_1\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2\), then the elements of \(F(\varGamma _1\cdot \varGamma _2)\) correspond to the first \(\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}}_2)\) rows of matrix \(\varvec{T}\), and hence they are \({R}\)linearly independent. Thus, \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\cdot \mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}}_2)\) is free with free rank equal to \(\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {M}}_2)\). \(\square \)
Remark 3
Observe that the second part of Proposition 3 does not hold anymore if we remove the hypothesis that \(\deg (\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1}(x))+\deg (\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_2}(x))<r\).
Let \({\mathcal {A}}'\), \({\mathcal {A}}={\mathcal {A}}'+\langle a\rangle \) and \({\mathcal {B}}\) be three free modules of free rank \(\alpha 1\), \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) respectively, such that \({\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) is free of rank \((\alpha 1)\beta \), but \({\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) is not free of rank \(\alpha \beta \). Take a basis for \({\mathcal {A}}\) of the form \(\{a_1,\ldots , a_{\alpha 1},a\}\) such that \(\{a_1,\ldots , a_{\alpha 1}\}\) is a basis of \({\mathcal {A}}'\), and fix also a basis \(\{b_1,\ldots ,b_{\beta }\}\) for \({\mathcal {B}}\). Then, define \({\mathcal {M}}_1\) to be the \({R}\)module whose \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis is \(\{a_1,\ldots ,\varvec{a}_{\alpha 1},g_\mathfrak {m}^{r1}a\}\), and define \({\mathcal {M}}_2=\mathfrak {m}{\mathcal {B}}\). Consider the module \({\mathcal {M}}_1\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2\). It is easy to see that \({\mathcal {M}}_1\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2=\mathfrak {m}({\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {B}})={\mathcal {A}}'\cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2\). Observe that \({\mathcal {B}}\in \mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}}_2)\) and by Proposition 3 and Lemma 6, we have that \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1 \cdot {\mathcal {M}}_2}(x) = \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_1}(x) \phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}_2}(x)\). However, by construction we have \({\mathcal {A}}\in \mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\), \({\mathcal {B}}\in \mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\) and \({\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\) is not free of rank \(\alpha \beta \). Therefore, by Lemma 6 this also holds for \(\mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}}_1)\cdot \mathcal {F}({\mathcal {M}}_2)\).
We are now ready to put the various statements of this subsection together and prove an upper bound on the failure probability of the product condition—the main statement of this subsection.
Theorem 1
Let \({\mathcal {B}}\) be a fixed \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) with rank profile \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {B}}}(x)\) and let \(\lambda :=\phi ^{{\mathcal {B}}}(1)=\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {B}})\). Let t be a positive integer with \(t \lambda <m\) and \(\phi (x) \in \mathbb {Z}[x]/(x^r)\) with nonnegative coefficients such that \(\phi (1)=t\). Let \({\mathcal {A}}\) be an \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) selected uniformly at random among all the modules with \(\phi ^{\mathcal {A}}= \phi \). Then,
Proof
Let us denote by \(\mathrm {Mod}(\phi )\) the set of all \({R}\)submodules of \({S}\) whose rank profile equals \(\phi \). Choose uniformly at random a module \({\mathcal {A}}\) in \(\mathrm {Mod}(\phi )\), and then select \(\mathcal {X}\) uniformly at random from \(\mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {A}})\). Then, this results in a uniform distribution on the set of all free modules with free rank equal to \(\phi (1)=t\), that is the set \(\mathrm {Mod}(t)\), where t denotes the constant polynomial in \(\mathbb {Z}[x]/(x^r)\) equal to t. Indeed, for an arbitrary free module \({\mathcal {N}}\) with \(\mathrm {frk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {N}})=t\),
which by Corollaries 1 and 2 is a constant number that does not depend on \({\mathcal {N}}\).
Now, suppose that \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}} \ne \phi ^{{\mathcal {A}}} \phi ^{{\mathcal {B}}}\). By Proposition 3, this implies \({\mathcal {N}}\cdot {\mathcal {N}}'\) is not a free module of rank \(t\lambda \), where \({\mathcal {N}}\) is any free module in \(\mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {A}})\) and \({\mathcal {N}}'\) is any free module in \(\mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {B}})\). Hence,
and we conclude using Lemma 5. \(\square \)
As a consequence, we can finally derive the desired upper bound on the product condition failure probability.
Theorem 2
Let \(\mathcal {F}\) be defined as in Definition 2. Let t be a positive integer with \(t \lambda <m\) and \(\phi (x) \in \mathbb {Z}[x]/(x^r)\) with nonnegative coefficients and such that \(\phi (1)=t\) (recall that this means that an error of rank profile \(\phi \) has rank t). Let \(\varvec{e}\) be an error word, chosen uniformly at random among all error words with support \({\mathcal {E}}\) of rank profile \(\phi ^{\mathcal {E}}= \phi \). Then, the probability that the product condition is not fulfilled is
Proof
Let us denote by \(\mathrm {Mod}(\phi )\) the set of all \({R}\)submodules of \({S}\) whose rank profile equals \(\phi \). By Lemma 3, choosing uniformly at random \(\varvec{e}\) among all the words whose support \({\mathcal {E}}\) has rank profile \(\phi \) results in a uniform distribution on \(\mathrm {Mod}(\phi )\). At this point, the claim follows from Theorem 1. \(\square \)
5.2 Failure of syndrome condition
Here we derive a bound on the probability that the syndrome condition is not fulfilled, given that the product condition is satisfied. As in the case of finite fields, the bound is based on the relative number of matrices of a given dimension that have full (free) rank. For completeness, we give a closedform expression for this number in the following lemma. However, it can also be derived from the number of submodules of a given rank profile, which was given in [13, Theorem 2.4]. Note that the latter result holds also for finite chain rings.
Lemma 7
Let a, b be positive integers with \(a < b\). Then, the number of \(a \times b\) matrices over \({R}={{\,\mathrm{GR}\,}}(p^r,s)\) of (full) free rank a is \(\mathrm {NM}(a,b;{R}) = p^{a b r s} \prod _{a'=0}^{a1} \left( 1p^{a'b} \right) \).
Proof
First note that \(\mathrm {NM}(1,b;{R}) = p^{b r s}p^{b (r1) s} = p^{brs}\big (1p^{bs}\big )\) since a \(1 \times b\) matrices over \({R}\) is of free rank 1 if and only if at least one entry is a unit. Hence we subtract from the number of all matrices (\({R}^b = p^{b r s}\)) the number of vectors that consist only of nonunits \(({R}{R}^*)^b = p^{b(r1)s}\) (cf. (1)).
Let now for any \(a' \le a\) be \(\varvec{A}\in {R}^{a' \times b}\) a matrix of free rank \(a'\). We define \(\mathcal {V}(\varvec{A}) := \big \{ \varvec{v}\in {R}^{1 \times b} \! : \! \mathrm {frk}\big (\begin{bmatrix} \varvec{A}^\top \varvec{v}^\top \end{bmatrix}^\top \big ) = a' \big \}\). We study the cardinality of \(\mathcal {V}(\varvec{A})\). We have \(\mathrm {frk}\big (\begin{bmatrix} \varvec{A}^\top \varvec{v}^\top \end{bmatrix}^\top \big ) = a'\) if and only if the rows of the matrix \(\hat{\varvec{A}} := \begin{bmatrix} \varvec{A}^\top \varvec{v}^\top \end{bmatrix}^\top \) are linearly dependent. Due to \(\mathrm {frk}(\varvec{A}) = a'\) and the existence of a Smith normal form of \(\varvec{A}\), there are invertibe matrices \(\varvec{S}\) and \(\varvec{T}\) such that \(\varvec{S}\varvec{A}\varvec{T}= \varvec{D}\), where \(\varvec{D}\) is a diagonal matrix with ones on its diagonal.
Since \(\varvec{S}\) and \(\varvec{T}\) are invertible, we can count the number of vectors \(\varvec{v}'\) such that the rows of the matrix \(\big [ \varvec{D}^\top {\varvec{v}'}^\top \big ]^\top \) are linearly independent instead of the matrix \(\hat{\varvec{A}}\) (note that \(\varvec{v}= \varvec{v}' \varvec{T}^{1}\) gives a corresponding linearly dependent row in \(\hat{\varvec{A}}\)).
Since \(\varvec{D}\) is in diagonal form with only ones on its diagonal, the linearly dependent vectors are exactly of the form
where \(v'_i \in {R}\) for \(i=1,\ldots ,a'\) and \(v'_i \in \mathfrak {m}\) for \(i=a'+1,\ldots ,b\). Hence, we have
Note that this value is independent of \(\varvec{A}\).
By the discussion on \(\mathcal {V}(\varvec{A})\), we get the following recursive formula:
which resolves into \(\mathrm {NM}(a,b;{R}) = p^{a b r s} \prod _{a'=0}^{a1} \left( 1p^{(a'b)s}\right) \). \(\square \)
At this point we can prove the bound on the failure probability of the syndrome condition similar to the one in [10], using Lemma 7. The additional difficulty over rings is to deal with nonunique decompositions of module elements in \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped bases and the derivation of a simplified bound on the relative number of nonfullrank matrices. Furthermore, the start of the proof corrects a minor technical impreciseness of Gaborit et al.’s proof.
Theorem 3
Let \(\mathcal {F}\) be defined as in Definition 2, t be a positive integer with \(t \lambda < \min \{m,nk+1\}\), and \({\mathcal {E}}\) be an error space of rank t. Suppose that the product condition is fulfilled for \({\mathcal {E}}\) and \(\mathcal {F}\). Suppose further that \(\varvec{H}\) has the maximalrowspan and unity properties (cf. Definition 3).
Let \(\varvec{e}\) be an error word, chosen uniformly at random among all error words with support \({\mathcal {E}}\). Then, the probability that the syndrome condition is not fulfilled for \(\varvec{e}\) is
Proof
Let \(\varvec{e}' \in {S}^n\) be chosen such that every entry \(e_i'\) is chosen uniformly at random from the error support \({\mathcal {E}}\).^{Footnote 1} Denote by \({\mathcal {S}}_{\varvec{e}}\) and \({\mathcal {S}}_{\varvec{e}'}\) the syndrome spaces obtained by computing the syndromes of \(\varvec{e}\) and \(\varvec{e}'\), respectively. Then, we have
where the latter equality follows from the fact that the random experiments of choosing \(\varvec{e}'\) and conditioning on the property that \(\varvec{e}'\) has support \({\mathcal {E}}\) is the same as directly drawing \(\varvec{e}\) uniformly at random from the set of errors with support \({\mathcal {E}}\). Hence, we obtain a lower bound on \(\Pr \big ( {\mathcal {S}}_{\varvec{e}} = {\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\big )\) by studying \(\Pr \big ({\mathcal {S}}_{\varvec{e}'} = {\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\big )\), which we do in the following.
Let \(f_1,\ldots ,f_\lambda \) and \(\varepsilon _1,\ldots ,\varepsilon _t\) be \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped bases of \(\mathcal {F}\) and \({\mathcal {E}}\), respectively, such that \(f_j \varepsilon _i\) for \(i=1,\ldots ,t\), \(j=1,\ldots ,\lambda \) form an \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of \({\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\). Note that the existence of such bases is guaranteed by the assumed product condition \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}} \phi ^{\mathcal {F}}\).
Since \(e'_i\) is an element drawn uniformly at random from \({\mathcal {E}}\), we can write it as \(e'_i = \sum _{\mu =1}^{t} e_{i,\mu }' \varepsilon _\mu \), where \(e_{i,j}'\) are uniformly distributed on \({R}\). We can assume uniformity of \(e_{i,\mu }'\) since for a given \(e'_i\), the decomposition of \(e_{i,\mu }'\) is unique modulo \(\mathfrak {m}^{rv(\varepsilon _i)}\). In particular, there are equally many decompositions \([e_{i,1}',\dots ,e_{i,t}']\) for each \(e'_i\) and the sets of these decompositions are disjoint for different i.
Due to the unity property of the paritycheck matrix \(\varvec{H}\), we can write any entry \(H_{i,j}\) of \(\varvec{H}\) as \(H_{i,j} = \sum _{\eta =1}^{\lambda } h_{i,j,\eta } f_\eta \), where the \(h_{i,j,\eta }\) are units in \({R}\) or zero. Furthermore, since each row of \(\varvec{H}\) spans the entire module \(\mathcal {F}\) (fullrowspan property), for each i and each \(\eta \), there is at least one \(j^*\) with \(h_{i,j^*,\eta } \ne 0\). By the previous assumption, this means that \(h_{i,j^*,\eta } \in {R}^*\).
Then, each syndrome coefficient can be written as
By the above discussion, for each i and \(\eta \), there is a \(j^*\) with \(h_{i,j^*,\eta } \in {R}^*\). Hence, \(s_{\mu ,\eta ,i}\) is a sum (with at least one summand) of the products of uniformly distributed elements of \({R}\) and units of \({R}\). A uniformly distributed ring element times a unit is also uniformly distributed on \({R}\). Hence \(s_{\mu ,\eta ,i}\) is a sum (with at least one summand) of uniformly distributed elements of \({R}\). Hence, \(s_{\mu ,\eta ,i}\) itself is uniformly distributed on \({R}\).
All together, we can write
where, by assumption, the \(\varepsilon _i f_j\) are a generating set of \({\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\) and the matrix \(\varvec{S}\) is chosen uniformly at random from \({R}^{(nk)\times t \lambda }\). If \(\varvec{S}\) has full free rank \(t \lambda \), then we have \({\mathcal {S}}_{\varvec{e}'} = {\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\). By Lemma 7, the probability of drawing such a fullrank matrix is
This proves the bound
We simplify the bound further using the observation that the product is a qPochhammer symbol. Hence, we have
where \(\left[ \begin{matrix} a \\ b \end{matrix} \right] _{q} := \prod _{j=1}^{b} \tfrac{q^{a+1j}1}{q^{j}1}\) is the Gaussian binomial coefficient. Using \(q^{b(ab)} \le \left[ \begin{matrix} a \\ b \end{matrix} \right] _{q} < 4 q^{b(ab)}\), we obtain
for \(\lambda t < nk+1\), i.e., \(a_j\) is strictly monotonically decreasing. Since the summands \(a_j\) have alternating sign, we can thus bound \(\sum _{j=1}^{\lambda t}a_j \le a_1\), which gives
\(\square \)
Remark 4
In contrast to Theorem 3 the fullrowspan property was not assumed in [1, Proposition 4.3], which is the analogous statement for finite fields. However, also the statement in [1, Proposition 4.3] is only correct if we assume additional structure on the paritycheck matrix (e.g., that each row spans the entire space \(\mathcal {F}\) or a weaker condition), due to the following counterexample: Consider a paritycheck matrix \(\varvec{H}\) that contains only nonzero entries on its diagonal and in the last row, where the diagonal entries are all \(f_1\) and the last row contains the remaining \(f_2,\ldots ,f_\lambda \), i.e.,
This is a valid paritycheck matrix according to [1, Definition 4.1] since the entries of \(\varvec{H}\) span the entire space \(\mathcal {F}\). However, due to the structure of the matrix, the first \(nk1\) syndromes are all in \(f_1 {\mathcal {E}}\), hence \(\mathrm {rk}_{{R}}({\mathcal {S}}) \le t+1 < t \lambda \) for any error of support \({\mathcal {E}}\).
5.3 Failure of intersection condition
We use a similar proof strategy as in [1] to derive an upper bound on the failure probability of the intersection condition. The following lemma is the Galoisring analog of [1, Lemma 3.4], where the difference is that we need to take care of the fact that the representation of module elements in an \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis is not necessarily unique in a Galois ring.
Lemma 8
Let \({\mathcal {A}}\subseteq {S}\) be an \({R}\)module of rank \(\alpha \) and \({\mathcal {B}}\subseteq {S}\) be a free \({R}\)module of free rank \(\beta \). Assume that \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}^2} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {A}}} \phi ^{{\mathcal {B}}^2}\) and that there is an element \(e \in {\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\setminus {\mathcal {A}}\) with \(e {\mathcal {B}}\subseteq {\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\). Then, there is an \(y \in {\mathcal {B}}\setminus {R}\) such that \(y {\mathcal {B}}\subseteq {\mathcal {B}}\).
Proof
Let \(a_1,\ldots ,a_\alpha \) be an \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of \({\mathcal {A}}\) and \(b_1,\ldots ,b_\beta \) be a basis of \({\mathcal {B}}\). Due to \(e \in {\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\), there are coefficients \(e_{i,j} \in {R}\) such that
Due to the fact that \(e \notin {\mathcal {A}}\), there is an \(\eta \in \{1,\ldots ,\alpha \}\) with \(b_\eta ' a_\eta \notin {\mathcal {A}}\). In particular, \(y := g_\mathfrak {m}^{v(a_\eta )} b_\eta ' \in {\mathcal {B}}\setminus {R}\). We show that y fulfills \(y {\mathcal {B}}\subseteq {\mathcal {B}}\).
Let now \(b \in {\mathcal {B}}\). Since by assumption \(eb \in {\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\), there are \(c_{i,j} \in {R}\) with \(e b = \sum _{i=1}^{\alpha } \left( \sum _{j=1}^{\beta } c_{i,j} b_j \right) a_i\). By (12), we can also write \(e b = \sum _{i=1}^{\alpha } \left( \sum _{j=1}^{\beta } e_{i,j} b_j b \right) a_i = \sum _{i=1}^{\alpha } b_i' b a_i\). Due to the maximality of the rank profile of \({\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}^2\), i.e., \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}^2} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {A}}} \phi ^{{\mathcal {B}}^2}\), we have that the coefficients \(c_{i} \in {\mathcal {B}}^2\) of any representation \(c = \sum _i c_i a_i\) of an element \(c \in {\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}^2\) are unique modulo \(\mathfrak {M}^{rv(a_i)}\). Hence, for every \(i=1,\ldots ,\alpha \), there exists \(\chi _i \in {\mathcal {B}}^2\) such that
Thus, with \(\sum _{j=1}^{\beta } c_{\eta ,j} b_j \in {\mathcal {B}}\), \(g_\mathfrak {m}^{v(a_i)} \in {R}\), and \(g_\mathfrak {m}^{r}=0\), we get
Since this hold for any b, we have \(y {\mathcal {B}}\subseteq {\mathcal {B}}\), which proves the claim. \(\square \)
We get the following bound using Lemma 8, Theorem 1, and a similar argument as in [10].
Theorem 4
Let \(\mathcal {F}\) be defined as in Definition 2 such that it has the basering property (i.e., \(1 \in \mathcal {F})\). Suppose that no intermediate ring \(R'\) between \({R}\subsetneq R' \subseteq {S}\) is contained in \(\mathcal {F}\) (this holds, e.g., for \(\lambda \) greater than the smallest divisor of m or for special \(\mathcal {F})\).
Let t be a positive integer with \(t \tfrac{\lambda (\lambda +1)}{2} < m\) and \(t \lambda < nk+1\), and let \(\phi (x) \in \mathbb {Z}[x]/(x^r)\) with nonnegative coefficients such that \(\phi (1)=t\). Choose \(\varvec{e}\in {S}^n\) uniformly at random from the set of vectors with whose support has rank profile \(\phi \).
Then, the probability that the intersection condition is not fulfilled, given that syndrome and product conditions are satisfied, is
Proof
Suppose that the product (\(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}} \phi ^{\mathcal {F}}\)) and syndrome (\({\mathcal {S}}= {\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}\)) conditions are fulfilled, and assume that the intersection condition is not fulfilled. Then we have \(\bigcap _{i=1}^{\lambda } {\mathcal {S}}_i =: {\mathcal {E}}' \supsetneq {\mathcal {E}}\). Choose any \(e \in {\mathcal {E}}' \setminus {\mathcal {E}}\). Since \(\mathcal {F}\) contains 1 by assumption, we have \(e \in {\mathcal {A}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\). Due to \({\mathcal {A}}\subseteq {\mathcal {E}}\), we have \(e \notin {\mathcal {A}}\). Furthermore, we have \({\mathcal {E}}' \cdot {\mathcal {B}}= {\mathcal {E}}\cdot {\mathcal {B}}\), so all conditions on e of Lemma 8 are fulfilled.
Since \({\mathcal {E}}\) is chosen uniformly at random from all free submodules of \({S}\) of rank t, we can apply Theorem 1 and obtain that \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}\cdot \mathcal {F}^2} = \phi ^{{\mathcal {E}}} \phi ^{\mathcal {F}^2}\) with probability at least
where \(\lambda ' := \mathrm {rk}_{{R}}(\mathcal {F}^2) \le \tfrac{1}{2}\lambda (\lambda +1)\) (this is clear since \(\mathcal {F}^2\) is generated by the products of all unordered element pairs of an \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of \(\mathcal {F}\)).
Hence, with probability at least one minus this value, both conditions of Lemma 8 are fulfilled. In that case, there is an element \(y \in \mathcal {F}\setminus {R}\) such that \(y \mathcal {F}\subseteq \mathcal {F}\). Thus, also \(y^i \mathcal {F}\subseteq \mathcal {F}\) for all positive integers i, and we have that the ring \({R}(y)\) extended by the element \(y \notin {R}\) fulfills \({R}(y) \subseteq \mathcal {F}\) (this holds since \(\mathcal {F}\) contains at least one unit). This is a contradiction to the assumption on intermediate rings. \(\square \)
5.4 Overall failure probability
The following theorem states the overall bound on the failure probability, exploiting the bounds derived in Theorems 2, 3, and 4.
Theorem 5
Let \(\mathcal {F}\) be defined as in Defintion 2 such that it has the basering property (i.e., \(1 \in \mathcal {F})\). Suppose that no intermediate ring \(R'\) between \({R}\subsetneq R' \subseteq {S}\) is contained in \(\mathcal {F}\) (this holds, e.g., for \(\lambda \) greater than the smallest divisor of m or for special \(\mathcal {F})\). Suppose further that \(\varvec{H}\) has the maximalrowspan and unity properties (cf. Definition 3).
Let t be a positive integer with \(t \tfrac{\lambda (\lambda +1)}{2} < m\) and \(t \lambda < nk+1\), and let \(\phi (x) \in \mathbb {Z}[x]/(x^r)\) with nonnegative coefficients such that \(\phi (1)=t\). Choose \(\varvec{e}\in {S}^n\) uniformly at random from the set of vectors with whose support has rank profile \(\phi \).
Then, Algorithm 1 with input \(\varvec{c}+\varvec{e}\) returns \(\varvec{c}\) with a failure probability of at most
Proof
The statement follows by applying the union bound to the failure probabilities of the three success conditions, derived in Theorems 2, 3, and 4. \(\square \)
The simplified bound (14) in Theorem 5 coincides up to a constant with the bound by Gaborit et at. [10] in the case of a finite field (Galois ring with \(r=1\)). If we compare an LRPC code over a finite field of size \(p^{rs}\) and with an LRPC code over a Galois ring with parameters p, r, s (i.e., the same cardinality), then we can observe that the bounds have the same exponent, but the base of the exponent is different: It is \(p^{rs}\) for the field and \(p^s\) for the ring case. Hence, the maximal decoding radii \(t_\mathrm {max}\) (i.e., the maximal rank t for which the bound is \(<1\)) are roughly the same, but the exponential decay in \(t_\mathrm {max}t\) for smaller error rank t is slower in case of rings due to a smaller base of the exponential expression. This “loss” is expected due to the weaker structure of modules over Galois rings compared to vector spaces over fields.
6 Decoding complexity
We discuss the decoding complexity of the decoding algorithm described in Sect. 4. Over a field, all operations within the decoding algorithm are wellstudied and it is clear that the algorithm runs in roughly \(\tilde{O}(\lambda ^2 n^2 m)\) operations over the small field \(\mathbb {F}_q\). Although we believe that an analog treatment over the rings studied in this paper must be known in the community, we have not found a comprehensive complexity overview of the corresponding operations in the literature. Hence, we start the complexity analysis with an overview of complexities of ring operations and linear algebra over these rings.
6.1 Cost model and basic ring operations
We express complexities in operations in \({R}\). For some complexity expressions, we use the softO notation, i.e., \(f(n) \in \tilde{O}(g(n))\) if there is a \(r \in \mathbb {Z}_{\ge 0}\) such that \(f(n) \in \tilde{O}(g(n) \log (g(n))^r)\). We use the following result, which follows straightforwardly from standard computeralgebra methods in the literature.
Lemma 9
(Collection of results in [27]) Addition in \({S}\) costs m additions in \({R}\). Multiplication in \({S}\) can be done in \(O(m \log (m) \log (\log (m)))\) operations in \({R}\).
Proof
We represent elements of \({S}\) as residue classes of polynomials in \({R}[z]/(h(z))\) (e.g., each residue class is represented by its unique representative of degree \(<m\)), where \(h \in {R}[z]\) is a monic polynomial of degree m as explained in the preliminaries.
Addition is done independently on the m coefficients of the polynomial representation, so it only requires m additions in \({R}\). Multiplication consists of multiplying two residue classes in \({R}[z]/(h(z))\), which can be done by multiplying the two representatives of degree \(<m\) and then taking them modulo (h(z)) (i.e., take the remainder of the division by the monic polynomial h). Both multiplication and division can be implemented in \(O(m \log (m) \log (\log (m)))\) time using Schönhage and Strassen’s polynomial multiplication algorithm (cf. [27, Sect. 8.3]) and a reduction of division to multiplication using a Newton iteration (cf. [27, Sect. 9.1]). Note that both methods work over any commutative ring with 1. \(\square \)
6.2 Linear algebra over Galois rings
We recall how fast we can compute the Smith normal form of a matrix over \({R}\) and show that computing the right kernel of a matrix and solving a linear system can be done in a similar speed. Let \(2 \le \omega \le 3\) be the matrix multiplication exponent (e.g., \(\omega = 2.37\) using the Coppersmith–Winograd algorithm).
Lemma 10
([25, Proposition 7.16]) Let \(\varvec{A}\in {R}^{a \times b}\). Then, the Smith normal form \(\varvec{D}\) of \(\varvec{A}\), as well as the corresponding transformation matrices \(\varvec{S}\) and \(\varvec{T}\), can be computed in
operations in \({R}\).
Lemma 11
Let \(\varvec{A}\in {R}^{a \times b}\). An \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of the right kernel of \(\varvec{A}\) can be computed in \(O(a b \min \{a,b\}^{\omega 2} \log (a+b))\) operations in \({R}\).
Proof
We compute the Smith normal form \(\varvec{D}= \varvec{S}\varvec{A}\varvec{T}\) and the transformation matrices \(\varvec{S}\) and \(\varvec{T}\) of \(\varvec{A}\). To compute the right kernel, we need to solve the homogeneous linear system \(\varvec{A}\varvec{x}= \varvec{0}\) for \(\varvec{x}\). Using the Smith normal form, we can rewrite it into
Denote \(\varvec{y}:= \varvec{T}^{1} \varvec{x}\) and first solve \(\varvec{D}\varvec{y}= \varvec{0}\). W.l.o.g., let the diagonal entries of \(\varvec{D}\) be of the form
where the \(n_i\) are the coefficients of the rank profile \(\phi (x)=\sum _{i=0}^{r1}n_ix^i\in \mathbb {N}[x]/(x^r)\) of \(\varvec{A}\)’s row space. Then, the rows of the following matrix are an \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of the right kernel of \(\varvec{D}\) (we denote by \(\eta := n_0\) the free rank of \(\varvec{A}\)’s row space and by \(\mu := \sum _{i=0}^{r1}n_i)\) the rank of \(\varvec{A}\)’s row space):
where
Hence, the rows of \(\varvec{K}\varvec{T}^\top \) form an \(\mathfrak {m}\)shaped basis of the right kernel of \(\varvec{A}\). Note that this matrix multiplication can be implemented with complexity \(O(b^2)\) since \(\varvec{K}\) has only at most one entry per row and column. \(\square \)
Lemma 12
Let \(\varvec{A}\in {R}^{a \times b}\) and \(\varvec{b}\in {R}^{a}\). A solution of the linear system \(\varvec{A}\varvec{x}= \varvec{b}\) (or, in case no solution exists, the information that it does not exist) can be obtained in \(O(a b \min \{a,b\}^{\omega 2} \log (a+b))\) operations in \({R}\).
Proof
We follow the same strategy and the notation as in Lemma 11. Solve
for one \(\varvec{y}\). The system has a solution if and only if \(b_j' \in \mathfrak {M}^{i_j}\) for \(j=1,\ldots ,r'\), and \(b_j' = 0\) for all \(j>r'\). In case it has a solution, it is easy to obtain a solution \(\varvec{y}\). Then we only need to compute \(\varvec{x}= \varvec{T}\varvec{y}\), which is a solution of \(\varvec{A}\varvec{x}= \varvec{b}\). The heaviest step is to compute the Smith normal form, which proves the complexity statement. \(\square \)
6.3 Complexity of the LRPC decoder over Galois rings
Theorem 6
Suppose that the inverse elements \(f_1^{1},\ldots ,f_\lambda ^{1}\) are precomputed. Then, Algorithm 1 has complexity \(\tilde{O}(\lambda ^2 n^2 m)\) operations in \({R}\).
Proof
The heaviest steps of Algorithm 1 (see Sect. 4) are as follows:
Line 1 computes the syndrome \(\varvec{s}\) from the received word. This is a vectormatrix multiplication in \({S}\), which costs \(O(n(nk)) \subseteq O(n^2)\) operations in \({S}\), i.e., \(\tilde{O}(n^2m)\) operations in \({R}\).
Line 4 is called \(\lambda \) times and computes for each \(f_i\) the set \(S_i = f_i^{1} {\mathcal {S}}\) (recall that the inverses \(f_i^{1}\) are precomputed). We obtain a generating set of \({\mathcal {S}}_i\) by multiplying \(f_i^{1}\) to all syndrome coefficients \(s_1,\ldots ,s_{nk}\). This costs \(O(\lambda (nk))\) operations in \({S}\) in total, i.e., \(\tilde{O}(\lambda n m)\) operations in \({R}\). If we want a minimal generating set, we can compute the Smith normal form for each \({\mathcal {S}}_i\), which costs \(\tilde{O}(\lambda n^{\omega 1}m)\) operations in \({R}\) according to Lemma 10.
Line 5 computes the intersection \({\mathcal {E}}' \leftarrow \bigcap _{i=1}^{\lambda } {\mathcal {S}}_i\) of the modules \({\mathcal {S}}_i\). This can be computed via the kernel computation algorithm as follows: Let \({\mathcal {A}}\) and \({\mathcal {B}}\) be two modules. Then, we have \({\mathcal {A}}\cap {\mathcal {B}}= \mathcal {K} \left( \mathcal {K} ({\mathcal {A}}) \cup \mathcal {K} ({\mathcal {B}}) \right) \). Hence, we can compute the intersection \({\mathcal {A}}\cap {\mathcal {B}}\) by writing generating sets of the modules as the rows of two matrices \(\varvec{A}\) and \(\varvec{B}\), respectively. Then, we compute matrices \(\varvec{A}'\) and \(\varvec{B}'\), whose rows are generating sets of the right kernel of \(\varvec{A}\) and \(\varvec{B}\), respectively. Then, rows of the matrix \(\varvec{C}:= \begin{bmatrix} \varvec{A}' \\ \varvec{B}' \end{bmatrix}\) are a generating set of \(\mathcal {K} ({\mathcal {A}}) \cup \mathcal {K} ({\mathcal {B}})\), and be obtain \({\mathcal {A}}\cap {\mathcal {B}}\) by computing again the right kernel of \(\varvec{C}\). By applying this algorithm iteratively to the \({\mathcal {S}}_i\) (using the kernel computation algorithm described in Lemma 11), we obtain the intersection \({\mathcal {E}}'\) in \(\tilde{O}(\lambda n^{\omega 1}m)\) operations.
Line 6 recovers an error vector \(\varvec{e}\) from the support \({\mathcal {E}}'\) and syndrome \(\varvec{s}\). As shown in the proof of Lemma 2, this can be done by solving t linear systems over \({R}\) with each n unknowns and \((nk)\lambda \) equations w.r.t. the same matrix \(\varvec{H}_{\mathrm {ext}}\). Hence, we only once need to compute the Smith normal form of \(\varvec{H}_{\mathrm {ext}}\), which requires \(\tilde{O}(n [(nk)\lambda ]^{\omega 1})\) operations. The remaining steps for solving the systems (see Lemma 12 to compute one solution, if it exists, and Lemma 11 to compute an affine basis) consist mainly of matrixvector operations, which require in total \(\tilde{O}(t \lambda ^2(nk)^2)\) operations in \({R}\), where \(t \le m\) is the rank of \({\mathcal {E}}'\). Note that during the algorithm, it is easy to detect whether the systems have no solution, a unique solution, or more than one solution. \(\square \)
Remark 5
The assumption that \(f_1^{1},\ldots ,f_\lambda ^{1}\) are precomputed makes sense since in many application, the code is chosen once and then several received words are decoded for the same \(f_1,\ldots ,f_\lambda \). Precomputation of all \(f_1^{1},\ldots ,f_\lambda ^{1}\) costs at most \(\tilde{O}(\lambda m^\omega )\) since for \(a \in {S}\), the relation \(a^{1} a \equiv 1 \mod h\) (for a and \(a^{1}\) being the unique representative in \({R}[z]/(h)\) with degree \(<m\)) gives a linear system of equations of size \(m \times m\) over \({R}\) with a unique solution \(a^{1}\). This complexity can only exceed the cost bound in Theorem 6 if \(m \gg n\).
In fact, we conjecture, but cannot rigorously prove, that the inverse of a unit in \({S}\) can be computed in \(\tilde{O}(m)\) operations in \({R}\) using a fast implementation of the extended Euclidean algorithm (see, e.g., [27]). If this is true, the precomputation cost is smaller than the cost bound in Theorem 6.
The currently fastest decoder for Gabidulin codes over finite rings, the Welch–Berlekamplike decoder in [14], has complexity \(O(n^\omega )\) operations over \({S}\) since its main step is to solve a linear system of equations. Over \({R}\), this complexity bound is \(\tilde{O}(n^\omega m)\), i.e., it is larger than the complexity bound for our LRPC decoder for constant \(\lambda \) and the same parameters n and m.
7 Simulation results
We performed simulations of LRPC codes with \(\lambda =2\), \(k=8\) and \(n=20\) (note that we need \(k \le \tfrac{\lambda 1}{\lambda }n\) by the uniquedecoding property) over the ring \({S}\) with \(p=r=2\), \(s=1\) and \(m=21\). In each simulation, we generated one paritycheck matrix (fulfilling the maximalrowspan and the unity properties) and conducted a Monte Carlo simulation in which we collected at least 1000 decoding errors and at least 50 failures of every success condition. All simulations gave very similar results and confirmed our analysis. We present one of the simulation results in Fig. 1 for errors of rank weight \(t=1,\ldots ,7\) and three different rank profiles.
We indicate by markers the estimated probabilities of violating the product condition (S: Prod), the syndrome condition (S: Synd), the intersection condition (S: Inter) as well as the decoding failure rate (S: Dec). Black markers denote the result of the simulations with errors of rank profile \(\phi _1(x) = t\), blue markers show the result with errors of rank profile \(\phi _2(x) = tx\) and orange markers indicate the result with rank profile \(\phi _3(x) \in \{1,1+x,2+x,2+2x,3+2x,3+3x,4+3x \}\). Further, we show the derived bounds^{Footnote 2} on the probabilities of not fulfilling the product condition (B: Prod) given in Theorem 2, the syndrome condition (B: Synd) derived in Theorem 3, the intersection condition (B: Inter) provided in Theorem 4 and the union bound (B: Dec) stated in Theorem 5. Since the derived bounds depend only on the rank weight t but not on the rank profile, we show each bound only once.
One can observe that the bound on the probability of not fulfilling the syndrome condition is very close to the true probability while the bounds on the probabilities of violating the product and syndrome condition are loose. Gaborit et al. have made the same observation in the case of finite fields. In addition, it seems that only the rank weight but not the rank profile has an impact on the probabilities of violating the success conditions.
We also found that the basering property of \(\mathcal {F}\) is—in all tested cases—not necessary for the failure probability bound on the intersection condition (Theorem 4) to hold. It is an interesting question whether we can prove the bound without this assumption, both for finite fields and rings.
8 Conclusion
We have adapted lowrank paritycheck codes from finite fields to Galois rings and showed that Gaborit et al.’s decoding algorithm works as well for these codes. We also presented a failure probability bound for the decoder, whose derivation is significantly more involved than the finitefield analog due to the weaker structure of modules over finite rings. The bound shows that the codes have the same maximal decoding radius as their finitefield counterparts, but the exponential decay of the failure bound has \(p^s\) as a basis instead of the cardinality of the base ring \({R}=p^{rs}\) (note \({R}\) is a finite field if and only if \(r=1\)). This means that there is a “loss” in failure probability when going from finite fields to finite rings, which can be expected due to the zero divisors in the ring.
The results show that LRPC codes work over finite rings, and thus can be considered, as an alternative to Gabidulin codes over finite rings, for potential applications of rankmetric codes, such as network coding and spacetime codes—recall from the introduction that network and spacetime coding over rings may have advantages compared to the case of fields. It also opens up the possibility to consider the codes for cryptographic applications, the main motivation for LRPC codes over fields.
Open problems are a generalization of the codes to more general rings (such as principal ideal rings); an analysis of the codes in potential applications; as well as an adaption of the improved decoder for LRPC codes over finite fields in [1] to finite rings. To be useful for network coding (both in case of fields and rings), the decoder must be extended to handle row and column erasures in the rank metric (cf. [14, 23]).
Notes
This means that \(\varvec{e}'\) might have a support that is contained in, but not equal to \({\mathcal {E}}\). The difference to the actual error \(\varvec{e}\) is that \(\varvec{e}\) is chosen uniformly from all errors of support exactly \({\mathcal {E}}\).
In Fig. 1, we show for each condition the tightest bound that we derived.
References
Aragon N., Gaborit P., Hauteville A., Ruatta O., Zémor G.: Low rank parity check codes: New decoding algorithms and applications to cryptography. arXiv:1904.00357 (2019).
Bini G., Flamini F.: Finite commutative rings and their applications, vol. 680. Springer Science & Business Media, New York (2012).
Blake I.F.: Codes over certain rings. Inf. Control 20(4), 396–404 (1972).
Blake I.F.: Codes over integer residue rings. Inf. Control 29(4), 295–300 (1975).
Constantinescu I., Heise W.: A metric for codes over residue class rings. Problemy Peredachi Inf. 33(3), 22–28 (1997).
Delsarte P.: Bilinear forms over a finite field, with applications to coding theory. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 25(3), 226–241 (1978).
Feng C., Nóbrega R.W., Kschischang F.R., Silva D.: Communication over finitechainring matrix channels. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 60(10), 5899–5917 (2014).
Feng C., Silva D., Kschischang F.R.: An algebraic approach to physicallayer network coding. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 59(11), 7576–7596 (2013).
Gabidulin E.M.: Theory of codes with maximum rank distance. Problemy Peredachi Inf. 21(1), 3–16 (1985).
Gaborit P., Murat G., Ruatta O., Zémor G.: Low rank parity check codes and their application to cryptography. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Coding and Cryptography WCC. vol. 2013 (2013).
Gorla E., Ravagnani A.: An algebraic framework for endtoend physicallayer network coding. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 64(6), 4480–4495 (2017).
Hammons A.R., Kumar P.V., Calderbank A.R., Sloane N.J., Solé P.: The Z4linearity of Kerdock, Preparata, Goethals, and related codes. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 40(2), 301–319 (1994).
Honold T., Landjev I.: Linear codes over finite chain rings. Electr. J. Comb. 7, R11–R11 (2000).
Kamche H.T., Mouaha C.: Rankmetric codes over finite principal ideal rings and applications. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 65(12), 7718–7735 (2019).
Kiran T., Rajan B.S.: Optimal STBCs from codes over Galois rings. In: IEEE International Conference on Personal Wireless Communications (ICPWC), pp. 120–124 (2005).
McDonald B.R.: Finite rings with identity, vol. 28. Marcel Dekker Incorporated, New York (1974).
Melchor C.A., et al.: Nist postquantum cryptography standardization proposal: rankOuroboros, LAKE and LOCKER (ROLLO) (2020).
Nazer B., Gastpar M.: Computeandforward: harnessing interference through structured codes. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 57(10), 6463–6486 (2011).
Qachchach I.E., Habachi O., Cances J., Meghdadi V.: Efficient multisource network coding using low rank parity check code. In: IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) (2018).
Renner J., Jerkovits T., Bartz H.: Efficient decoding of interleaved lowrank paritycheck codes. In: International Symposium on Problems of Redundancy in Information and Control Systems (REDUNDANCY) (2019).
Renner J., Puchinger S., WachterZeh A., Hollanti C., FreijHollanti R.: Lowrank paritycheck codes over the ring of integers modulo a prime power. In: IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), conference version of this paper. arXiv:2001.04800 (2020).
Roth R.M.: Maximumrank array codes and their application to crisscross error correction. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 37(2), 328–336 (1991).
Silva D., Kschischang F.R., Koetter R.: A rankmetric approach to error control in random network coding. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54(9), 3951–3967 (2008).
Spiegel E.: Codes over Zm, revisited. Inf. Control 37(1), 100–104 (1978).
Storjohann A.: Algorithms for matrix canonical forms. Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich (2000).
Tunali N.E., Huang Y.C., Boutros J.J., Narayanan K.R.: Lattices over Eisenstein integers for computeandforward. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 61(10), 5306–5321 (2015).
Von Zur Gathen J., Gerhard J.: Modern Computer Algebra. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013).
Wilson M.P., Narayanan K., Pfister H.D., Sprintson A.: Joint physical layer coding and network coding for bidirectional relaying. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 56(11), 5641–5654 (2010).
Yazbek A.K., EL Qachchach I., Cances J.P., Meghdadi V.: Low rank parity check codes and their application in power line communications smart grid networks. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 30(12), e3256 (2017).
Acknowledgements
The work of J. Renner was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 801434). A. Neri was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation through grant no. 187711. S. Puchinger received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie SklodowskaCurie grant agreement no. 713683.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by I. Landjev.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A: Proofs of Corollaries 1 and 2
Appendix A: Proofs of Corollaries 1 and 2
In this section we provide the proofs of Corollaries 1 and 2 in Sect. 5.1.
Inspired by Proposition 2, we study the following notions. For a given potential rank profile \(\phi (x)=\sum _{i=0}^{r1}n_ix^i\in \mathbb {N}[x]/(x^r)\), with \(\phi (1)=N\le m\), we consider the sets
Notice that

(P1)
\((G_\phi ,+,\cdot )\) is a subring of \({R}^{N\times N}\);

(P2)
\(G_\phi ^*=G_\phi \cap {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(N,{R})\);

(P3)
\((G_\phi ^*,\cdot )\) is a subgroup of \({{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(N,{R})\);

(P4)
\((H_\phi ,+)\) is a subgroup of \({R}^{N\times m}\);

(P5)
For every \(\varvec{Y}\in G_\phi \), \(\varvec{Z}\in H_\phi \), we have \(\varvec{Y}\varvec{Z}\in H_\phi \);

(P6)
If \(\varvec{Y}\in G_\phi ^*\), then \(\varvec{Z}\longmapsto \varvec{Y}\varvec{Z}\) is a bijection of \(H_\phi \).
With these tools and from Proposition 2 we can deduce the two corollaries.
Proof of Corollary 1
First, denote by \(n_i:=\phi _i^{{\mathcal {M}}}\) and let \(N:=n_0+\cdots +n_{r1}\), and fix an \({R}\)basis of \({S}\) so that we identify \({S}\) with \({R}^m\). Fix a free module \({\mathcal {N}}\in \mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}})\) and let \(\varvec{T}_{{\mathcal {N}}}\) be such that \({{\,\mathrm{rowspace}\,}}(\varvec{T}_{{\mathcal {N}}})={\mathcal {N}}\) By Proposition 2, we have
where the last equality follows from (p6). It is immediate to see that \({{\,\mathrm{rowspace}\,}}(\varvec{T}_{{\mathcal {N}}}+\varvec{Z})={\mathcal {N}}={{\,\mathrm{rowspace}\,}}(\varvec{T}_{{\mathcal {N}}})\) if and only if all the rows of \(\varvec{Z}\) belong to \({\mathcal {N}}\). For the ith block of \(n_i\) rows of \(\varvec{Z}\), we can freely choose among all the elements in \(g_{\mathfrak {m}}^{ri}{\mathcal {N}}\), that are \(s^{iN}\). Hence we get
This means that every module is counted \(\prod _{i=1}^{r1}s^{in_iN}\) many times and we finally obtain
\(\square \)
Proof of Corollary 2
Let \({\mathcal {M}}\) be an \({R}\)submodule of \({S}\) with rank profile \(\phi ^{{\mathcal {M}}}\) and observe that \({\mathcal {M}}\in \mathrm {Mod}(\phi ,{\mathcal {N}})\) if and only if \({\mathcal {N}}\in \mathrm {Free}({\mathcal {M}})\). Identify \({S}\) with \({R}^m\), and define
With this notation, we have
Moreover, there are exactly \({{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(N,{R})\) many matrices \(\varvec{T}\in {R}^{N\times m}\) such that \({{\,\mathrm{rowspace}\,}}(\varvec{T})={\mathcal {N}}\), and they are obtained by fixing any matrix \(\bar{\varvec{T}}\) and considering \(\{\varvec{A}\bar{\varvec{T}} \mid \varvec{A}\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(N,{R})\}\). Let us fix \(\bar{{\mathcal {M}}}:={{\,\mathrm{rowspace}\,}}(\varvec{D}\bar{\varvec{T}})\in \mathrm {Mod}(\phi ,{\mathcal {N}})\). We count for how many \(A\in {{\,\mathrm{GL}\,}}(N,{R})\) we have \({{\,\mathrm{rowspace}\,}}(\varvec{D}\varvec{A}\bar{\varvec{T}})=\bar{{\mathcal {M}}}\). By Proposition 2, this happens if and only if there exist \(\varvec{Y}\in G_\phi ^*, \varvec{Z}\in H_\phi \) such that \(\varvec{A}\bar{\varvec{T}}=\varvec{Y}\bar{\varvec{T}}+\varvec{Z}\), which in turn is equivalent to the condition that there exists \(\varvec{Y}\in \varvec{G}_\phi ^*\) such that \((\varvec{A}\varvec{Y})\bar{\varvec{T}}\in H_\phi \). Let us call \(\varvec{S}:=\varvec{A}\varvec{Y}\) and divide \(\varvec{S}\) in \(r\times r\) blocks \(\varvec{S}_{i,j}\in {R}^{n_i\times n_j}\), for \(i,j \in \{0,\ldots , r1\}\). Divide also \(\varvec{T}\) in r blocks \(\varvec{T}_i\in {R}^{n_i\times m}\) for \(i \in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\). Hence, we have, for every \(i \in \{0,\ldots ,r1\}\)
Since the rows of \(\varvec{T}\) are linearly independent over \({R}\), this implies that \(\varvec{S}_{i,j}\in \mathfrak {m}^{ri}\), that is \(\varvec{S}\) is of the form
Therefore, we have \({{\,\mathrm{rowspace}\,}}(\varvec{D}\varvec{A}\bar{\varvec{T}})=\bar{{\mathcal {M}}}\) if and only if \(\varvec{A}=\varvec{Y}+\varvec{S}\). It is easy to see that this holds if and only if \(\varvec{A}\in G_{\phi }^*\). Hence, the \({R}\)submodule \(\bar{{\mathcal {M}}}\) is counted \(G_{\phi }^*\) many times. Since the choice of \(\bar{{\mathcal {M}}}\) was arbitrary, we conclude
\(\square \)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Renner, J., Neri, A. & Puchinger, S. Lowrank paritycheck codes over Galois rings. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 89, 351–386 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623020008259
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623020008259
Keywords
 Galois rings
 Lowrank paritycheck codes
 Rankmetric codes
 Algebraic coding theory
Mathematics Subject Classification
 11T71