# Deterministic Approximation Algorithms for the Nearest Codeword Problem

• Noga Alon
• Rina Panigrahy
• Sergey Yekhanin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5687)

## Abstract

The Nearest Codeword Problem (NCP) is a basic algorithmic question in the theory of error-correcting codes. Given a point $$v \in \mathbb{F}_2^n$$ and a linear space $$L\subseteq \mathbb{F}_2^n$$ of dimension k NCP asks to find a point l ∈ L that minimizes the (Hamming) distance from v. It is well-known that the nearest codeword problem is NP-hard. Therefore approximation algorithms are of interest. The best efficient approximation algorithms for the NCP to date are due to Berman and Karpinski. They are a deterministic algorithm that achieves an approximation ratio of O(k/c) for an arbitrary constant c, and a randomized algorithm that achieves an approximation ratio of O(k/logn).

In this paper we present new deterministic algorithms for approximating the NCP that improve substantially upon the earlier work. Specifically, we obtain:

• A polynomial time O(n/logn)-approximation algorithm;

• An n O(s) time O(k log(s) n / logn)-approximation algorithm, where log(s) n stands for s iterations of log, e.g., log(2) n = loglogn;

• An $$n^{O(\log^* n)}$$ time O(k/logn)-approximation algorithm.

We also initiate a study of the following Remote Point Problem (RPP). Given a linear space $$L\subseteq \mathbb{F}_2^n$$ of dimension k RPP asks to find a point $$v\in \mathbb{F}_2^n$$ that is far from L. We say that an algorithm achieves a remoteness of r for the RPP if it always outputs a point v that is at least r-far from L. In this paper we present a deterministic polynomial time algorithm that achieves a remoteness of Ω(nlogk / k) for all k ≤ n/2. We motivate the remote point problem by relating it to both the nearest codeword problem and the matrix rigidity approach to circuit lower bounds in computational complexity theory.

## Keywords

Approximation Algorithm Linear Space Approximation Ratio Linear Code Deterministic Algorithm
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## References

1. 1.
Alekhnovich, M.: More on average case vs. approximation complexity. In: Proc. of the 44rd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 298–307 (2003)Google Scholar
2. 2.
Arora, S., Babai, L., Stern, J., Sweedyk, Z.: Hardness of approximate optima in lattices, codes, and linear systems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 54(2), 317–331 (1997)
3. 3.
Berman, P., Karpinski, M.: Approximating minimum unsatisfiability of linear equations. In: Proc. of ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 514–516 (2002)Google Scholar
4. 4.
Dumer, I., Miccancio, D., Sudan, M.: Hardness of approximating the minimum distance of a linear code. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 49(1), 22–37 (2003)
5. 5.
Friedman, J.: A note on matrix rigidity. Combinatorica 13(2), 235–239 (1993)
6. 6.
Guruswami, V., Micciancio, D., Regev, O.: The complexity of the covering radius problem. Computational Complexity 14, 90–120 (2005)
7. 7.
Kashin, B., Razborov, A.: Improved lower bounds on the rigidity of Hadamard matrices. Mathematical Notes 63(4), 471–475 (1998)
8. 8.
Lokam, S.: Spectral methods for matrix rigidity with applications to size-depth trade-offs and communication complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 63(3), 449–473 (2001)
9. 9.
Shokrollahi, M., Speilman, D., Stemann, V.: A remark on matrix rigidity. Information Processing Letters 64(6), 283–285 (1997)
10. 10.
Valiant, L.: Graph-theoretic arguments in low level complexity. In: Proc. of 6th Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), pp. 162–176 (1977)Google Scholar

## Authors and Affiliations

• Noga Alon
• 1
• Rina Panigrahy
• 2
• Sergey Yekhanin
• 2
1. 1.Institute for Advanced Study, MicrosoftTel Aviv UniversityIsrael
2. 2.Microsoft Research Silicon ValleyUSA