Encyclopedia of Algorithms

2016 Edition
| Editors: Ming-Yang Kao

Locally Decodable Codes

  • Shubhangi SarafEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2864-4_708

Years and Authors of Summarized Original Work

  • 2000; Katz, Trevisan

  • 2002; Goldreich, Karloff, Schulman, Trevisan

  • 2004; Kerenedis, de Wolf

  • 2007; Woodruff

  • 2007; Raghavendra

  • 2008; Yekhanin

  • 2009; Efremenko

  • 2010; Dvir, Gopalan, Yekhanin

  • 2010; Woodruff

  • 2011; Kopparty, Saraf, Yekhanin

  • 2013; Hemenway, Ostrovsky, Wootters

  • 2013; Guo, Kopparty, Sudan

  • 2015; Kopparty, Meir, Ron-Zewi, Saraf

Problem Definition

Classical error-correcting codes allow one to encode a k-bit message x into an n-bit codeword C(x), in such a way that x can still be accurately recovered even if C(x) gets corrupted in a small number of coordinates. The traditional way to recover even a small amount of information contained in x from a corrupted version of C(x) is to run a traditional decoder for C, which would read and process the entire corrupted codeword, to recover the entire original message x. The required information or required piece of xcan then be read off. In the current digital age where huge amounts of data need...


Error correcting codes Locally decodable codes Sublinear time algorithms 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Arora S, Lund C, Motwani R, Sudan M, Szegedy M (1998) Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. J ACM 45(3):501–555MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arora S, Safra S (1998) Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP. J ACM 45(1):70–122MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arora S, Sudan M (2003) Improved low-degree testing and its applications. Combinatorica 23:365–426MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babai L, Fortnow L, Levin L, Szegedy M (1991) Checking computations in polylogarithmic time. In: 23rd ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), New Orleans, pp 21–31Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Babai L, Fortnow L, Nisan N, Wigderson A (1993) BPP has subexponential time simulations unless EXPTIME has publishable proofs. Comput Complex 3:307–318MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dvir Z, Gopalan P, Yekhanin S (2010) Matching vector codes. In: 51st IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS), Las Vegas, pp 705–714Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dvir Z (2010) On matrix rigidity and locally self-correctable codes. In: 26th IEEE computational complexity conference (CCC), Cambridge, pp 291–298Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Efremenko K (2009) 3-query locally decodable codes of subexponential length. In: 41st ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), Bethesda, pp 39–44Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldreich O, Karloff H, Schulman L, Trevisan L (2002) Lower bounds for locally decodable codes and private information retrieval. In: 17th IEEE computational complexity conference (CCC), Montréal, pp 175–183Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo A, Kopparty S, Sudan M (2013) New affine-invariant codes from lifting. In: ACM innovations in theoretical computer science (ITCS), Berkeley, pp 529–540Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hemenway B, Ostrovsky R, Wootters M (2013) Local correctability of expander codes. In: 40th international colloquium on automata, languages, and programming (ICALP), Riga, pp 540–551Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kopparty S, Saraf S, Yekhanin S (2011) High-rate codes with sublinear-time decoding. In: 43rd ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), San Jose, pp 167–176Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kopparty S, Meir O, Ron-Zewi N, Saraf S (2015) High rate locally-correctable and locally-testable codes with sub-polynomial query complexity. In: Electronic colloquium on computational complexity (ECCC). TR15-068Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kerenidis I, de Wolf R (2004) Exponential lower bound for 2-query locally decodable codes via a quantum argument. J Comput Syst Sci 69:395–420MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katz J, Trevisan L (2000) On the efficiency of local decoding procedures for error-correcting codes. In: 32nd ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), Portland, pp 80–86Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lipton R (1990) Efficient checking of computations. In: 7th international symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science (STACS), Rouen. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 415, pp 207–215. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raghavendra P (2007) A note on Yekhanin’s locally decodable codes. In: Electronic colloquium on computational complexity (ECCC). TR07-016Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reed IS (1954) A class of multiple-error-correcting codes and the decoding scheme. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 4:38–49MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sudan M, Trevisan L, Vadhan S (1999) Pseudorandom generators without the XOR lemma. In: 31st ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), Atlanta, pp 537–546Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woodruff D (2007) New lower bounds for general locally decodable codes. In: Electronic colloquium on computational complexity (ECCC). TR07-006Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woodruff D (2010) A quadratic lower bound for three-query linear locally decodable codes over Any Field. In: Approximation, randomization, and combinatorial optimization. Algorithms and techniques, 13th international workshop, APPROX 2010, and 14th international workshop, RANDOM, Barcelona, pp 766–779Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yekhanin S (2008) Towards 3-query locally decodable codes of subexponential length. J ACM 55:1–16MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yekhanin S (2012) Locally decodable codes. Found Trends Theor Comput Sci 6(3):139–255MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Department of Computer Science, Rutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA