How did they come up with the MRRW bound?
Among the good asymptotic bounds in coding theory in the MRRW bound. It is obtained by using the linear programming problem of Delsarte's and providing a solution. The LP problem is
Suppose $C subset mathbb{F}_2^n $ is a code such $d(C)ge d$. Let
$beta(x) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (x)$ be a polynomial such that
$y_k ge 0$ but $beta(j) le 0$ for $j=d, d+1,dots ,n$. Then, we have that $|C| le beta(0)$.
Here $K_k(x)$ are the Kravchuk polynomials. In the proof of the MRRW bound, upto scaling, they basically come up with the following polynomial $beta$ for a general $n$.
$$beta(x) =frac{1}{a-x} left[ K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x) right]^{2}$$
After using the Christoffel-Darboux formula the values of $t$ and $a$ are adjusted to make it optimal.
There is no justification for why such a polynomial was chosen other than that it works. Is there anything more that can be said over why this polynomial was chosen?
asymptotics linear-programming coding-theory
add a comment |
Among the good asymptotic bounds in coding theory in the MRRW bound. It is obtained by using the linear programming problem of Delsarte's and providing a solution. The LP problem is
Suppose $C subset mathbb{F}_2^n $ is a code such $d(C)ge d$. Let
$beta(x) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (x)$ be a polynomial such that
$y_k ge 0$ but $beta(j) le 0$ for $j=d, d+1,dots ,n$. Then, we have that $|C| le beta(0)$.
Here $K_k(x)$ are the Kravchuk polynomials. In the proof of the MRRW bound, upto scaling, they basically come up with the following polynomial $beta$ for a general $n$.
$$beta(x) =frac{1}{a-x} left[ K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x) right]^{2}$$
After using the Christoffel-Darboux formula the values of $t$ and $a$ are adjusted to make it optimal.
There is no justification for why such a polynomial was chosen other than that it works. Is there anything more that can be said over why this polynomial was chosen?
asymptotics linear-programming coding-theory
add a comment |
Among the good asymptotic bounds in coding theory in the MRRW bound. It is obtained by using the linear programming problem of Delsarte's and providing a solution. The LP problem is
Suppose $C subset mathbb{F}_2^n $ is a code such $d(C)ge d$. Let
$beta(x) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (x)$ be a polynomial such that
$y_k ge 0$ but $beta(j) le 0$ for $j=d, d+1,dots ,n$. Then, we have that $|C| le beta(0)$.
Here $K_k(x)$ are the Kravchuk polynomials. In the proof of the MRRW bound, upto scaling, they basically come up with the following polynomial $beta$ for a general $n$.
$$beta(x) =frac{1}{a-x} left[ K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x) right]^{2}$$
After using the Christoffel-Darboux formula the values of $t$ and $a$ are adjusted to make it optimal.
There is no justification for why such a polynomial was chosen other than that it works. Is there anything more that can be said over why this polynomial was chosen?
asymptotics linear-programming coding-theory
Among the good asymptotic bounds in coding theory in the MRRW bound. It is obtained by using the linear programming problem of Delsarte's and providing a solution. The LP problem is
Suppose $C subset mathbb{F}_2^n $ is a code such $d(C)ge d$. Let
$beta(x) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (x)$ be a polynomial such that
$y_k ge 0$ but $beta(j) le 0$ for $j=d, d+1,dots ,n$. Then, we have that $|C| le beta(0)$.
Here $K_k(x)$ are the Kravchuk polynomials. In the proof of the MRRW bound, upto scaling, they basically come up with the following polynomial $beta$ for a general $n$.
$$beta(x) =frac{1}{a-x} left[ K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x) right]^{2}$$
After using the Christoffel-Darboux formula the values of $t$ and $a$ are adjusted to make it optimal.
There is no justification for why such a polynomial was chosen other than that it works. Is there anything more that can be said over why this polynomial was chosen?
asymptotics linear-programming coding-theory
asymptotics linear-programming coding-theory
edited 2 hours ago
asked 7 hours ago
Breakfastisready
1179
1179
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.
The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.
The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.
Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.
Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting
$$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$
so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.
So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
@Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
– Josiah Park
2 hours ago
I see. Thank you for your answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319554%2fhow-did-they-come-up-with-the-mrrw-bound%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.
The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.
The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.
Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.
Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting
$$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$
so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.
So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
@Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
– Josiah Park
2 hours ago
I see. Thank you for your answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
add a comment |
For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.
The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.
The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.
Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.
Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting
$$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$
so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.
So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
@Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
– Josiah Park
2 hours ago
I see. Thank you for your answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
add a comment |
For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.
The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.
The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.
Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.
Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting
$$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$
so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.
For linear programming type bounds it is sometimes only possible to give effective bounds (that is bounds that work and are manageable) and what is often surprising is that the primitive method often gives in fact optimal bounds.
The LP problem from McEliece, Rodemich, Rumsey and Welch's paper that is cited in the question requires the auxiliary function $beta(x)$ satisfy $beta(j) = 1+ sum_{k=1}^{n} y_k K_k (j)leq 0$ for all $j=d,d+1,dots,n$. The supplied $beta(x)$ is designed to meet this requirement by making it changing sign at value $a$, so that $beta(x)leq 0$ for $xgeq a$. This is the first point.
The Krawtchouk polynomials already appear in the LP problem, so that there are no questions of why the might appear in the auxiliary function $beta$, but just to emphasize the importance of the Krawtchouk polynomials, they are used in discrete linear programming problems due to the positive definiteness criterion associated to them, namely that for a polynomial $$f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i}z^{i}$$ the matrix $$f(d(x,y)), x,yinmathbb{F}^{n}$$ is non-negative definite if and only if all coefficients $lambda_{i}$ of the expansion $f(z)=sumlimits_{i=0}^{n} lambda_{i} K_{i}(z)$ over Krawtouck polynomials are nonnegative.
Now, to keep all the coefficients $y_k$ positive as required in the LP program, it makes sense to introduce the square, but in order to preserve the sign change in $beta(x)$ at $x=a$, one divides by $(a-x)$.
Finally, the choice of the exact expression inside the square works, because as was noted, the Christoffel-Darboux formula allows for rewriting
$$K_t(a) K_{t+1}(x) - K_{t+1}(a)K_{t}(x)=frac{2(a-x)}{t+1}binom{n}{t}sumlimits_{k=0}^t frac{K_{k}(x)K_{k}(a)}{binom{n}{k}}$$
so that one may check quickly that $beta(x)$ has expansion coefficients $y_{k}$ in the Krawtouck polynomials non-negative. Optimizing in $a$ and $t$ as noted give the MRRW upper bound $M_{LP}(n,d)leq binom{n}{t}frac{(n+1)^2}{2(t+1)}$.
answered 3 hours ago
Josiah Park
952318
952318
So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
@Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
– Josiah Park
2 hours ago
I see. Thank you for your answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
add a comment |
So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
@Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
– Josiah Park
2 hours ago
I see. Thank you for your answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
So the overall reason is that they saw the Chrisotoffel-Darboux expressions and had a clever inspiration? Maybe it's really just that. Let's see if someone has a better answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
@Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
– Josiah Park
2 hours ago
@Breakfastisready Yes, essentially this is what is being suggested. This tool and the fact that the function $beta(x)$ has the desired property of switching signs at $x=a$ seem to be ample motivation for choosing the above function.
– Josiah Park
2 hours ago
I see. Thank you for your answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
I see. Thank you for your answer.
– Breakfastisready
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319554%2fhow-did-they-come-up-with-the-mrrw-bound%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown