Decoding Balanced Linear Codes With Preprocessing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prange's information set algorithm is a decoding algorithm for arbitrary linear codes. It decodes corrupted codewords of any $\mathbb{F}_2$-linear code $C$ of message length $n$ up to relative error rate $O(\log n / n)$ in $\mathsf{poly}(n)$ time. We show that the error rate can be improved to $O((\log n)^2 / n)$, provided: (1) the decoder has access to a polynomial-length advice string that depends on $C$ only, and (2) $C$ is $n^{-Ω(1)}$-balanced. As a consequence we improve the error tolerance in decoding random linear codes if inefficient preprocessing of the code is allowed. This reveals potential vulnerabilities in cryptographic applications of Learning Noisy Parities with low noise rate. Our main technical result is that the Hamming weight of $Hw$, where $H$ is a random sample of *short dual* codewords, measures the proximity of a word $w$ to the code in the regime of interest. Given such $H$ as advice, our algorithm corrects errors by locally minimizing this measure. We show that for most codes, the error rate tolerated by our decoder is asymptotically optimal among all algorithms whose decision is based on thresholding $Hw$ for an arbitrary polynomial-size advice matrix $H$.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".