Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Select $K$ random binary vectors $Y_i$ of length $m$ uniformly at random.

Let the following collection of random variables be defined: $X_{i,j}=w(Y_i \oplus Y_j)$ where $w(\cdot)$ denotes the Hamming weight of a binary vector, i.e., the number of the nonzero coordinates in its argument. Define $D_{min}(Y_1,\ldots,Y_K)$ as the smallest of the $X_{i,j}$ for $i \neq j.$

Thus we have $n=C(K,2)=K(K-1)/2$ non-independent random variables $X_{i,j}$ with support {$0,1,\ldots,m$} and individual distribution $Bin(m,1/2)$. It seems to me that the random variables $X_{i,j}$ will be $s$-wise negatively correlated (for $s$ large enough) if distances between pairs chosen from a subcollection of $Y_{i_1},Y_{i_2},\ldots,Y_{i_v}$ where ($v < K$) tincreases then the distances between $Y_{i_j}$ and the remaining vectors will tend to decrease. Take $s=v+1.$

It is possible to get a bound on the following quantity. Fix $w$ an integer less than $m/2.$ The Hamming sphere of radius w has "volume", i.e., contains $V_w(m)=\sum_{s=0}^w C(m,s)$ vectors and we approximately have to first order in the exponent $$ V_w(m) =2^{m H((w+1)/2)} $$ where $H(\cdot)$ is the binary entropy function. Then, for a random uniform choice of the $Y_i$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,K$ it is clear that if the Hamming spheres centred at these vectors are disjoint then the minimum distance is at least $2w+1$ thus $Pr[D_{min} \geq 2 w+1] \leq \frac{(2^m-V)}{2^m}\frac{ (2^m-2 V) }{2^m} \cdots\frac{ (2^m - (K-1)V)}{ 2^{m}}$

where $V=V_w(m).$ This means that, by replacing each fraction of the form $(1-x)$ by $exp(-x)$ where $x >0$ but small, we get the approximate upper bound $Pr[ D_{min} \geq 2w+1] \leq exp\left[-K(K-1)V^2/(2^{m+1} \right]$ which then expresses this upper bound in terms of the entropy function, which is nice. Unfortunately this upper bound is quite loose.

I will be happy with any pointers to literature or any other suggestions.

share|improve this question
    
Hi Leonid, you make a good point. I am happy to choose them independently, in practice, if $K$ is about $2^{m/2}$ or more, you will typically get collisions and min distance will be zero. I am interested in the case that $K$ is much smaller but still of size $2^{a m}$ for some $a \in (0,1/2)$ which is not going to yield collisions. –  kodlu Feb 25 '10 at 4:16
    
I think you mean the minimum distance is at least 2w+1, rather than 2w or 2w-1. –  Douglas Zare Feb 25 '10 at 5:07
    
You're right, I fixed the equation. –  kodlu Feb 25 '10 at 6:01
    
@serdar: Just to be sure, are you really interested in Pr(D_min > d) for a random code, or do you actually want to use random code arguments to eventually lower/upper bound the minimum distance of a length-m binary code of K codewords, d(m,K)? If the latter is indeed the case, do you need pointers to known (asymptotic) bounds on d(m,K)? –  user2734 Feb 25 '10 at 6:50
    
@serdar: Adversary? Ah, you’re probably working on cryptography. I was thinking about constructing good error-correcting codes, and indeed had the relative distance vs. rate bounds for linear codes (Gilbert--Varshamov lower bound, McEliece--Rodemich--Rumsey--Welch upper bound). –  user2734 Mar 7 '10 at 14:29
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Here is a direct application of Theorem 21 from Gabor Lugosi's concentration of measure notes. Your $Y_i$ corresponds to his $X_{i,1}^m$ and your $X_{i,j}$ to his $d(X_{i,1}^m, X_{j,1}^m)$. Take his $A$ to be your $\{X_{i,j}\}_{i \neq j}$. The birthday problem gives the probability that any two of the $Y_i$ are exactly the same. That is: $$\mathbb{P}(0^m \in A) = \mathbb{P}\left(\left\{X_{i,j} = 0^m : i \neq j\right\}\right) = \mathrm{(omitted\ for\ simplicity)} $$ Now your $D_{min}$ corresponds to his $d(0^m,A)$. By the Theorem, for any $t > 0$, $$\mathbb{P}\left(D_{min} \geq t + \sqrt{\frac{m}{2} \mathrm{log}\frac{1}{\mathbb{P}(0^m \in A)}}\right) \leq e^{-2t^2/m}.$$ This bound may be OK for your needs. If it isn't, see Lugosi's discussion of Talagrand's convex distance inequality, which is a big improvement.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.