6
$\begingroup$

I am looking for the sharpest known upper bound on $K(n, 1)$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. This is the minimal cardinality of a (not-necessarily linear) covering code of $\{0, 1\}^n$ of radius 1.

In elementary terms: Using how few (possibly non-disjoint) Hamming balls of radius 1 can we cover $\{0, 1\}^n$? I am interested in upper-bounds to this quantity, especially asymptotically as $n \rightarrow \infty$. For example, even the statement $K(n, 1) \in o(2^n)$ I have not been able to find proven. (It's impossible to do strictly better than $\lceil{\frac{2^n}{n + 1}} \rceil$, by the sphere-covering bound.)

As of 1998, exact values of $K(n, 1)$ were only known for specific values of $n$. For example:

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $K(n, 1) \in o(2^n)$ is easy: clearly $K(n, 1) \le 2K(n-1, 1)$ by the construction of taking each code word of length $n-1$ and adding one copy with a suffix of $0$ and one with a suffix of $1$. Then from $K(2^k, 1) = 2^{2^k - k}$ you get $K(n, 1) \le 2^{n - \lfloor \lg n\rfloor}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that the upper bound in the comment by @PeterTaylor not only gives $o(2^n)$ but gets remarkably close to the sphere-covering lower bound mentioned in the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasBlass indeed—if my calculations are correct, it looks like it stays strictly less than double the sphere-covering bound even in the worst case. $\endgroup$
    – BD107
    Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ No, the worst case is $n = 2^k - 1$ when it's exactly double the sphere-covering bound. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 21:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @PeterTaylor actually it seems that your argument can be slightly improved—by bootstrapping form Hamming's $K(2^k - 1, 1) = 2^{2^k - k - 1}$ instead of Johnson's, you can actually attain equality at the case $n = 2^k - 1$, and then you get the improved estimate $K(n, 1) \leq 2^{n - \lfloor \log_2 (n + 1) \rfloor}$. This estimate is always strictly less than double the lower-bound. $\endgroup$
    – BD107
    Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 21:42

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Clearly $K(n, 1) \le 2K(n-1, 1)$ by the construction of taking each code word of length $n-1$ and adding one copy with a suffix of $0$ and one with a suffix of $1$. (This is comment r to table 1 in the Cohen-Lobstein-Sloane paper referenced in the question).

Then by taking the largest $k$ such that $2^k - 1 \le n$ and iterating this construction on the Hamming code we get $K(n, 1) \le 2^{n - \lfloor \lg (n+1)\rfloor}$. The sphere-covering lower bound can be written as $2^{n - \lg(n+1)} \le K(n,1)$, so the upper bound is less than twice the lower bound and we have the asymptotic $$K(n, 1) \in \Theta(2^{n - \lg(n+1)})$$

When $n = 2^k - 1$ the lower and upper bounds coincide; the gap is greatest when $n = 2^k - 2$, when the upper bound coincides with the size of the Hamming code for $n+1$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I meant to mention that the known exact values for small $n$ are OEIS A000983. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 17, 2021 at 7:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .