Designs, Codes and Cryptography

, Volume 87, Issue 2–3, pp 589–607 | Cite as

Improved power decoding of interleaved one-point Hermitian codes

  • Sven PuchingerEmail author
  • Johan Rosenkilde
  • Irene Bouw
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue: Coding and Cryptography


An \(h\)-interleaved one-point Hermitian code is a direct sum of \(h\) many one-point Hermitian codes, where errors are assumed to occur at the same positions in the constituent codewords. We propose a new partial decoding algorithm for these codes that can decode—under certain assumptions—an error of relative weight up to \(1-\big (\tfrac{k+g}{n}\big )^{\frac{h}{h+1}}\), where k is the dimension, n the length, and g the genus of the code. Simulation results for various parameters indicate that the new decoder achieves this maximal decoding radius with high probability. The algorithm is based on a recent generalization of improved power decoding to interleaved Reed–Solomon codes, does not require an expensive root-finding step, and improves upon the previous best decoding radius at all rates. In the special case \(h=1\), we obtain an adaption of the improved power decoding algorithm to one-point Hermitian codes, which for all simulated parameters achieves a similar observed failure probability as the Guruswami–Sudan decoder above the latter’s guaranteed decoding radius.


Interleaved one-point Hermitian codes Power decoding Collaborative decoding 

Mathematics Subject Classification

94B35 14G50 



We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which improved the readability of the paper.


  1. 1.
    Armand M.A.: Interleaved Reed–Solomon codes versus interleaved Hermitian codes. IEEE Commun. Lett. 12(10) (2008).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckermann B., Labahn G.: A uniform approach for the fast computation of matrix-type padé approximants. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 15(3), 804–823 (1994).
  3. 3.
    Brander K.: Interpolation and list decoding of algebraic codes. PhD dissertation, PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark (2010).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown A., Minder L., Shokrollahi A.: Improved decoding of interleaved AG codes. In: IMA International Conference on Cryptography and Coding, pp. 37–46. Springer, Berlin (2005).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohn H., Heninger N.: Approximate common divisors via lattices. Open Book Ser. 1(1), 271–293 (2013).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feng G.-L., Tzeng K.K.: A generalized euclidean algorithm for multisequence shift-register synthesis. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 35(3), 584–594 (1989).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guruswami V., Sudan M.: Improved decoding of Reed–Solomon and algebraic-geometric codes. In: IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 28–37 (1998).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansen J.P.: Dependent rational points on curves over finite fields-Lefschetz theorems and exponential sums. Electron. Notes Discret. Math. 6, 297–309 (2001).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen H.E., Nielsen R.R., Høholdt T.: Performance analysis of a decoding algorithm for algebraic geometry codes. In: IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (1998).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kampf S.: Decoding Hermitian codes: an engineering approach. PhD dissertation, Universität Ulm (2012).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kampf S.: Bounds on collaborative decoding of interleaved Hermitian codes and virtual extension. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 70(1–2), 9–25 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krachkovsky V.Y., Lee Y.X.: Decoding for iterative Reed–Solomon coding schemes. IEEE Trans. Magn. 33(5), 2740–2742 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee K., O’Sullivan M.E.: List decoding of Hermitian codes using Gröbner bases. J. Symb. Comput. 44(12), 1662–1675 (2009).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee K., Bras-Amoros M., O’Sullivan M.: Unique decoding of general AG codes. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 60(4), 2038–2053 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielsen J.S.R.: Generalised multi-sequence shift-register synthesis using module minimisation. In: IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 882–886 (2013). [Online].
  16. 16.
    Nielsen J.S.R., Beelen P.: Sub-quadratic decoding of one-point Hermitian codes. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 61(6), 3225–3240 (2015).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parvaresh F., Vardy A.: Multivariate interpolation decoding beyond the Guruswami–Sudan radius. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing (2004).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Puchinger S., Bouw I., Rosenkilde né Nielsen J.: Improved power decoding of one-point Hermitian codes. In: International Workshop on Coding and Cryptography (2017). arXiv:1703.07982.
  19. 19.
    Puchinger S., Rosenkilde né Nielsen J.: Decoding of interleaved Reed–Solomon codes using improved power decoding. In: IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (2017).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenkilde J.: Power decoding Reed–Solomon codes up to the Johnson radius. Accepted for: Advances in Mathematics of Communications (2018). arXiv:1505.02111.
  21. 21.
    Schmidt G., Sidorenko V., Bossert M.: Enhancing the correcting radius of interleaved Reed–Solomon decoding using syndrome extension techniques. In: IEEE ISIT, pp. 1341–1345 (2007).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt G., Sidorenko V.R., Bossert M.: Collaborative decoding of interleaved Reed–Solomon codes and concatenated code designs. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 55(7), 2991–3012 (2009).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmidt G., Sidorenko V.R., Bossert M.: Syndrome decoding of Reed–Solomon codes beyond half the minimum distance based on shift-register synthesis. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 56(10), 5245–5252 (2010).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sidorenko V., Schmidt G., Bossert M.: Decoding punctured Reed–Solomon codes up to the singleton bound. In: International ITG Conference on Source and Channel Coding, pp. 1–6 (2008).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stein W.A. et al.: SageMath Software.
  26. 26.
    Wachter-Zeh A., Zeh A., Bossert M.: Decoding interleaved Reed–Solomon codes beyond their joint error-correcting capability. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 71(2), 261–281 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu Y.: New list decoding algorithms for Reed–Solomon and BCH codes. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54(8), 3611–3630 (2008).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Communications EngineeringTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Institute of Pure MathematicsUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations