Extended Product and Integrated Interleaved Codes

Blaum, M.; Hetzler, S. R.

doi:10.1109/tit.2017.2789299

Cited by 16 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Example 5. Consider a C (8, (4, 4, 8, 8, 8)) 1-level binary EII code where the horizontal code C 0 is an [8,4,4] extended Hamming code over GF(2) and the vertical code V 0 is the [5,2,4] shortened RS code over GF (16) of Example 3. According to Lemma 4, the code has dimension 8 and minimum distance d (4)(4) = 16.…”

Section: Definition and Properties Of 1-level Eii Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consider the bound (2) on the minimum distance of a (5, 8, 8; 4, 4, d, 2) LRC code. In this case, we have k * = k (2) opt [8,4]…”

Section: Definition and Properties Of 1-level Eii Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…is the [8,4,4] extended Hamming code. We assume that the coefficients h x,y in Definition 9 are given by the 8 × 8 matrix 7)) ⊕ C(8, (7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7)).…”

Section: Definition and Properties Of T-level Eii Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Except for special cases, II codes are not optimal as LRC codes, but the codes in [67] require a field of size at least mn. The same happens with EII codes: except for special cases, they do not optimize the minimum distance [8].There are stronger criteria for optimization than the minimum distance in LRC codes. For example, PMDS codes [5], [9], [19], [23], [33], [35] satisfy the Maximally Recoverable (MR) property [23], [25].…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Extended Integrated Interleaved Codes Over Any Field With Applications to Locally Recoverable Codes

Blaum

2020

IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated Interleaved (II) and Extended Integrated Interleaved (EII) codes are a versatile alternative for Locally Recoverable (LRC) codes, since they require fields of relatively small size. II and EII codes are generally defined over Reed-Solomon type of codes. A new comprehensive definition of EII codes is presented, allowing for EII codes over any field, and in particular, over the binary field GF(2). The traditional definition of II and EII codes is shown to be a special case of the new definition. Improvements over previous constructions of LRC codes, in particular, for binary codes, are given, as well as cases meeting an upper bound on the minimum distance. Properties of the codes are presented as well, in particular, an iterative decoding algorithm on rows and columns generalizing the iterative decoding algorithm of product codes. Two applications are also discussed: one is finding a systematic encoding of EII codes such that the parity symbols have a balanced distribution on rows, and the other is the problem of ordering the symbols of an EII code such that the maximum length of a correctable burst is achieved.Constructions of LRC codes involve different issues and tradeoffs, like the size of the field and optimality criteria. The same is true for EPC codes, of which, as we have seen above, LRC codes are a special case. In particular, one goal is to keep the size of the required finite field small, since operations over a small field have less complexity than ones over a larger field due to the smaller look-up tables involved. For example, Integrated Interleaved (II) codes [32], [68] over GF(q), where q > max{m, n}, were proposed in [7] as LRC codes. The construction in [45], [46] (stair codes) reduces field size when failures are correlated. Extended Integrated Interleaved (EII) codes [8] unify product codes and II codes.As is the case with LRC codes, construction of EPC codes involves optimality issues. For example, LRC codes optimizing the minimum distance were presented in [67]. Except for special cases, II codes are not optimal as LRC codes, but the codes in [67] require a field of size at least mn. The same happens with EII codes: except for special cases, they do not optimize the minimum distance [8].There are stronger criteria for optimization than the minimum distance in LRC codes. For example, PMDS codes [5], [9], [19], [23], [33], [35] satisfy the Maximally Recoverable (MR) property [23], [25]. The definition of the MR property is extended for EPC codes in [25], but it turns out that EPC codes with the MR property are difficult to obtain. For example, in [25] it was proven that an EPC code EP(n, 1; n, 1; 1) (i.e., one vertical and one horizontal parity per column and row and one extra parity) with the MR property requires a field whose size is superlinear on n.The EII codes presented in [8], of which II codes [7], [68], [73], [76], [77] are special cases, in general assume a field GF(q) such that q > max{m, n} and the individual codes are RS type of codes. An exception occurs in [73], where b...

show abstract

Section: Definition and Properties Of 1-level Eii Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consider the bound (2) on the minimum distance of a (5, 8, 8; 4, 4, d, 2) LRC code. In this case, we have k * = k (2) opt [8,4]…”

Section: Definition and Properties Of 1-level Eii Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…is the [8,4,4] extended Hamming code. We assume that the coefficients h x,y in Definition 9 are given by the 8 × 8 matrix 7)) ⊕ C(8, (7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7)).…”

Section: Definition and Properties Of T-level Eii Codesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations