Feng-Rao decoding of primary codes

We show that the Feng-Rao bound for dual codes and a similar bound by Andersen and Geil [H.E. Andersen and O. Geil, Evaluation codes from order domain theory, Finite Fields Appl., 14 (2008), pp. 92-123] for primary codes are consequences of each other. This implies that the Feng-Rao decoding algorithm can be applied to decode primary codes up to half their designed minimum distance. The technique applies to any linear code for which information on well-behaving pairs is available. Consequently we are able to decode efficiently a large class of codes for which no non-trivial decoding algorithm was previously known. Among those are important families of multivariate polynomial codes. Matsumoto and Miura in [R. Matsumoto and S. Miura, On the Feng-Rao bound for the L-construction of algebraic geometry codes, IEICE Trans. Fundamentals, E83-A (2000), pp. 926-930] (See also [P. Beelen and T. H{\o}holdt, The decoding of algebraic geometry codes, in Advances in algebraic geometry codes, pp. 49-98]) derived from the Feng-Rao bound a bound for primary one-point algebraic geometric codes and showed how to decode up to what is guaranteed by their bound. The exposition by Matsumoto and Miura requires the use of differentials which was not needed in [Andersen and Geil 2008]. Nevertheless we demonstrate a very strong connection between Matsumoto and Miura's bound and Andersen and Geil's bound when applied to primary one-point algebraic geometric codes.Comment: elsarticle.cls, 23 pages, no figure. Version 3 added citations to the works by I.M. Duursma and R. Pellikaa

Relative generalized Hamming weights of one-point algebraic geometric codes

Security of linear ramp secret sharing schemes can be characterized by the relative generalized Hamming weights of the involved codes. In this paper we elaborate on the implication of these parameters and we devise a method to estimate their value for general one-point algebraic geometric codes. As it is demonstrated, for Hermitian codes our bound is often tight. Furthermore, for these codes the relative generalized Hamming weights are often much larger than the corresponding generalized Hamming weights