Codes with Locality for Two Erasures

In this paper, we study codes with locality that can recover from two erasures via a sequence of two local, parity-check computations. By a local parity-check computation, we mean recovery via a single parity-check equation associated to small Hamming weight. Earlier approaches considered recovery in parallel; the sequential approach allows us to potentially construct codes with improved minimum distance. These codes, which we refer to as locally 2-reconstructible codes, are a natural generalization along one direction, of codes with all-symbol locality introduced by Gopalan \textit{et al}, in which recovery from a single erasure is considered. By studying the Generalized Hamming Weights of the dual code, we derive upper bounds on the minimum distance of locally 2-reconstructible codes and provide constructions for a family of codes based on Tur\'an graphs, that are optimal with respect to this bound. The minimum distance bound derived here is universal in the sense that no code which permits all-symbol local recovery from $2$ erasures can have larger minimum distance regardless of approach adopted. Our approach also leads to a new bound on the minimum distance of codes with all-symbol locality for the single-erasure case.Comment: 14 pages, 3 figures, Updated for improved readabilit

On the Limits of Depth Reduction at Depth 3 Over Small Finite Fields

Recently, Gupta et.al. [GKKS2013] proved that over Q any $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial in VP can also be computed by a depth three $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit of size $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log^{3/2}n)}$. Over fixed-size finite fields, Grigoriev and Karpinski proved that any $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit that computes $Det_n$ (or $Perm_n$) must be of size $2^{\Omega(n)}$ [GK1998]. In this paper, we prove that over fixed-size finite fields, any $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit for computing the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial of $n$ generic matrices of size $n\times n$, must be of size $2^{\Omega(n\log n)}$. The importance of this result is that over fixed-size fields there is no depth reduction technique that can be used to compute all the $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomials in VP by depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n\log n)}$. The result [GK1998] can only rule out such a possibility for depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n)}$. We also give an example of an explicit polynomial ($NW_{n,\epsilon}(X)$) in VNP (not known to be in VP), for which any $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit computing it (over fixed-size fields) must be of size $2^{\Omega(n\log n)}$. The polynomial we consider is constructed from the combinatorial design. An interesting feature of this result is that we get the first examples of two polynomials (one in VP and one in VNP) such that they have provably stronger circuit size lower bounds than Permanent in a reasonably strong model of computation. Next, we prove that any depth 4 $\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}$ circuit computing $NW_{n,\epsilon}(X)$ (over any field) must be of size $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$. To the best of our knowledge, the polynomial $NW_{n,\epsilon}(X)$ is the first example of an explicit polynomial in VNP such that it requires $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$ size depth four circuits, but no known matching upper bound