Download
the 1 st annual workshop n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The 1’st annual (?) workshop PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The 1’st annual (?) workshop

The 1’st annual (?) workshop

94 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

The 1’st annual (?) workshop

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The 1’st annual (?) workshop

  2. Communication under Channel Uncertainty:Oblivious channels Michael Langberg California Institute of Technology

  3. X Y Coding theory y m  {0,1}k Noise x = C(m)  {0,1}n decode m Error correcting codes C: {0,1}k {0,1}n

  4. Communication channels X Y x e y=xe • Design of C depends on properties of channel. • Channel W: • W(e|x) = probability that error e is imposed by channel when x=C(m) is transmitted. • In this case y=xe is received. • BSCp: Binary Symmetric Channel. • Each bit flipped with probability p. • W(e|x)=p|e|(1-p)n-|e|

  5. X Y Success criteria C: {0,1}k {0,1}n • Let D:{0,1}n {0,1}k be a decoder. • C is said to allow the communicationofmover W (with D) if Pre[D(C(m)e)=m] ~ 1. • Probability over W(e|C(m)). BSCp[Shannon]: exist codes with rate ~ 1-H(p) (optimal). • C is said to allow the communicationof{0,1}kover W (with D) if Prm,e[D(C(m)e)=m] ~ 1. • Probability uniform over {0,1}k and over W(e|C(m)). • Rate of C is k/n. e x=C(m) y=xe

  6. X Y Channel uncertainty • What if properties of the channel are not known? • Channel can be any channel in family W= {W}. • Objective: design a code that will allow communication not matter which W is chosen in W. • C is said to allow the communication of {0,1}k over channel family W if there exists a decoder D s.t. for each WW: C,D allow communication of {0,1}k over W. ?

  7. X Y The family Wp Adversarial model in which the channel W is chosen maliciously by an adversarial jammer within limits of Wp. • A channel W is a p-channel if it can only change a p-fraction of the bits transmitted: W(e|x)=0 if |e|>pn. • Wp = family of all p-channels. • Communicating overWp: design a code that enables communication no matter which p-fraction of bits are flipped. Power constrain on W

  8. Communicating over Wp • Communicating overWp: design a code C that enables communication no matter which p-fraction of bits are flipped. • “Equivalently”: minimum distance of C is 2pn. • What is the maximum achievable • rate over Wp? • Major open problem. • Known: 1-H(2p) ≤ R < 1-H(p) * * * * * * * * * C Min. distance Wp X Y {0,1}n

  9. This talk X Y • Communication over Wp not fully understood. • Wp does not allow communication w/ rate 1-H(p). • BSCp allows communication at rate 1-H(p). • In “essence” BSCpWp (power constraint). • Close gap by considering restriction of Wp. • Oblivious channels • Communication over Wp with theassumption that the channel has a limited view of the transmitted codeword.

  10. Oblivious channels X Y • Communicating overWp: only p-fraction of bits can be flipped. • Think of channel as adversarial jammer. • Jammer acts maliciously according to codeword sent. • Additional constraint: Would like to limit the amount of information the adversary has on codeword x sent. • For example: • Channel with a “window” view. • In general: correlation between codeword x and error e imposed by W is limited.

  11. Oblivious channels: model • A channel W is oblivious if W(e|x) is independent of x. • BSCp is an oblivious channel. • A channel W is partially-oblivious if the dependence of W(e|x) on x is limited: • Intuitively I(e,x) is small. • Partially oblivious - definition: • For each x: W(e|x)=Wx(e) is a distribution over {0,1}n. • Limit the size of the family {Wx|x}. Let W0 and W1 be two distributions over errors. Define W as follows: W(e|x) = W0(e) if the first bit of x is 0. W(e|x) = W1(e) if the first bit of x is 1. W is almost completely oblivious. X Y

  12. Families of oblivious channels • A family of channelsW* Wp is (partially) oblivious if each WW*is (partially) oblivious. • Study the rate achievable when comm. over W*. • Jammer W* is limited in power and knowledge. • BSCpis an oblivious channel “in” Wp. • Rate on BSCp ~ 1-H(p). • Natural question: Can this be extended to any family of oblivious channels?

  13. Our results X Y • Study both oblivious and partially oblivious families. • For oblivious families W*one can achieve rate ~ 1-H(p). • For families W* of partially oblivious channels in which WW* : {Wx|x} of size at most 2n. Achievable rate ~ 1-H(p)- (if  < (1-H(p))/3). • Sketch proof for oblivious W*.

  14. Previous work • Oblivious channels in W* have been addressed by [CsiszarNarayan] as a special case of Arbirtrarily Varying Channels with state constraints. • [CsiszarNarayan] show that rate ~ 1-H(p) for oblivious channels in W* using the “method of types”. • Partially oblivious channels not defined previously. • For partially oblivious channels [CsiszarNarayan] implicitly show 1-H(p)-30 (compare with 1-H(p)-). • Our proof technique are substantially different.

  15. Proof technique: Random codes • Let C be a code (of rate 1-H(p)) in which each codeword is picked at random. • Show: with high probability C allows comm. over any oblivious channel in W* (any channel W which always imposes the same distribution over errors). • Implies: Exists a code C that allows comm. over W*with rate 1-H(p).

  16. Proof sketch X Y x e y=xe • Show: with high probability C allows comm. over any oblivious channel in W*. • Step 1: show that C allows comm. over W* iff C allows comm. over channels W that always impose a single error e(|e| ≤ pn). • Step 2: Let We be the channel that always imposes error e. Show that w.h.p. C allows comm. over We. • Step 3: As there are only ~ 2H(p)n channels We: use union bound.

  17. Proof of Step 2 X Y x e y=xe • Step 2: Let We be the channel that always imposes error e. Show that w.h.p. C allows comm. over We. • Let D be the Nearest Neighbor decoder. • By definition: C allows comm. over We iff for most codewords x=C(m): D(xe)=m. • Codeword x=C(m) is disturbed if D(xe)m. • RandomC: expected number of disturbed codewords is small (i.e. in expectation C allows communication). • Need to prove that number of disturbed codewords is small w.h.p. * * * * * * * * * * e C

  18. Concentration X Y x e y=xe • Expected number of disturbed codewords is small. • Need to prove that number of disturbed codewords is small w.h.p. • Standard tool - Concentration inequalities: Azuma, Talagrand, Chernoff. • Work well when random variable has small Lipschitz coefficient. • Study Lipschitz coefficient of our process. * * * * * * * * * * e C

  19. Lipschitz coefficient X Y x e y=xe Lipschitz coefficient in our setting: • Let C and C’ be two codes that differ in a single codeword. • Lipschitz coefficient = difference between number of disturbed codewords in C and C’ w.r.t. We. • Can show that L. coefficient is very large. • Cannot apply standard concentration techniques. • What next? * * * * * * * * * * e C

  20. Lipschitz coefficient [Vu]: Random process in which Lipschitz coefficient has small “expectation” and “variance” will have exponential concentration: probability of deviation from expectation is exponential in deviation. [KimVu]: concentration of low degree multivariate polynomials (extends Chernoff). X Y x e y=xe Lipschitz coefficient in our setting is large. • However one may show that “on average” Lipschitz coefficient is small. • This is done by studying the list decoding properties of random C. • Once we establish that “average” Lipschitz coef. is small one may use recent concentration result of Vu to obtain proof. • Establishing “average” Lipschitz coef. is technically involved. * * * * * * * * * * e C

  21. Conclusions and future research • Theme: Communication over Wp not fully understood. Gain understanding of certain relaxations of Wp. • Seen: • Oblivious channels W*Wp. • Allows rate 1-H(p). • Other relaxations: • “Online adversaries”. • Adversaries restricted to changing certain locations (unknown to X and Y).