pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03370 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 💻 cs.IT · math.IT

Generalized Function-Correcting Partition Codes

Charul Rajput , Mahak , V. Lalitha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 14:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT math.IT
keywords generalized function-correcting partition codesredundancy boundssystematic encodingHamming distancedistance requirement matrixerror-correcting codespartition codesbinary codes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Generalized function-correcting partition codes protect multiple message partitions against differing error levels with a single systematic encoding that often uses less redundancy than separate or maximum-protection alternatives.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper defines generalized function-correcting partition codes as systematic encodings that enforce distinct minimum Hamming distances between codewords whose messages fall into different blocks of each given partition. It supplies a construction procedure, general upper and lower bounds on redundancy, and a characterization of the minimal redundancy via the shortest length of an associated distance-requirement-matrix code. Examples show that this unified construction can require strictly fewer redundant symbols than either the sum of redundancies from individual function-correcting partition codes or the redundancy of one code built for the join partition at the highest distance. Readers care because many systems need tailored error protection for different message subsets without paying the full cost of uniform or additive solutions.

Core claim

Given partitions of the message space together with their individual distance requirements, a distance requirement matrix D can be defined so that the optimal redundancy of a generalized function-correcting partition code equals the shortest length of an associated D-code; a multi-step construction realizes this length and, for the binary case with two partitions satisfying neighborhood conditions, improved lower bounds hold. The resulting codes simultaneously meet all distance specifications while, in concrete examples, using less redundancy than either adding the separate FCPC redundancies or using a single FCPC at the strictest required distance.

What carries the argument

The distance requirement matrix D, whose entries specify the minimum Hamming distance required between any two messages belonging to different blocks of each partition; the matrix converts the multi-partition protection task into the problem of finding a shortest D-code whose length supplies the optimal redundancy.

If this is right

  • Redundancy is at most that of the join partition taken at the maximum distance.
  • For two partitions over the binary field, improved lower bounds on redundancy hold whenever the partitions satisfy the stated neighborhood conditions.
  • The GFCPC redundancy can be strictly smaller than the sum of separate FCPC redundancies in concrete cases.
  • The same construction unifies function-correcting partition codes and function-correcting codes with data protection.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The D-matrix reduction may allow existing algorithms for constant-weight or identifying codes to be repurposed for multi-partition protection tasks.
  • In distributed storage, the approach could assign different reliability levels to data blocks and index structures inside one codeword.
  • Extensions to larger numbers of partitions or non-binary alphabets would follow directly from the same matrix construction once the D-code problem is solved.
  • The neighborhood-based lower bounds suggest that partition geometry itself controls how much redundancy can be saved.

Load-bearing premise

A systematic encoding exists that meets every distinct distance requirement for the partitions simultaneously without extra bits beyond the length predicted by the associated D-code.

What would settle it

An explicit collection of partitions and distance requirements for which every code satisfying the D-matrix distances requires at least as many redundant bits as either the sum of the individual FCPC redundancies or the single highest-distance FCPC.

read the original abstract

We introduce generalized function-correcting partition codes (GFCPCs) that simultaneously protect multiple partitions of the message space against different numbers of errors. Given partitions with respective distance requirements, a GFCPC is a systematic encoding that guarantees, for each partition, a specified minimum Hamming distance between codewords whose messages lie in different blocks. This framework unifies and generalizes both function-correcting partition codes, which protect multiple functions with a common error-correction level, and function-correcting codes with data protection, which assign different levels of protection to data and a single function. We present a multi-step construction procedure for these codes and demonstrate it with some examples. We derive general upper and lower bounds on the optimal redundancy, including the upper bound which considers the join of different combinations of the partitions. We define the distance requirement matrix $\mathcal{D}$ for the GFCPCs and use it to characterize the optimal redundancy in terms of the shortest length of an associated $\mathcal{D}$-code. For two partitions of message space over the binary field, we establish improved lower bounds on the optimal redundancy under specific neighborhood conditions on the partitions. Through several examples, we demonstrate that the proposed framework can yield strictly smaller redundancy than both the sum of the individual FCPC redundancies and the redundancy of a single FCPC designed for the join partition with the highest distance (strongest protection required).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces generalized function-correcting partition codes (GFCPCs) that simultaneously protect multiple partitions of the message space against different numbers of errors via a systematic encoding guaranteeing specified minimum Hamming distances between codewords in different blocks of each partition. It unifies prior work on function-correcting partition codes and function-correcting codes with data protection, presents a multi-step construction, derives general upper and lower bounds on optimal redundancy (including via joins of partitions), defines a distance requirement matrix D and characterizes optimal redundancy as the shortest length of an associated D-code, establishes improved lower bounds for two partitions under specific neighborhood conditions, and provides examples demonstrating strictly smaller redundancy than the sum of individual FCPC redundancies or a single join-FCPC with the highest distance.

Significance. If the constructions and characterizations hold, the work offers a useful generalization that could enable more efficient redundancy use in applications requiring heterogeneous error protection across message partitions or functions. The explicit multi-step construction, the link to standard D-code lengths, and the concrete examples of redundancy savings are positive contributions; the neighborhood-conditioned bounds for two partitions add targeted theoretical value.

major comments (2)
  1. [D-matrix characterization section] The section defining the distance requirement matrix D and characterizing optimal redundancy as the shortest D-code length: this equivalence is load-bearing for the general claim of reduced redundancy, yet the manuscript only establishes improved lower bounds under specific neighborhood conditions for two partitions and demonstrates achievability via examples; it does not prove that an arbitrary D-matrix always admits a binary systematic code whose induced distances meet (but do not exceed) the per-partition requirements without extra length, which could erase the claimed savings if neighborhoods are incompatible.
  2. [Construction section] The multi-step construction procedure (prior to the examples): while the procedure is presented and used to obtain the reported savings, the manuscript does not explicitly verify or prove that the resulting systematic encoding simultaneously satisfies all distinct per-partition Hamming distance conditions for arbitrary input partitions, leaving open whether additional unstated constraints or extra redundancy are needed in general.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction or preliminaries] The notation for the join of partitions and the associated single-FCPC redundancy could be introduced with a small concrete example immediately after the definition to improve readability.
  2. [Examples section] In the examples, the explicit codeword tables or distance verifications for each partition are not shown; adding a short table confirming that all required distances are met would strengthen the demonstration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the revisions we intend to make to strengthen the presentation and proofs.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [D-matrix characterization section] The section defining the distance requirement matrix D and characterizing optimal redundancy as the shortest D-code length: this equivalence is load-bearing for the general claim of reduced redundancy, yet the manuscript only establishes improved lower bounds under specific neighborhood conditions for two partitions and demonstrates achievability via examples; it does not prove that an arbitrary D-matrix always admits a binary systematic code whose induced distances meet (but do not exceed) the per-partition requirements without extra length, which could erase the claimed savings if neighborhoods are incompatible.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for precision here. The D-matrix characterization frames the minimal redundancy as the shortest length of a D-code satisfying the per-partition distance requirements encoded in D. General lower bounds on redundancy are derived directly from this, and the join-based upper bound provides a general construction. However, we acknowledge that the manuscript does not contain a complete proof that, for every possible D-matrix, there exists a binary systematic code achieving exactly those distances with no extra length when neighborhood structures are incompatible. The savings are rigorously shown only for the examples and under the neighborhood conditions for two partitions. We will revise the section to state the characterization more precisely as providing bounds and a reduction to D-code length, with a new remark clarifying that additional redundancy may be needed in incompatible cases and that the general claim of savings holds when the construction applies. This does not invalidate the examples or the unification of prior work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Construction section] The multi-step construction procedure (prior to the examples): while the procedure is presented and used to obtain the reported savings, the manuscript does not explicitly verify or prove that the resulting systematic encoding simultaneously satisfies all distinct per-partition Hamming distance conditions for arbitrary input partitions, leaving open whether additional unstated constraints or extra redundancy are needed in general.

    Authors: We agree that a formal verification of the multi-step construction is required for the general case. The procedure constructs the systematic encoding incrementally by satisfying the distance condition for each partition in turn, using parity symbols added at each step. It is applied successfully in the examples to achieve the reported redundancy savings. We will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) proving that the construction produces a code meeting all per-partition Hamming distance requirements simultaneously for arbitrary partitions, under the assumptions stated in the paper, and we will explicitly note any conditions on the partitions that ensure no extra redundancy is needed. This will resolve the concern about unstated constraints. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in the claimed derivation chain

full rationale

The paper defines GFCPCs via a systematic encoding that meets per-partition Hamming distance requirements. It constructs the distance requirement matrix D directly from those requirements and characterizes optimal redundancy as the shortest length of an associated D-code. This is a standard definitional reduction to a coding problem (minimal length satisfying the encoded distances), not a loop where a result is derived from itself. General upper/lower bounds are obtained from coding-theoretic arguments on joins of partitions and neighborhood conditions, independent of the target redundancy value. The multi-step construction and examples are presented separately and demonstrate concrete savings without reducing to fitted parameters or self-citations. No load-bearing step equates a claimed prediction or theorem to its inputs by construction; the framework unifies prior FCPC notions but the new bounds and comparisons retain independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard coding theory definitions with no data-fitted parameters; new entities are introduced by definition to model the generalized protection requirements.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Hamming distance measures the number of positions in which two strings differ and determines error-correction capability
    Invoked throughout to define the distance requirements for each partition
  • domain assumption A systematic encoding includes the original message bits unchanged in the codeword
    Used in the definition of GFCPCs as systematic encodings
invented entities (2)
  • Generalized Function-Correcting Partition Code (GFCPC) no independent evidence
    purpose: To simultaneously protect multiple partitions with distinct distance requirements in one code
    Newly defined concept unifying prior FCPC variants
  • Distance requirement matrix D no independent evidence
    purpose: To encode all partition-specific distance needs and characterize optimal redundancy via shortest D-code length
    Introduced to model the generalized requirements

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5540 in / 1528 out tokens · 137172 ms · 2026-05-07T14:07:42.887122+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Function-correcting codes,

    A. Lenz, R. Bitar, A. Wachter-Zeh, and E. Yaakobi, “Function-correcting codes,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5604–5618, Sep. 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Function-correcting partition codes,

    C. Rajput, B. S. Rajan, R. Freij-Hollanti, and C. Hollanti, “Function-correcting partition codes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.06450, Jan. 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Function- correcting codes with data protection,

    C. Rajput, B. S. Rajan, R. Freij-Hollanti, and C. Hollanti, “Function-correcting codes with data protection,” accepted for presentation inProc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2026. An extended version has been accepted for publication inIEEE Trans. Inf. Theory. Available: arXiv:2511.18420

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    On function-correcting codes,

    R. Premlal and B. S. Rajan, “On function-correcting codes,” inProc. 2024 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Shenzhen, China, 2024, pp. 603–608. May 6, 2026 DRAFT 24

    2024

  5. [5]

    Optimal redundancy of function-correcting codes,

    G. Ge, Z. Xu, X. Zhang, and Y . Zhang, “Optimal redundancy of function-correcting codes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16983, Feb. 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Function-correcting codes for symbol-pair read channels,

    Q. Xia, H. Liu, and B. Chen, “Function-correcting codes for symbol-pair read channels,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 7807–7819, Nov. 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Function-correcting codes for b-symbol read channels,

    A. Singh, A. K. Singh, and E. Yaakobi, “Function-correcting codes forb-symbol read channels,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12894, Mar. 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Function-correcting codes for locally bounded functions,

    C. Rajput, B. S. Rajan, R. Freij-Hollanti, and C. Hollanti, “Function-correcting codes for locally bounded functions,” inProc. 2025 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Sydney, Australia, 2025, pp. 851–856

    2025

  9. [9]

    Function-correctingb-symbol codes for locally(λ, ρ, b)-functions,

    G. K. Verma, A. Singh, and A. K. Singh, “Function-correctingb-symbol codes for locally(λ, ρ, b)-functions,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 331–341, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    On Plotkin bound for function-correcting codes forb-symbol read channels,

    S. Sampath and B. S. Rajan, “On Plotkin bound for function-correcting codes forb-symbol read channels,” inProc. 2025 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Sydney, Australia, 2025, pp. 698–703

    2025

  11. [11]

    On the redundancy of function-correcting codes over finite fields,

    H. Ly and E. Soljanin, “On the redundancy of function-correcting codes over finite fields,” inProc. 2025 13th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  12. [12]

    Non-existence of some function-correcting codes with data protection,

    C. Rajput, B. S. Rajan, R. Freij-Hollanti, and C. Hollanti, “Non-existence of some function-correcting codes with data protection,” accepted for presentation inProc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), 2026. Available: arXiv:2603.01049

    work page arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Function-correcting codes with homogeneous distance,

    H. Liu and H. Liu, “Function-correcting codes with homogeneous distance,”Finite Fields Their Appl., vol. 112, p. 102791, 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

    On Function-Correcting Codes in the Lee Metric,

    G. K. Verma and A. K. Singh, “On function-correcting codes in the Lee metric,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.17654, Jul. 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Function-correcting codes for linear and locally bounded functions over a finite chain ring,

    G. K. Verma and A. K. Singh, “Function-correcting codes for linear and locally bounded functions over a finite chain ring,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14471, Mar. 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Plotkin-like Bound and Explicit Function-Correcting Code Constructions for Lee Metric Channels

    K. Hareesh, N. T. Rashid Ummer, and B. S. Rajan, “Plotkin-like bound and explicit function-correcting code constructions for Lee metric channels,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01702, Aug. 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Function-correcting codes for insertion-deletion channel,

    A. Singh and A. K. Singh, “Function-correcting codes for insertion-deletion channel,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07243, Dec. 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Function correcting codes for maximally-unbalanced Boolean functions,

    R. Pandey, S. Bajpai, A. A. Mahesh, and B. S. Rajan, “Function correcting codes for maximally-unbalanced Boolean functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10135, Jan. 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Function-Correcting Codes with Optimal Data Protection for Hamming Code Membership

    S. S. Durgi, A. A. Mahesh, A. Kumari, R. Pandey, and B. S. Rajan, “Function-correcting codes with optimal data protection for Hamming code membership,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21932, Feb. 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Agreeing to disagree,

    R. J. Aumann, “Agreeing to disagree,”Ann. Stat., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1236–1239, Nov. 1976

    1976

  21. [21]

    Lecture 3: Common knowledge and agreeing to disagree,

    D. Quint, “Lecture 3: Common knowledge and agreeing to disagree,” lecture notes, Univ. Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://users.ssc.wisc.edu/ ∼dquint/econ698/lecture\%203.pdf May 6, 2026 DRAFT

    2014