Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Correcting Errors Through Partitioning and Burst-Deletion Correction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Two sequences with overlapping t-deletion s-substitution balls can be cut into at most 2t+2s−1 subpairs whose burst-deletion balls intersect, reducing general deletion correction to burst-deletion correction.

desk verdict A genuinely useful partitioning framework for deletion-substitution correction, but the proof of its load-bearing lemma has printed errors that need fixing before the results are certifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07609 v1 pith:BKEF7YPO submitted 2025-06-09 cs.IT math.IT

Yubo Sun , Gennian Ge This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT MSC 94B6094B35
keywords deletion-correctingcodessubstitution-correctingburst-deletioncorrectionVarshamov-TenengoltssyndromesaccumulativedifferentialsequencespartitioningtechniqueredundancyboundsDNAdatastorage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to prove that correcting t arbitrary deletions together with s substitutions can be reduced to correcting bursts of at most t deletions — a much easier error type for which good codes already exist. Its engine is a partitioning theorem: whenever two equal-length sequences have overlapping t-deletion s-substitution balls, both can be cut into at most 2t+2s−1 equal-length subpairs whose ≤t-burst-deletion balls intersect, so any burst-deletion-correcting construction built on Varshamov-Tenengolts (VT) weighted checksums extends to the full deletion-plus-substitution problem. On this foundation the paper builds binary codes for one deletion, and for two deletions, plus any number of substitutions, and q-ary codes for one deletion plus substitutions; the q-ary one-deletion one-substitution code uses 6 log n + O(1) redundancy bits, improving on the previous 7 log n + o(log n). The same framework explains why earlier VT-based methods stall exactly at two deletions in binary and one deletion in non-binary alphabets, and it extends at no extra cost to adjacent transpositions, the other main error type in DNA-storage channels.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three parts. First, the partition theorem (Theorem III.1) and its engine Lemma III.2, which interleaves the deleted positions of two sequences into a sorted list and cuts both sequences at those positions; each resulting block has equal length in both sequences and overlapping burst-deletion balls. Second, the sign-preserving number σ(z), the least number of substrings into which an integer sequence z splits with all non-zero entries in each substring sharing a sign, together with Lemma IV.4: an integer sequence whose VT syndromes VT_k(z) = Σ i^k z_i vanish for k = 0, …, σ(z)−1 is the all-zero sequence. Third, the two transforms that make burst deletions benign: the accumulative sequence f(x) (prefix sums of the symbols) and the accumulative differential sequence g(x) (prefix sums of the differences x_i − x_{i−1} mod q, i.e., the run string in binary). Lemmas IV.14 through IV.17 guarantee that after a burst deletion the difference of the transformed sequences is sign-constant, which is exactly what the sign-preserving number and the VT criterion need.

What would settle it

Fix t = 2, s = 0 and exhaustively check all binary pairs x, y of length n ≤ 20 with B_{2,0}(x) ∩ B_{2,0}(y) ≠ ∅: does every such pair admit a partition into at most 3 equal-length subpairs whose 2-burst-deletion balls intersect? The first pair that fails disproves Lemma III.2 and Theorem III.1; if none fails, the obstruction is only the printed proof's index relation, which would then need a corrected ordering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem III.1: for any t ≥ 1 and s ≥ 0, if two equal-length sequences x and y have intersecting t-deletion s-substitution balls, then both sequences admit a partition into the same number m ≤ 2t+2s−1 of equal-length blocks such that the ≤t-burst-deletion balls of each block pair intersect. The proof isolates the deletion-only case as an interleaving argument about the two deletion-position sets (Lemma III.2), then adds substitutions one at a time (Lemma III.3). The payoff is that every existing scheme for correcting bursts of at most t deletions becomes a scheme for t arbitrary deletions plus s substitutions: the paper realizes this with VT syndromes on accumulative sequences, producing binary single-deletion codes at (s+1)(2s+1) log n + O(1) bits, and on accumulative differential sequences, producing q-ary single-deletion codes at the same redundancy and binary two-deletion codes at (s+2)(2s+3) log n + O(1) bits, with the q-ary s=1 case (6 log n + O(1)) beating the previous 7 log n + o(log n) barrier.

Load-bearing premise

The whole framework rests on a technical lemma about how two sets of deleted positions interleave; as printed, the lemma's proof asserts an ordering relation that contradicts the increasing order of those positions and defines one block as an empty interval, so unless that lemma can be repaired, the partitioning theorem and every code construction built on it lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any pair of sequences with overlapping t-deletion s-substitution balls splits into at most 2t+2s−1 equal-length subpairs with intersecting ≤t-burst-deletion balls (Theorem III.1), so burst-deletion correction is the only primitive needed for the general problem.
  • Binary single-deletion s-substitution codes achieve (s+1)(2s+1) log n + O(1) redundancy, matching the known bounds of the corresponding VT constructions with a shorter proof (Theorem IV.20).
  • Binary two-deletion s-substitution codes achieve (s+2)(2s+3) log n + O(1) redundancy, and q-ary single-deletion s-substitution codes achieve (s+1)(2s+1) log n + O(1); at s = 1 the q-ary bound is 6 log n + O(1), improving on the 7 log n + o(log n) syndrome-compression constructions (Theorems IV.23, Remark IV.24).
  • Because deletions, substitutions, and adjacent transpositions commute in binary alphabets, the same binary codes correct t deletions with s substitutions and adjacent transpositions at no extra redundancy (Theorem A.1).
  • The failure patterns in Remarks IV.15 and IV.18 explain the known barriers for VT methods — two deletions in binary and one deletion in non-binary for original sequences, three deletions in binary and two in non-binary for differential sequences — and the t-good and t-valid constructions (Theorems V.3 and V.9) remove those barriers at the price of redundancy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same partition-plus-commutativity recipe should extend the adjacent-transposition result to non-binary alphabets, provided a non-binary analogue of the transposition-commutativity fact exists; testing that extension is a direct next step.
  • Because the number of subpairs 2t+2s−1 directly sets the redundancy exponent, any sharper partition count for special cases (for instance the deletion-only case s = 0) would immediately lower the code redundancy; a computer search over small alphabets could hunt for pairs requiring fewer blocks than the general bound.
  • The t-valid construction of Section V-B is existence-only, since the authors note that valid sequences are too scarce to give practical redundancy; finding an efficient encoder that maps arbitrary q-ary strings into the valid class would convert it into a usable code — the analogue of the marker techniques that already exist for binary t-good sequences.
  • The sign-alternating counterexamples in Remarks IV.15 and IV.18 point to a general criterion the paper does not state: a VT construction on a given transform succeeds for a deletion pattern precisely when the transformed difference stays sign-constant on every block of the partition; formulating and testing that criterion could predict which error classes a transform can handle before constructing
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a partitioning technique intended to reduce the problem of correcting arbitrary t deletions with s substitutions to the simpler problem of correcting bursts of at most t deletions. The central claim, Theorem III.1, asserts that if two sequences have intersecting t-deletion s-substitution balls, then they can be partitioned into at most 2t+2s-1 sub-pairs whose ≤t-burst-deletion balls intersect. The proof relies on Lemma III.2 for the deletion-only case and Lemma III.3 for substitutions. Based on this framework, the authors construct VT-based codes for binary single- and two-deletion correction with multiple substitutions, and for q-ary single-deletion correction, with redundancy (s+1)(2s+1) log n + O(1) or (s+1)(2s+3) log n + O(1) bits. They also discuss limitations of existing approaches, propose t-good and t-valid sequence constraints for multiple deletions, and extend the partitioning to adjacent transpositions.

Significance. If Theorem III.1 is proven, the partitioning framework is a valuable unifying tool: it offers a systematic reduction from general deletion-substitution correction to burst-deletion correction, gives concise alternative proofs of several known constructions, and yields at least one improved redundancy result (q-ary single-deletion single-substitution codes with 6 log n + O(1) bits vs. the previous 7 log n + o(log n)). The redundancy calculations via the pigeonhole principle are explicit and check out. However, the proof of the central Lemma III.2 is not valid as printed: the ℓ=t case contains a reversed inequality, a malformed empty interval, and an ill-defined shift. Because every code construction in Sections IV and V imports Theorem III.1, the current manuscript does not yet establish its main claims. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, so the correctness depends entirely on repairing this lemma.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III, Lemma III.2 (ℓ=t case)] The proof asserts that assuming i_1 < j_1, it follows that i_k ≥ j_{k+1} for k∈[1,t−1]. This is false; for k=1 it would give i_1 ≥ j_2, contradicting i_1 < j_1 < j_2. The interleaving forced by the definition of ℓ (max(i_k,j_k) ≥ min(i_{k+1},j_{k+1}) for k<ℓ) gives the opposite type of relation, e.g., j_k ≥ i_{k+1} under the stated assumption. In addition, the block definition for p_k∈J and p_{k+1}∈I defines z^(k) = z[p_{k+1}, p_{k+1}−1], which is an empty interval, and t_k = min(|I∩[1,p_k]|−|J∩[1,p_k]|, n_k) can be negative while used as a lower index in x^(k)_{[t_k+1,n_k]}. These issues invalidate the proof of the ℓ=t case as written. Since Lemma III.2 is the sole basis for Theorem III.1, and all code constructions import Theorem III.1, this gap must be repaired before the paper's central claims can be accepted.
  2. [§IV-D, Theorem IV.27] The decoder for the code C is asserted rather than derived. The proof states that R_{2s+2}(F_b(F_b(x))) 'can be easily verified' to be recoverable from the corresponding block, and that F_b(x) can then be recovered by applying Theorem IV.20 via brute force, but no decoding algorithm or correctness proof is supplied. In particular, it is not shown that the deletion patterns in the three blocks (the data part, the syndrome part, and the repeated-syndrome part) can be handled independently, nor that the repetition code can be decoded when corrupted by deletions. The claimed O(n^{s+2}) decoding complexity is therefore not established. Please provide a complete decoding procedure and a proof of its correctness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-B2, Lemma IV.16, Eq. (7)] The term 'd(y)_dx' in Equation (7) is undefined; it should presumably be 'd(y)_{p_x}'.
  2. [§IV-C2, Theorem IV.23 proof] The proof refers to 'm_k' in the product ∏_{k=0}^{2s}(m_k+1), but m_k is not defined; it should be n_k.
  3. [§IV-D, Definition IV.26 and Theorem IV.27] The notation R_{2s+2}(·) is used without a formal definition; it should be stated that this is the (2s+2)-fold repetition code on the binary representation of the syndrome of the syndrome.
  4. [§III, Lemma III.2 proof] The ordering relation 'p_1 ≺ p_2 ≺ ... ≺ p_{2t}' for the sorted multi-set I∪J is not formally defined; please clarify how ties between i_k and j_k are broken.
  5. [§V-B, Lemma V.8 proof] The displayed identity 'Σ_{i=p_1}^{p_2+1} d(x)_i = Σ_{i=p_1}^{p_1+1} d(x)_i = q' is missing the summand d(x)_i in the first expression; it should read 'Σ_{i=p_1}^{p_2+1} d(x)_i = Σ_{i=p_1}^{p_1+1} d(x)_i = q' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem III.1 and the code constructions are derived from direct combinatorial arguments, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central reduction (Theorem III.1) is derived, not assumed: it follows by induction from Lemma III.2 for the deletion-only case and from Lemma III.3 for the substitution step. Lemma III.2 is argued directly from the index sets I and J that witness B_{t,0}(x) ∩ B_{t,0}(y) ≠ ∅; Lemma III.3 is argued from explicit comparisons of substrings after a burst deletion and a substitution. Neither lemma imports the conclusion it is used to prove. The code constructions (Theorems IV.20, IV.23, V.3, V.9) use Theorem III.1 only to obtain a partition into equal-length sub-pairs with intersecting burst-deletion balls, and then bound σ and VT differences using direct computations on accumulative and accumulative-differential sequences (Lemmas IV.14, IV.16, IV.17, V.2, V.8). The syndrome targets a_k are chosen by a pigeonhole argument over all possible values, not fitted to the data being corrected, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. Prior constructions by Levenshtein, Smagloy et al., Song et al., Nguyen et al., and Pi and Zhang are used as benchmarks or as later equivalences (Remarks IV.21, IV.25), not as inputs that force the results. Self-citations [16], [17], [26] are contextual (e.g., noting prior exploration of VT syndromes on multiple sequence types) and are not load-bearing for the main theorems. The skeptical concern about Lemma III.2's ℓ = t case — the asserted inequality i_k ≥ j_{k+1} under i_1 < j_1 and the empty interval z[p_{k+1}, p_{k+1}−1] — is a potential correctness gap in the proof, not circularity; if the lemma cannot be repaired, the framework would be unsupported, but the derivation would still not be circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. It relies on standard VT-syndrome lemmas, standard edit-distance commutativity, and the pigeonhole principle. No fitted parameters appear; the syndrome targets a_k are design parameters whose existence is guaranteed by counting.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Lemma IV.4 from [13, Lemma 1]: if VT_k(z)=0 for k∈[0,σ(z)-1], then z=0^n.
    Used as the core tool in Theorem IV.6 to convert sign-preserving number bounds and zero VT differences into equality of codewords.
  • domain assumption The order of deletions, insertions, and substitutions is commutative with respect to the final outcome.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem III.1 to write y as obtained from x by t deletions, t insertions, then at most 2s substitutions.
  • domain assumption Gabrys et al. [6, Lemma 4]: deletions and adjacent transpositions commute for binary sequences.
    Used in the appendix to extend the partitioning theorem to errors that include adjacent transpositions.
  • standard math Pigeonhole principle implies the existence of syndrome target values a_k with the claimed redundancy.
    Used in Theorems IV.20 and IV.23 to show that some choice of a_k gives a code of the stated size.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correcting Errors Through Partitioning and Burst-Deletion Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKEF7YPO

@misc{pith2026250607609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correcting Errors Through Partitioning and Burst-Deletion Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKEF7YPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07609}
}
abstract

In this paper, we propose a partitioning technique that decomposes a pair of sequences with overlapping $t$-deletion $s$-substitution balls into sub-pairs, where the $^{\leq}t$-burst-deletion balls of each sub-pair intersect. This decomposition facilitates the development of $t$-deletion $s$-substitution correcting codes that leverage approaches from $^{\leq}t$-burst-deletion correction. Building upon established approaches in the $^{\leq}t$-burst-deletion correction domain, we construct $t$-deletion $s$-substitution correcting codes for $t\in \{1,2\}$ over binary alphabets and for $t=1$ in non-binary alphabets, with some constructions matching existing results and others outperforming current methods. Our framework offers new insights into the underlying principles of prior works, elucidates the limitations of current approaches, and provides a unified perspective on error correction strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07609 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration example of Lemma III.2 when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrations of x and y when x[1,n]\[px,px+t−1] = y[1,n]\[py+t−1], where t ≥ 1 and 1 ≤ px ≤ py ≤ n − t + 1. Each pair of bits connected by a solid line are of equal value. d(x) : ∗ · · · ∗ px · · · px + t ∗ · · · ∗ ∗ ∗ · · · ∗ d(y) : ∗ · · · ∗ ∗ ∗ · · · ∗ py · · · py + t ∗ · · · ∗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrations of d(x) and d(y) when x[1,n]\[px,px+t−1] = y[1,n]\[py+t−1], where t ≥ 1 and 1 ≤ px < py ≤ n − t + 1. Each pair of bits connected by a solid line are of equal value. Proof: By [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Reconstruction Codes for Deletions and Insertions: Connection, Distinction, and Construction

    cs.IT 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For q-ary sequences, t-deletion reconstruction codes need only O(1) redundancy at N around n^{t-1}, while t-insertion codes need log log n, and new two-error codes achieve 3 log n down to log n redundancy for N=2 through 5.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Efficient low-redundancy codes for correcting multiple deletions,

    J. Brakensiek, V . Guruswami, and S. Zbarsky, “Efficient low-redundancy codes for correcting multiple deletions,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 3403-3410, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Correcting a single indel/edit for DNA-based data storage: linear-time encoders and order-optimality,

    K. Cai, Y . M. Chee, R. Gabrys, H. M. Kiah, and T. T. Nguyen, “Correcting a single indel/edit for DNA-based data storage: linear-time encoders and order-optimality,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 3438-3451, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Beyond single-deletion correcting codes: substitutions and transpositions,

    R. Gabrys, V . Guruswami, J. Ribeiro, and K. Wu, “Beyond single-deletion correcting codes: substitutions and transpositions,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 169-186, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Explicit two-deletion codes with redundancy matching the existential bound,

    V . Guruswami and J. H ˚astad, “Explicit two-deletion codes with redundancy matching the existential bound,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 6384-6394, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Codes correcting two deletions,

    R. Gabrys and F. Sala, “Codes correcting two deletions,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 965-974, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Codes in the Damerau distance for deletion and adjacent transposition correction,

    R. Gabrys, E. Yaakobi, and O. Milenkovic, “Codes in the Damerau distance for deletion and adjacent transposition correction,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 2550-2570, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals,

    V . I. Levenshtein, “Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals,”Soviet Physics Doklady, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 707-710, 1966

    1966

  8. [8]

    Asymptotically optimum binary code with correction for losses of one or two adjacent bits,

    V . I. Levenshtein, “Asymptotically optimum binary code with correction for losses of one or two adjacent bits,”Systems Theory Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 298-304, 1970

    work page 1970

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Linial’s algorithm and systematic deletion-correcting codes,

    Y . Li and F. Farnoud, “Linial’s algorithm and systematic deletion-correcting codes,” inProceeding of the International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Taipei, Taiwan, 2023, pp. 2703-2707

    2023

  2. [10]

    Explicit construction ofq-ary2-deletion correcting codes with low redundancy,

    S. Liu, I. Tjuawinata, and C. Xing, “Explicit construction ofq-ary2-deletion correcting codes with low redundancy,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 4093-4101, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    A new version ofq-ary Varshamov-Tenengolts codes with more efficient encoders: the differential VT codes and the differential shifted VT codes,

    T. T. Nguyen, K. Cai, and P. H. Siegel, “A new version ofq-ary Varshamov-Tenengolts codes with more efficient encoders: the differential VT codes and the differential shifted VT codes,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 6989-7004, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Random access in large-scale DNA data storage,

    L. Organick et al., “Random access in large-scale DNA data storage,”Nature Biotechnology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 242-248, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Two-insertion/deletion/substitution correcting codes,

    Y . Pi and Z. Zhang, “Two-insertion/deletion/substitution correcting codes,”arXiv:2401.11231, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2401.11231

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Non-binary two-deletion correcting codes and burst-deletion correcting codes,

    W. Song and K. Cai, “Non-binary two-deletion correcting codes and burst-deletion correcting codes,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 6470-6484, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    On optimalk-deletion correcting codes,

    J. Sima and J. Bruck, “On optimalk-deletion correcting codes,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 3360-3375, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Binary codes for correcting two edits,

    Y . Sun and G. Ge, “Binary codes for correcting two edits,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 6877-6898, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Codes for correcting a burst of edits using weighted-summation VT sketch,

    Y . Sun and G. Ge, “Codes for correcting a burst of edits using weighted-summation VT sketch,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 1631-1646, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Optimal codes for theq-ary deletion channel,

    J. Sima, R. Gabrys, and J. Bruck, “Optimal codes for theq-ary deletion channel,” inProceeding of the International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020, pp. 740-745

    2020

  11. [19]

    Syndrome compression for optimal redundancy codes,

    J. Sima, R. Gabrys, and J. Bruck, “Syndrome compression for optimal redundancy codes,” inProceeding of the International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020, pp. 751-756

    2020

  12. [20]

    Optimal systematict-deletion correcting codes,

    J. Sima, R. Gabrys, and J. Bruck, “Optimal systematict-deletion correcting codes,” inProceeding of the International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020, pp. 769-774

    2020

  13. [21]

    Systematic codes correcting multiple-deletion and multiple-substitution errors,

    W. Song, N. Polyanskii, K. Cai, and X. He, “Systematic codes correcting multiple-deletion and multiple-substitution errors,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 6402-6416, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Two deletion correcting codes from indicator vectors,

    J. Sima, N. Raviv, and J. Bruck, “Two deletion correcting codes from indicator vectors,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 2375-2391, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Single-deletion single-substitution correcting codes,

    I. Smagloy, L. Welter, A. Wachter-Zeh, and E. Yaakobi, “Single-deletion single-substitution correcting codes,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 7659-7671, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Nonbinary codes, correcting single deletion or insertion,

    G. M. Tenengolts, “Nonbinary codes, correcting single deletion or insertion,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 766-769, 1984

    1984

  17. [25]

    DNA-based storage: trends and methods,

    S. Yazdi, H. M. Kiah, E. R. Garcia, J. Ma, H. Zhao, and O. Milenkovic, “DNA-based storage: trends and methods,”IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological, and Multi-Scale Communications, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 230-248, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Codes correcting two bursts of exactlybdeletions,

    Z. Ye, Y . Sun, W. Yu, G. Ge, and O. Elishco, “Codes correcting two bursts of exactlybdeletions,”arXiv:2408.03113, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03113

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.