#14973: New functions for binary linear codes
---------------------------------+--------------------------
       Reporter:  veronica       |         Owner:
           Type:  enhancement    |        Status:  new
       Priority:  major          |     Milestone:  sage-5.12
      Component:  coding theory  |    Resolution:
       Keywords:  binary codes   |     Merged in:
        Authors:                 |     Reviewers:
Report Upstream:  N/A            |   Work issues:
         Branch:                 |  Dependencies:
       Stopgaps:                 |
---------------------------------+--------------------------

Comment (by veronica):

 Here is the patch with the last details fixed. And I added the GDDA
 algorithm. This algorithm with Hamming Codes and Random linear codes seems
 to be faster.
 For example I have tested(among others):

 {{{
 sage: C = HammingCode(5,GF(2))
 sage: v = random_vector(GF(2),C.length())
 sage: v
 (1,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1)
 #using syndrome algorithm
 sage: %time C.decode(v)
 CPU times: user 847.37 s, sys: 4.45 s, total: 851.82 s
 Wall time: 868.36 s
 (1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1)

 #using nearest neighbor algorithm
 sage: %time C.decode(v,"nearest neighbor")
 CPU times: user 879.19 s, sys: 1.61 s, total: 880.80 s
 Wall time: 880.80 s
 (1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1)

 #using guava algorithm
 sage: %time C.decode(v,"guava")
 CPU times: user 0.07 s, sys: 0.02 s, total: 0.08 s
 Wall time: 1.00 s
 (1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1)

 #using GDDA algorithm (first time compute grobner representation)
 sage: %time C.decode_gdda(v)
 CPU times: user 0.73 s, sys: 0.06 s, total: 0.78 s
 Wall time: 0.84 s
 (1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1)

 #using GDDA algorithm (with grobner representation computed)
 sage: %time C.decode_gdda(v)
 CPU times: user 0.00 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.00 s
 Wall time: 0.00 s
 (1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,1)


 }}}

 I've been suggeste to use `timeit` instead of `time`  for benchmarking, so
 that's next. But with this results of time we can appreciate the
 differences among the differents decoding algorithms

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14973#comment:11>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to