Lair Of The Multimedia Guru

July 21, 2010

Building a polynomial out of its roots

Building a polynomial out of its roots is not particularly hard, one just multiplies the corresponding linear/first degree polynomials. But this isnt fast, even doing it recursively and using FFT based multiplication isnt all that great its still O(nlog2n). We can under some circumstances get rid of one of these log(n) factors as ill describe in a moment below. But first i wonder if below is the best that can be done or if iam silly and theres a faster or simpler way?

The idea of this method is not to build up the polynomial coefficients but to build up a vector of polynomial evaluations at evenly spaced points. Doing this for a linear factor “prototype” like x-1 on m points costs us O(m). next we build a sparse vector that is 1 where its index matches a root (and 2 for double roots,…) otherwise its 0. Now we can almost build our evaluation of the final polynom by convolution, just that convolution adds its terms while we need the factors multiplied of course. The solution is simply to convert the evaluation of the “prototype” linear factor by elementwise log() before convolution and by exp() afterwards. The value for log(0) does not matter for us except for numerical stabilty, we have to after exp() reset all roots to 0 anyway. With log(0)=0 one gets first order derivatives at the roots though. Also one can implement this using clasic log/exp and a complex value fft or finite field log/exp with a real or finite field fft. The last step of turning the evaluation vector of our polynom into coefficients can be done with a finite field fft. This make the whole thing run in O(m logm) time for a field size of m.

Whats annoying on it is that the the first part works with samples evenly spaced (aka an additative subgroup) while the second, that is turning the evaluation into coefficients is on a multiplicative subgroup of a finite field. In practice that means while my roots are along a multiplicative subgroup of GF(216+1) i have to apply the rdft over the whole field. which is kinda feeling like a waste of cpu cycles

Suggestions to improve this are welcome. Also alternatively if one knows of a linear time method to zero pad in the frequency domain a block of size 2n to twice its size than the resursive multiplication variant should also run in O(n logn) time.

Filed under: Error Correcting Codes,Optimization — Michael @ 2:40

July 10, 2007

Forgotten code, noe and mina

libnoe

libnoe is a library to encode and decode reed solomon codes which i wrote between 2002 and 2006

noe

noe is an application which uses libnoe to generate an error correction file for some data file(s) and use that then to correct a wide varity of possible errors incuding having the data randomly chopped up and reordered. “noe” btw stands for “no error” in case you are wondering, sadly ive never finished the noe application.

The basic idea of how noe would work is that, first the data itself is unchanged, changing it would be inconvenient in many situations. The error correction file is made of many not too large packets, this ensures that any reordering which happens to the error correction file can be corrected by simply searching for the packet headers and looking at some sequence number in the header. The error correction packets now would contain some fingerprints of the data in the datafile(s) that is for example every 100th or 1000th bit of the data file would be stored in some error correction packet in the error correction file. With these fingerprints its possible to detect and correct reorderings which might have happenend to the data file even if just a random subset of the error correction packets are intact. The fingerprints as well as the headers of the error correction packets would contain some small checksums to avoid confusing the code by many wrong values. At last the main content of the error correction packets would simply be interleaved RS codes or more precissely the parity part of them. Btw in case anyone is wondering how data can get randomly choped up and reordered, think of a broken hard disk and fragmented files

Patches to finish noe are of course welcome! :)

mina

mina is the MINimal Alternative which my lazy self did finish. It simlpy takes a file and produces an error correction file which is just a bunch of interleaved RS codes (parity part of them actually) with no header or anything. It also happily eats corrupted files and corrects them

An example of minas correction capability is below, note images have been converted to jpeg to reduce their size and make them vissible in normal browsers. Raw damaged files as tar.gz are available too (`mina dz lena.pnm.mina` can be used to correct them)

damaged recovered

Source code under GPL and GIT repositoryis available too, its also quite clean and does compile :). History though is sadly quite incomplete like with the other forgotten code, this time though it was IBMs fault as my private CVS server with the whole history of noe was on a IBM deathstar disk and it seems i had no backup of the RCS files (this is also one of the reasons why i make all that stuff public now, to avoid it being lost due to some other hd failure or stupidity …)

patches are welcome !!! :)

Filed under: Error Correcting Codes — Michael @ 2:14

July 8, 2007

Reed Solomon codes part 2

Asymptotic complexity of best known (to me ;) ) decoding algorithm

O(n log n + t log2 t) for a (n,k) RS code over GF(n+1) and t=n-k

The proof for this is quite easy, syndrom calculation is just evaluating a polynomial at n-k points, and evaluating a polynomial (in GF(n)) at all points can be done with the GFFT actually evaluation at all points is the GFFT of the polynomial. Multiplying 2 polynomials is just 2xGFFT + componentwise multiplication + IGFFT. Finding the roots of a polynomial can as well be done by just evaluating it at all points. The only non trivial operation left for normal RS decoding is solving the key equation which is equivalent to euclids GCD algorithm as well as schÃ¶nhages GCD algorithm, later has O(t log2 t) complexity (log2 t == (log t)2 in case thats unclear).

An alternative to GF(2x)

Normally RS codes are build over GF(2x) that way the bits of the elements of an RS codeword have a nice 1:1 mapping to x bits which can then be stored or transmitted, but it has a big disadvantage and that is that the GFFT for GF(y) needed for fast RS decoding is done with y-1 points and so it cannot use the well known power of 2 style FFT algorithms as 2x – 1 is not a multiple of 2. The solution is to use GF(2x+1), though note GF(2x+1) does not exist for all integer values of x, it only exists if 2x+1 is a power of a prime that is pj, 2 obvious choices using fermat primes are GF(28+1) and GF(216+1)

How do you store 2x+1 values in 2x values

Trivial ;)

The data part of our RS code is specified by the user and so it simply doesnt use the 2x+1 th symbol, actually it would be messy to use it. So the only problem left are the n-k parity symbols, which can trivially be transformed to not contain the annoying 2x+1 th symbol while at the same time maintaining the property of being an RS code

Let us assume that we have a symbol (at position y with value yv) in our k input symbols which is guranteed to have a value yv < 2x – n + k that is in practice less than one unused bit. Let p be the RS codeword with all k-1 data symbols 0 and the symbol at position y 1. The next step is to find all the values of the y element in our original codeword which would cause no parity symbol to have that annoying 2x+1 th value, for encoding we simply select the yv th element of this list as new yv element. For decoding we choose the number of elements in the list which are smaller than yv as our new element. As last step we just need to add a scaled version of p so as to actually have the wanted yv element and avoiding the nasty too large elements while also still having an RS code

Filed under: Error Correcting Codes — Michael @ 20:31

Reed Solomon codes

What is a reed solomon code

Lets assume we have k values out of which we want to build a reed solomon code, to do this we imagine that our k values specify the height (=y) of k points with x from 0 to k-1. Now we really have just made a silly graph of our data. Next we find a order k-1 polynomial which goes exactly through these points, this polynomial is unique, no other polynomial of order k-1 will go through these points. And last we just evaluate this polynomial on the points 0 … n-1, these n values are a reed solomon code, simple isnt it? Note the first k values are just our input data values which we already know.

Correcting erasures with RS codes

We now can make RS codes, but how can we correct erasures? Lets assume there are t erasures (erasures are errors where the location of the error is known). That means we know n-t values of our polynomial, and if t≤n-k then we can just find the remaining values by finding the (unique) polynomial which goes through the n-t values. Its also easy to show (just think that you have k-1 of your k data values) that if t>n-k then no code can correct the erasures, so RS codes are optimal in that sense

Correcting errors with RS codes

But what if we dont know where the errors are? Well just try all possible error locations of 0, 1,…,t errors, yes this is not practical but its nice to proof the error correcting capability. Now if we have t actual errors and we guess their locations correctly then we will find our correct polynomial and can correct the errors if we have at least k values left. The only thing now we need to find out is how large t can be so that we cant find a wrong polynomial before we find the correct one. The awnser is trivial actually, a polynomial of order k-1 is uniquely defined by k points so if we have t errors and guess all t error locations wrong then we effectively kill 2t points, and if there are less than k left then we could end up with a wrong polynomial. So we can correct (n-k)/2 errors. More generally reed solomon codes can correct 2*errors + erasures as long as thats ≤ n-k

Hamming distance

n-k+1 proof is trivial (smaller would contradict error correcting capability)

Practice

The above is true if our data and code values are real, rational or integer numbers (and others) but these are quite difficult to handle in reality as they arent bounded. Luckily all the above also works with finite fields so we can just work with polynomials over GF(256) or similar, which has the nice property that you can store such values in bytes while integers and reals can be quite hard to store in finite storage space

Filed under: Error Correcting Codes — Michael @ 0:28

February 6, 2006

You need to choose a checksum and dunno which, well the 2 most popular ones are the CRC and Adler32 checksum

Speed / innermost loop

CRC32:

```while(buffer<end -3){
crc ^= le2me_32(*(uint32_t*)buffer); buffer+=4;
crc =  tab[3][ crc     &0xFF]
^tab[2][(crc>>8 )&0xFF]
^tab[1][(crc>>16)&0xFF]
^tab[0][(crc>>24)     ];
}
```

```while(buffer<end -3){
s1 += *buffer++; s2+=s1;
s1 += *buffer++; s2+=s1;
s1 += *buffer++; s2+=s1;
s1 += *buffer++; s2+=s1;
}
```

as we can see adler needs 12 adds and 4 1byte reads and crc needs 1 4byte read, 4 xor, 4 table lookups, 1 add, 3 and, 3 shift, without benchmarking i would say adler should be faster

Burst error detecting capabilities

CRC-32 can detect every burst error of 32 or less bits
Adler-32 will fail with at least one 17bit burst error (0 00000010 00000000 vs. 1 00000000 00000001)

Bit error detecting capabilities

CRC-32 differs depening upon generator polynom see misusing-crcs-for-error-correction
Adler-32 can detect every 2bit error within 65521 byte or so but will fail with some 3 bit errors

Random error detecting capabilities

CRC-32 will produce a evenly distributed checksum for messages >4byte
Adler-32 will produce a quite unevenly distributed checksum for small mesages so that the effective number of bits in the checksum is significantly reduced for short messags

```adler32
len=     1, collisions=488296949(0.390637%), effective bits=7.999957
len=     2, collisions=  1903788(0.001523%), effective bits=16.002699
len=     4, collisions=   372789(0.000298%), effective bits=18.355140
len=     8, collisions=    94799(0.000076%), effective bits=20.330556
len=    16, collisions=    23902(0.000019%), effective bits=22.318296
len=    32, collisions=     6068(0.000005%), effective bits=24.296135
len=    64, collisions=     1573(0.000001%), effective bits=26.243837
len=   128, collisions=      669(0.000001%), effective bits=27.477278
len=   256, collisions=      437(0.000000%), effective bits=28.091651
len=   512, collisions=      331(0.000000%), effective bits=28.492453
len=  1024, collisions=      219(0.000000%), effective bits=29.088353
----
crc32
len=     1, collisions=488296915(0.390637%), effective bits=7.999957
len=     2, collisions=  1903782(0.001523%), effective bits=16.002703
len=     4, collisions=       22(0.000000%), effective bits=32.403708
len=     8, collisions=       29(0.000000%), effective bits=32.005159
len=    16, collisions=       30(0.000000%), effective bits=31.956249
len=    32, collisions=       28(0.000000%), effective bits=32.055785
len=    64, collisions=       39(0.000000%), effective bits=31.577738
len=   128, collisions=       39(0.000000%), effective bits=31.577738
len=   256, collisions=       32(0.000000%), effective bits=31.863140
len=   512, collisions=       32(0.000000%), effective bits=31.863140
len=  1024, collisions=       42(0.000000%), effective bits=31.470823
```

Note, generated with: check_collision.c

Filed under: Error Correcting Codes — Michael @ 19:27

January 12, 2006

Better CRC-32 polynom for correcting byte errors

In correcting-byte-and-burst-errors-with-crcs we have seen that the CRC-32 polynom 0x04C11DB7 can correct 1 byte error in ~1mbit not that correcting single byte errors in such huge blocks is good for anything but ive found a much better one specifically 0x0D438219 which can correct one byte error in 9747877 bits

Filed under: Error Correcting Codes — Michael @ 23:35

December 7, 2005

Correcting byte and burst errors with CRCs

Can CRCs be used to fix a whole messed up byte? Yes as long as the codeword (data bits + crc bits) is less then whats in this table under 8≤b:

generator polynom b≤2 b≤3 b≤4 b≤5 b≤6 b≤7 b≤8 b≤9 b≤10 b≤11 b≤12 b≤13 b≤14
CRC-4 0xF0000000 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
CRC-5 0×28000000 16 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
CRC-7 0xA2000000 18 18 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
CRC-7 0×12000000 34 28 12 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
CRC-7 0x6E000000 66 12 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
CRC-8 0×07000000 130 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
CRC-8 0×39000000 20 20 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
CRC-8 0xD5000000 96 24 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
CRC-12 0x80F00000 2050 555 16 16 16 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
CRC-12 0x80B00000 513 259 16 16 16 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
CRC-12 0x1F100000 68 68 21 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
CRC-15 0x8B320000 130 130 130 130 58 27 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
CRC-16 0×10210000 32770 7144 4181 175 19 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18
CRC-16 0×80050000 32770 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18
CRC-16 0xA0970000 16386 931 862 76 76 65 22 18 18 18 18 18 18
CRC-16 0xC5030000 7164 7164 188 188 164 145 28 18 18 18 18 18 18
CRC-16 0x90D90000 154 154 154 154 154 77 21 18 18 18 18 18 18
CRC-24 0×80510100 7164 7164 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 1028 348 30 30 26 26
CRC-32 0x04C11DB7 376820511 376820511 30435040 14373578 14373578 3932619 1077949 49616 11995 5682 1731 732 40
CRC-32 0x404098E2 1026 1026 1026 1026 1026 1026 1026 1026 1026 1026 241 229 114
CRC-32 0x1EDC6F41 2147483650 258958121 193439312 62023781 3040389 1847228 603132 98658 4913 3356 1104 86 86
CRC-32 0x741B8CD7 114698 114698 16390 16390 6361 3955 1601 120 120 120 120 77 49
CRC-32 0xF4ACFB13 32770 32770 32770 32770 32770 32770 32770 32770 6508 3052 1696 152 152
CRC-32 0×32583499 32772 32772 11340 11340 6230 5348 324 324 324 324 156 44 34
CRC-32 0×20044009 32772 32772 3792 3792 3792 3792 620 360 302 302 52 52 52
CRC-32 0xA833982B 65540 65540 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1593 203 203 203 66 66
CRC-32 0×00210801 65540 65540 15207 15207 3211 3211 959 83 83 83 39 39 39

table was created with crc_test_v2.c

To actually correct byte errors the code below could be used, a complete example (crc_test_byte.c) is available too.

```static int get_error(unsigned int crc, unsigned int len, int *error){
int i;

for(i=0; i<len; i++){
if(!(crc & ~255)){
*error= crc;
return i;
}
crc= (crc>>1) ^ (((G>>1)|0x80000000) & (-(crc&1)));
}
return -1;
}
```
Filed under: Error Correcting Codes — Michael @ 23:08

December 6, 2005

Correcting 2 bit errors with CRCs

1 and 2 bit errors can easily be corrected by using the following code snippet, a complete example is available too.

```    unsigned int i,v=1;
for(i=0; i<block_size ; i++){
crctab[i][0]= i ? (v^1) : v;
crctab[i][1]= i;
v= (v<<1) ^ (G & (((int)v)>>31));
}

qsort(crctab, BLOCK_SIZE, 2*sizeof(int), cmp);

static int get_error(unsigned int crc, unsigned int len, int error[2]){
int i;

for(i=0; i<len ; i++){
int *result= bsearch(&crc, crctab, BLOCK_SIZE, 2*sizeof(int), cmp);
if(result){
error[0]= i;
error[1]= result[1] + i;
return 1 + (result != crctab[0]);
}
crc= (crc>>1) ^ (((G>>1)|0x80000000) & (-(crc&1)));
}
return -1;
}
```

Note, if you want to use this in anything where speed matters, then you should replace the qsort/bsearch with some hash table, i didnt as the c stadard doesnt contain any useable hashtable implementation and i was lazy

Filed under: Error Correcting Codes — Michael @ 0:18

December 5, 2005

(Mis)using CRCs for error correction

Cyclic Redundancy Check codes are commonly used for detecting errors, but they can also be used to correct single and multibit errors. To be able to correct e errors per code word and detect code words with d errors, its needed for the minimum hamming distance of a code to be > 2e+d
So what is the relation between the code word length and the minimum hamming distances for crc codes?

generator polyom hd≥3 hd≥4 hd≥5 hd≥6 hd≥7 hd≥8
CRC- 4 0xF0000000 5 5 5 5 5 5
CRC- 5 0×28000000 31 4 4 4 4 4
CRC- 7 0xA2000000 15 15 7 7 7 7
CRC- 7 0×12000000 127 6 6 6 6 6
CRC- 7 0x6E000000 63 63 9 9 7 7
CRC- 8 0×07000000 127 127 8 8 8 8
CRC- 8 0×39000000 17 17 17 7 7 7
CRC- 8 0xD5000000 93 93 10 10 8 8
CRC-12 0x80F00000 2047 2047 13 13 12 12
CRC-12 0x80B00000 510 171 36 13 13 13
CRC-12 0x1F100000 65 65 65 21 13 11
CRC-15 0x8B320000 127 127 127 127 22 22
CRC-16 0×10210000 32767 32767 16 16 16 16
CRC-16 0×80050000 32767 32767 16 16 16 16
CRC-16 0xA0970000 32766 32766 83 83 24 24
CRC-16 0xC5030000 7161 496 85 36 24 22
CRC-16 0x90D90000 151 151 151 151 21 21
CRC-24 0×80510100 7161 7161 1030 1030 24 24
CRC-32 0x04C11DB7 4294967295 91638 3006 299 203 122
CRC-32 0x404098E2 1024 1023 1023 1023 1023 1023
CRC-32 0x1EDC6F41 2147483647 2147483647 5275 5275 209 209
CRC-32 0x741B8CD7 114695 114695 16392 16392 184 184
CRC-32 0xF4ACFB13 65534 65534 32768 32768 306 306
CRC-32 0×32583499 65538 65538 32770 32770 166 166
CRC-32 0×20044009 65538 65538 32770 32770 32 32
CRC-32 0xA833982B 65537 65537 65537 1091 113 89
CRC-32 0×00210801 65537 65537 65537 31 31 31

These where found using crc_test.c
Actually correcting errors is pretty trivial, for a single bit error, feeding the code below with the calculated crc XOR the received crc, will give you the distance from the end where the error ocured, and yeah if they match (crc=0) thn theres no single bit error

```int get_single_error(int crc, int len){
int i, v=1;

for(i=0; i<len ; i++){
if(v == crc)
return i;
v= (v<<1) ^ (generator_polynom & (v>>31));
}
return -1;
}
```

ill post some code examples to fix multibit errors later …

Filed under: Error Correcting Codes — Michael @ 20:23