This paper establishes improved upper bounds and exact codeword counts for optimal optical orthogonal signature pattern codes with weight three and cross-correlation one, relevant for optical network communications.
Contribution
It provides new upper bounds and exact codeword counts for specific classes of OOSPCs, advancing the theoretical understanding of their optimal design.
Findings
01
Established an improved upper bound on code size.
02
Determined the exact number of codewords for certain parameters.
03
Applicable to optical network signature pattern design.
Abstract
Optical orthogonal signature pattern codes (OOSPCs) have attracted wide attention as signature patterns of spatial optical code division multiple access networks. In this paper, an improved upper bound on the size of an (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPC with λa=2,3 is established. The exact number of codewords of an optimal (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPC is determined for any positive integers m,n≡2(mod4) and λa∈{2,3}.
Tables1
Table 1. Table 1: Θ ( m , n , 3 , λ a , 1 ) Θ 𝑚 𝑛 3 subscript 𝜆 𝑎 1 \Theta(m,n,3,\lambda_{a},1) not covered by Theorem 1.4 for m n ≡ 0 ( mod 4 ) 𝑚 𝑛 0 mod 4 mn\equiv 0\ ({\rm mod}\ 4) , m n ≤ 150 𝑚 𝑛 150 mn\leq 150 and gcd ( m , n ) ≠ 1 𝑚 𝑛 1 \gcd(m,n)\neq 1
\displaystyle\Theta(m,n,3,2,1)=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\frac{mn-1}{4},&\hbox{\rm{if} $m=n\equiv 1\ ({\rm mod}\ 4)$ {\rm is a prime and} $2$ is a primitive root in $\mathbb{Z}_{m}$};\\
\frac{mn-2}{4},&\hbox{\rm{if} $mn\equiv 2\ ({\rm mod}\ 4)$.}\end{array}\right.
\displaystyle\Theta(m,n,3,2,1)=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\frac{mn-1}{4},&\hbox{\rm{if} $m=n\equiv 1\ ({\rm mod}\ 4)$ {\rm is a prime and} $2$ is a primitive root in $\mathbb{Z}_{m}$};\\
\frac{mn-2}{4},&\hbox{\rm{if} $mn\equiv 2\ ({\rm mod}\ 4)$.}\end{array}\right.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
Topicsgraph theory and CDMA systems · Coding theory and cryptography · DNA and Biological Computing
Full text
**Optimal optical orthogonal signature pattern codes with weight three and cross-correlation constraint one
111Supported by NSFC under Grant 11601472, and the Yunnan Applied Basic Research Project of China under Grant 2016FD005 (R. Pan), NSFC under Grant 11871095 (T. Feng), NSFC under Grant 11771227 (X. Wang).
**
Rong Pana, Tao Fengb, Lidong Wangc, Xiaomiao Wangd
aDepartment of Mathematics, Yunnan University, Kunming 650504, P. R. China
bDepartment of Mathematics, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, P. R. China
cDepartment of Basic Courses, China People’s Police University, Langfang 065000, P. R. China
dDepartment of Mathematics, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, P. R. China
Abstract:
Optical orthogonal signature pattern codes (OOSPCs) have attracted wide attention as signature patterns of spatial optical code division multiple access networks. In this paper, an improved upper bound on the size of an (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPC with λa=2,3 is established. The exact number of codewords of an optimal (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPC is determined for any positive integers m,n≡2(mod4) and λa∈{2,3}.
An optical orthogonal signature pattern code is a family of (0,1)-matrices with good auto- and cross-correlation. Its study has been motivated by an application in an optical code division
multiple access (OCDMA) network for image transmission, called a spatial OCDMA network.
Compared with the traditional OCDMA, the spatial OCDMA provides higher throughput (cf. [19, 18, 20, 28]).
Denote by Zv the additive group of integers modulo v. Let m, n, k, λa and λc be positive integers. An (m,n,k,λa,λc)optical orthogonal signature
pattern code(briefly, (m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPC)
is a family C of m×n(0,1)-matrices of Hamming
weight k satisfying the following properties:
(1)
the auto-correlation property: i=0∑m−1j=0∑n−1xi,jxi⊕s,j⊕t≤λa for any (xij)∈C and any (s,t)∈Zm×Zn∖{(0,0)};
2. (2)
the cross-correlation property: i=0∑m−1j=0∑n−1xi,jyi⊕s,j⊕t≤λc for any distinct (xij),(yij)∈C and any (s,t)∈Zm×Zn,
where the additions ⊕ and ⊕ are, respectively, reduced modulo
m and n. When λa=λc=λ, the notation
(m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPC is briefly written as
(m,n,k,λ)-OOSPC.
The number of codewords in an OOSPC is called the size of the OOSPC. For given positive integers m, n, k, λa and λc, denote by Θ(m,n,k,λa,λc) the largest possible size among all (m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPCs. An (m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPC with size
Θ(m,n,k,λa,λc) is said to be optimal (or maximum).
When λa=λc=λ, Θ(m,n,k,λa,λc) is simply written as
Θ(m,n,k,λ). Based on the Johnson bound [17] for constant weight codes, an upper bound on Θ(m,n,k,λ) was given below
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
When λa>λc, Θ(m,n,k,λa,λc) is upper bounded in [28] by
[TABLE]
When m and n are coprime, it has been shown in [28] that an (m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPC is equivalent to a 1-dimensional (mn,k,λa,λc)-optical orthogonal code (OOC). See [1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 29] and the references therein for more details on OOCs.
When m and n are not coprime, various OOSPCs have been constructed via algebraic and combinatorial methods for the case of λa=λc (see [5, 6, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28]). We only quote the following result for later use.
On the other hand, for the case of λa=λc, very little has been done
on (m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPCs with maximum size.
Compared with (1.1), an improved upper bound on Θ(m,n,3,2,1) was given by Sawa and Kageyama [26]. That is
In Section 2, we shall give an equivalent combinatorial description of (m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPCs by using set-theoretic notation. Section 3 is devoted to improving Sawa and Kageyama’s bound (1.9), especially for the case of mn≡0(mod4). Throughout this paper, let ξ denote the number of subgroups of order 3 in Zm×Zn, i.e.,
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
We are to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 1.3
Let λa∈{2,3}. Then Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤
[TABLE]
In Section 4, we shall establish three recursive constructions for (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPCs. Especially, a very efficient doubling construction is presented in Construction 4.6 to facilitate determining the exact value of Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) for m,n≡2(mod4) and λa=2,3. We are to prove the following theorem in Section 5.
Theorem 1.4
Let λa∈{2,3}.
For any m,n≡2(mod4),
[TABLE]
Finally, in Section 6, it is conjectured that when mn≡0(mod4), our bound for Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) with λa∈{2,3} shown in Theorem 1.3 is tight.
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Set-theoretic descriptions
A convenient way of viewing optical orthogonal signature pattern codes is from a set-theoretic perspective.
Let C be an (m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPC. For each (0,1)-matrix M=(aij)∈C,
whose rows are indexed by Zm and columns are indexed by Zn, define
XM={(i,j)∈Zm×Zn:aij=1}. Then, F={XM:M∈C}
is a set-theoretic representation of C. Conversely, let F be a set of k-subsets of Zm×Zn. Then F is an (m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPC if the following properties are satisfied:
(1′)
the auto-correlation property: ∣X∩(X+(s,t))∣≤λa for any X∈F and any (s,t)∈Zm×Zn∖{(0,0)};
2. (2′)
the cross-correlation property: ∣X∩(Y+(s,t))∣≤λc for any
distinct X,Y∈F and any (s,t)∈Zm×Zn,
where the addition “+” performs in Zm×Zn.
Throughout this paper, we shall use the set-theoretic notation to list codewords of a given OOSPC.
For a given set F of k-subsets of Zm×Zn, it is not convenient to check whether it satisfies the auto- and cross-correlation property according to Conditions (1′) and (2′). However, when λc=1, a more efficient description can be given by using the difference method. Let X∈F. Define the list of differences of X by
[TABLE]
as a multiset, and define the support of ΔX, denoted by supp(ΔX),
as the set of underlying elements in ΔX.
Let λ(X) denote the maximum multiplicity of elements in the multiset ΔX. Then F constitutes an (m,n,k,λa,1)-OOSPC
if the following properties are satisfied:
(1′′)
the auto-correlation property: λ(X)≤λa for any X∈F;
2. (2′′)
the cross-correlation property: supp(ΔX)∩supp(ΔY)=∅ for any distinct X,Y∈F.
Example 2.1
We here give an example of a (6,6,3,λa,1)-OOSPC with λa∈{2,3} defined on Z6×Z6 as follows:
[TABLE]
2.2 Notation and basic propositions
Throughout this paper, let A=Zm×Zn. For each (x,y)∈A∖{(0,0)}, denote by ±(x,y) the two elements (x,y) and (−x,−y) in A.
Proposition 2.2
All possible subgroups of order 3 in A are
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.3
All possible cyclic subgroups of order 4 in A are
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.4
The unique possible subgroup of order 4 isomorphic to Z2×Z2 in A is
{(0,0),(2m,0),(0,2n),(2m,2n)}.
Let (G,+) be an abelian group with the identity [math]. Let X⊆G. The G-orbit of X is the set OrbG(X)={X+g:g∈G}, where X+g={x+g:x∈X}.
For any positive integer i, let
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.5
ΩA(2)={(0,0),(0,2n),(2m,0),(2m,2n)}.
Remark 2.6
In Proposition 2.5, the notation ΩA(2) should be understood as follows
[TABLE]
In what follows, we always use a similar method to denote sets. The reader can judge it according to the context.
In this section, we shall estimate the upper bound of Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) with λa∈{2,3} for any positive integers m and n. Without loss of generality assume that each codeword in an OOSPC contains the element (0,0). Let
T1={OrbA({(0,0),α,2α}):α∈A∖(ΩA(3)∪ΩA(4))}, and
Let λa∈{2,3}. For any codeword X of an (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPC F, if ∣supp(ΔX)∣=i, then X is said to be of Type i. By Lemma 3.1, i∈{2,3,4,5,6}. Let Ni denote the number of codewords in F of Type i.
The cross-correlation property (2′′) implies that ΔF=⋃X∈Fsupp(ΔX) covers each nonzero element of A at most once. Thus we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.3
[TABLE]
**Proof **Let X={(0,0),α,β} be a codeword satisfying ∣supp(ΔX)∣=2. By Lemma 3.2, λ(X)=3. Note that the auto-correlation property (1′′) requires λ(X)≤λa for any X∈F. So if λa=2, then N2=0. If λa=3, by Lemma 3.1, <α,β> forms an additive subgroup of order 3 in A. Since all possible subgroups of order 3 in A are {(0,0),(0,3n),(0,32n)}, {(0,0),(3m,0),(32m,0}, {(0,0),(3m,3n),(32m,32n)} and {(0,0),(3m,32n),(32m,3n)}, the value of N2 depends on whether m and n could be divided by 3. . □
For each codeword X={(0,0),α,β} of Type 3, if <α,β>≅Z4, then by Proposition 2.3, w.l.o.g., X is one of the following forms:
[TABLE]
If <α,β>≅Z2×Z2, then by Proposition 2.4, w.l.o.g., X is of the form
[TABLE]
Therefore, all codewords of Type 3, which are in the form of {(0,0),α=(a,b),β}, can be divided into the following three types:
Type 3.1: α,β∈ΩA(2)∖{(0,0)};
Type 3.2: α∈ΩA(4)∖{(0,0)} and a∈ΩZm(4)∖ΩZm(2);
Type 3.3: α∈ΩA(4)∖{(0,0)}, a∈ΩZm(2) and b∈ΩZn(4)∖ΩZn(2).
Let N3(1), N3(2) and N3(3) denote the number of codewords in F of Types 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.
Then,
[TABLE]
Remark 3.4
By (3.44) and (3.45), one can check the following facts.
(1)
For any codeword X of Type 3.1, supp(ΔX) is of the form {(2m,0),(0,2n),(2m,2n)}.
2. (2)
For any codeword X of Type 3.2, supp(ΔX) is one of the forms:
{±(4m,0),(2m,0)}, {±(4m, 4n),(2m,2n)}, {±(4m,2n),(2m,0)} and {±(4m,43n),(2m,2n)}.
3. (3)
For any codeword X of Type 3.3, supp(ΔX) is one of the forms:
{±(0,4n),(0,2n)} and {±(2m,4n),(0,2n)}.
Lemma 3.5
[TABLE]
**Proof **For each codeword X of Type 3.1, ∣supp(ΔX)∩ΩA(2)∣=3 by Remark 3.4(1). By Remark 2.6, we have
[TABLE]
. □
Lemma 3.6
Let
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
**Proof **Each codeword of Type 3 is one of the forms shown in (3.44) and (3.45).
(1) When m≡0(mod4), there is no codeword of Type 3.2, and so N3(2)=0.
When m≡0(mod4) and n≡1(mod2), there is at most one codeword of Type 3.2, which is {(0,0),(4m,0),(2m,0)}, and so N3(2)≤1. When m≡0(mod4) and n≡2(mod4), there are at most two codewords of Type 3.2, which are {(0,0),(4m,0),(2m,0)} and {(0,0),(4m,2n),(2m,0)}. Here (2m,0) is shared as a difference. Hence, N3(2)≤1.
When m,n≡0(mod4), there are at most four codewords of Type 3.2, which are {(0,0),(4m,0),(2m,0)},{(0,0),(4m, 4n),(2m,2n)},
{(0,0),(4m,2n),(2m,0)} and
{(0,0),(4m,43n),(2m,2n)}. Since λc=1, it is readily checked that N3(2)≤2.
(2) When n≡0(mod4), there is no codeword of Type 3.3, and so N3(3)=0.
When n≡0(mod4), there are at most two codewords of Type 3.3, which are
{(0,0),(0,4n),(0,2n)} and {(0,0),(2m,4n),(0,2n)}. Here (0,2n) is shared as a difference. Hence, N3(3)≤1. . □
Lemma 3.7
Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤⌊4mn+2ω⌋* for any m≡1(mod2) and λa∈{2,3}.*
**Proof **For m≡1(mod2), by (3.41), (3.48), (3.53) and (3.56), we have N2≤ω, N3(1)=N3(2)=0 and N3(3)≤1. Then by (3.40), 4(N2+N3+N4+N5+N6)≤mn−1+2N2+N3−N5−2N6≤mn+2ω. Thus Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤⌊4mn+2ω⌋. . □
Lemma 3.8
Let
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
**Proof **By Proposition 2.5, ΩA(2)={(0,0),(0,2n),(2m,0),(2m,2n)}. If X is a codeword of Type 3.1, then ∣supp(ΔX)∩ΩA(2)∣=3 by Remark 3.4(1). If X is a codeword of Types 3.2 or 3.3 or Type 5, then ∣supp(ΔX)∩ΩA(2)∣=1 by Remark 3.4(2)(3) and Lemma 3.1. Hence, 3N3(1)+N3(2)+N3(3)+N5≤∣ΩA(2)∖{(0,0)}∣=ρ. . □
Without loss of generality, each codeword of Type 4 is of the form {(0,0),(a,b),(2a,2b)}, where (a,b)∈A∖(ΩA(3)∪ΩA(4)). We divide the codewords of Type 4 into the following two types according to the parity of a:
Type 4.1: a≡1(mod2);
Type 4.2: a≡0(mod2).
Let N4(1) and N4(2) denote the number of codewords in F of Types 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
Then,
Since m and n are even, it is readily checked that for any codeword X of Type 2, supp(ΔX)⊆Aee∖ΩA(2). For each codeword X={(0,0),(a,b),(2a,2b)} of Type 4, supp(ΔX) contributes at least two differences, ±(2a,2b), in Aee∖ΩA(2). Thus 2N2+2N4≤∣Aee∖ΩA(2)∣.
. □
Lemma 3.10
For any m≡2(mod4) and λa∈{2,3},
[TABLE]
**Proof **For m≡2(mod4), by (3.53), N3(2)=0 and
hence N3=N3(1)+N3(3). We rewrite (3.40) and (3.61) as follows:
Examining the proof of Lemma 3.14, we have that if
[TABLE]
where m≡0(mod4) and λa∈{2,3}, then N3(1)=0, and the equalities must hold in (3.40), \eqrefN2, \eqrefN3andN5, \eqrefN41 and \eqrefmn/2−1. Especially, when 3−γ=0, i.e., m≡4(mod8), N3(2)=ε.
Input the exact values of ω, ε, ρ, η, γ to Lemma 3.14, and combine with Lemmas 3.7 and 3.10. We get an explicit upper bound of Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) for any positive integers m and n.
Theorem 3.16
Let λa∈{2,3}. Then Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤
[TABLE]
**Proof **Note that Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)=Θ(n,m,3,λa,1).
For mn≡1,2,3(mod4), at least one of m and n is odd. Then the conclusion follows from Lemma 3.7.
For mn≡0(mod4) and gcd(m,n,2)=1, w.l.o.g., assume that n≡1(mod2) and m≡0(mod4). Apply Lemma 3.14 with ε=ρ=1, (η,γ)=(4mn,3) and (4mn−1,1) when m≡0(mod8) and m≡4(mod8), respectively. Then we have
[TABLE]
For mn≡4(mod8) and gcd(m,n,2)=2, we have m,n≡2(mod4). Then the conclusion follows from Lemma 3.10.
For mn≡8(mod16) and gcd(m,n,2)=2, w.l.o.g., assume that m≡2(mod4) and n≡4(mod8).
By Lemma 3.10, we have
[TABLE]
W.l.o.g., we can also assume that m≡4(mod8) and n≡2(mod4).
Applying Lemma 3.14 with ε=γ=1, ρ=3 and η=8mn−1, we have
[TABLE]
It follows that
Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤min{U1,U2}. Comparing the values of U1 and U2, we have
[TABLE]
For mn≡0(mod32) and gcd(m,n,2)=2, w.l.o.g., assume that m≡0(mod8) and n≡0(mod2).
By Lemma 3.14 with ρ=γ=3 and η=8mn, we have
[TABLE]
W.l.o.g., we can also assume that m≡0(mod2) and n≡0(mod8). Applying Lemma 3.10 with m≡2(mod4), and Lemma 3.14 with ε=2, ρ=3, (η,γ)=(8mn−2,1) and (8mn,3) for m≡4(mod8) and m≡0(mod8), respectively, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
For mn≡16(mod32) and gcd(m,n,2)=2, we consider two subcases.
If mn≡16(mod32) and gcd(m,n,4)=2, then assume that m≡2(mod4) and n≡8(mod16). By Lemma 3.10, we have
Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤U1. We can also assume that m≡8(mod16) and n≡2(mod4). Then applying Lemma 3.14 with ρ=γ=3 and η=8mn, we have Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤U3. Therefore, we get Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤min{U1,U3}=U3. If mn≡16(mod32) and gcd(m,n,4)=4, which implies m,n≡4(mod8), then by Lemma 3.14 with ε=2, ρ=3, η=8mn−2 and γ=1, we have Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)≤U4. . □
3.2 Improved upper bound for two subclasses when λa=2
A codeword of Type 4.2 is of the form {(0,0),(a,b),(2a,2b)}, where a≡0(mod2). All codewords of Type 4.2 can be divided into the following three types:
Type 4.2.1: a≡2(mod4) and b≡0(mod2);
Type 4.2.2: a≡0(mod4) and b≡0(mod2);
Type 4.2.3: a≡0(mod2) and b≡1(mod2).
Let N4(2,1), N4(2,2) and N4(2,3) denote the number of codewords in F of Types 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, respectively.
Then,
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.17
If λa=2 and 2N4(1)=η,
then
[TABLE]
Furthermore, when m≡0(mod8) and n≡4(mod8), if 4N4(2)=163mn−6, then 2N4(2,3)=16mn−2.
Proof Case 1: m≡4(mod8) and n≡1(mod2).
Due to As⋅∖ΩA(2)=As⋅∖{(2m,0)}, we have ∣As⋅∖ΩA(2)∣=4m×n−1=η.
Since each codeword of Type 4.1 contributes exactly two differences in As⋅∖ΩA(2), the condition 2N4(1)=η implies that every element in As⋅∖ΩA(2) is used as a difference of some codeword of Type 4.1. Hence for each codeword {(0,0),(a,b),(2a,2b)} of Type 4.2, we have a≡0(mod4). It follows that each codeword of Type 4.2 contributes four differences in Ad⋅. Since m≡4(mod8) and n≡1(mod2), it is readily checked that for any codeword X of Type 4.2, we have supp(ΔX)∩ΩA(3)=∅ (otherwise, either λa=3 or 4∣6m). Due to
[TABLE]
we have ∣Ad⋅∩ΩA(3)∣=2ξ+1. Therefore,
[TABLE]
Case 2: m≡0(mod4) and n≡4(mod8).
For m≡0(mod8) and n≡4(mod8), Ase∖ΩA(2)=Ase. Hence ∣Ase∖ΩA(2)∣=4m×2n=8mn=η. For m≡4(mod8) and n≡4(mod8), Ase∖ΩA(2)=Ase∖{(2m,0),(2m,2n)}. Hence ∣Ase∖ΩA(2)∣=4m×2n−2=8mn−2=η.
Let {(0,0),(a,b),(2a,2b)} be a codeword of Type 4.1, where a≡1(mod2). It contributes two differences (2a,2b) and (−2a,−2b) in Ase∖ΩA(2). Due to ∣Ase∖ΩA(2)∣=η, the condition 2N4(1)=η implies that every element in Ase∖ΩA(2) is used as a difference of some codeword of Type 4.1. It follows that
[TABLE]
Due to
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
For any codeword X of Type 4.2.3, ∣supp(ΔX)∩Ads∣=∣supp(ΔX)∩Ade∣=2. By the definition of T1, each codeword X of Type 4.2 satisfies supp(ΔX)∩ΩA(2)=∅. Therefore,
[TABLE]
Due to
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
For any codeword X of Type 4.2.2, we have ∣supp(ΔX)∩Ade∣=4. Therefore, when
m≡0(mod8),
[TABLE]
Let W={±(0,3n),±(32m,3n)}. Then W⊂ΩA(3)⊂Ade. Hence,
[TABLE]
When m,n≡4(mod8), it is readily checked that for any codeword X of Type 4.2.2 or Type 4.2.3, we have supp(ΔX)∩ΩA(3)⊆W (otherwise, either λa=3 or 4∣6m). Therefore,
[TABLE]
By 4×\eqrefe0+\eqrefe1+\eqrefe2 and 4×\eqrefe0+\eqrefe1+\eqrefe3, we obtain
[TABLE]
Furthermore, when m≡0(mod8) and n≡4(mod8), if 4N4(2)=163mn−6, then the equality holds in (3.154), i.e., 2N4(2,3)=16mn−2. . □
Lemma 3.18
Let m,n≡4(mod16) or m,n≡12(mod16) be positive integers such that 3∣m. Then
[TABLE]
**Proof **For m,n≡4(mod16), or m,n≡12(mod16), by Theorem 3.16 with ω=0, Θ(m,n,3,2,1)≤6413mn+48. Assume that Θ(m,n,3,2,1)=6413mn+48. By Remark 3.15, N3(1)=0, N3(2)=ε=2 and the equalities hold in (3.40), (3.61), (3.94) and (3.112). Then by (3.61), N3(3)+N5=1. By (3.94), N4(1)=16mn−1. By \eqrefmn−1−\eqrefmn/2−1, we have
[TABLE]
which yields
[TABLE]
Note that N2=0. Therefore,
[TABLE]
However, the condition 3∣m implies that m≡12(mod24). Hence by Lemma 3.17,
4N4(2)≤163mn−7 or 163mn−5 according to whether n is divided by 3 or not,
a contradiction. . □
A codeword of Type 4.1 is of the form {(0,0),(a,b),(2a,2b)}, where a≡1(mod2). All the codewords of Type 4.1 can be divided into the following two types according to the parity of b:
Type 4.1.1: a,b≡1(mod2);
Type 4.1.2: a≡1(mod2) and b≡0(mod2);
Let N4(1,1) and N4(1,2) denote the number of codewords in F of Types 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, respectively.
Then,
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.19
Let m≡0(mod8) and n≡0(mod4). Assume that 2N4(1)=8mn.
Then N4(1,1)=N4(1,2)=32mn. Furthermore, if m≡8(mod16), then N3(2)≤1, and for any codeword X of Type 3.2, supp(ΔX)={±(4m,4n),(2m,2n)}
or {±(4m,43n),(2m,2n)}.
**Proof **Let {(0,0),(a,b),(2a,2b)} with a≡1(mod2) be a codeword of Type 4.1. It contributes two differences (2a,2b) and (−2a,−2b) in Ase. Due to ∣Ase∣=4m×2n=8mn, the condition 2N4(1)=8mn implies that every element in Ase is used as a difference of some codeword of Type 4.1. Therefore, n≡0(mod4) yields N4(1,1)=N4(1,2)=21N4(1)=32mn. Furthermore, when m≡8(mod16),
{±(4m,0),±(4m,2n)}⊂Ase. So
±(4m,0) and ±(4m,2n) are used as differences of some codewords of Type 4.1, and cannot be produced by other types of codewords. Therefore, for any codeword X of Type 3.2, by Remark 3.4(2),
supp(ΔX)={±(4m,4n),(2m,2n)}
or {±(4m,43n),(2m,2n)}.
The two sets share a common element (2m,2n), so N3(2)≤1. . □
Lemma 3.20
For any m≡8(mod16) and n≡4(mod8),
[TABLE]
**Proof **For m≡8(mod16) and n≡4(mod8), applying Theorem 3.16 with ω=0, we have Θ(m,n,3,2,1)≤6413mn+32. Assume that Θ(m,n,3,2,1)=6413mn+32. By Remark 3.15, N3(1)=0 and the equalities hold in (3.40), (3.61), (3.94) and (3.112). By (3.94), 2N4(1)=8mn. It follows that N3(2)≤1 by Lemma 3.19. Note that N3(3)≤1 by (3.56). Thus, by (3.61), N3(2)+N3(3)+N5=3 yields N5≥1. By (3.40)−(3.112), we have 2N4(1)+4N5+4N6=2mn, which yields
By Lemma 3.17, N4(2)≤643mn−96. Thus N4(2)=643mn−96. It follows that
N3(2)=N3(3)=N5=1 and N6=323mn−1.
Recall that the equality holds in (3.40). It follows that the elements in A⋅o are used up as the differences of codewords of Types 3.2, 3.3, 4.1.1, 4.2.3, 5 and 6. Since N3(2)=1, by Lemma 3.19, the unique codeword X of Type 3.2 satisfies ∣supp(ΔX)∩A⋅o∣=2. Since N3(3)=1, the unique codeword X of Type 3.3 also satisfies ∣supp(ΔX)∩A⋅o∣=2 by Remark 3.4(3). Due to 2N4(1)=8mn, by Lemma 3.19, there are N4(1,1)=32mn codewords of Type 4.1.1, and by Lemma 3.17, there are N4(2,3)=32mn−1 codewords of Type 4.2.3. Each codeword of Type 4.1.1 (resp. of Type 4.2.3) contributes two distinct differences in A⋅o.
Let Q denote the number of distinct differences in A⋅o from all codewords of Type 5 and of Type 6. Then it is readily checked that Q≡0(mod4). However, since ∣A⋅o∣=m×2n=2mn, we get
[TABLE]
which yields Q=83mn−2≡2(mod4), a contradiction. . □
3.3 Sporadic values
Lemma 3.21
Θ(4,2,3,λa,1)≤1* for any λa∈{2,3}.*
**Proof **By (3.48), (3.53), (3.56) and (3.66), N2=N3(3)=N4=0, N3(1)≤1 and N3(2)≤1.
By (3.40), we have
[TABLE]
By Theorem 3.16, Θ(4,2,3,λa,1)≤2. Assume that Θ(4,2,3,λa,1)=2, that is, N3(1)+N3(2)+N5+N6=2. It follows from (3.160) that N3(1)=N3(2)=1 and N5=N6=0. Thus 3N3(1)+N3(2)+N3(3)+N5=4. It contradicts with (3.61). . □
Lemma 3.22
Θ(12,3,3,3,1)≤9.**
**Proof **By Theorem 3.16, Θ(12,3,3,3,1)≤10. Assume that Θ(12,3,3,3,1)=10. By Remark 3.15, N3(1)=0, N3(2)=1 and the equalities hold in (3.40), (3.41), (3.61) and (3.94). By (3.61), N3(3)=N5=0. By (3.41) and (3.94), N2=4 and N4(1)=4. By (3.40), 2N2+3N3+4N4+5N5+6N6=35, which yields 2N4(2)+3N6=4. It follows that N4(2)=2 and N6=0. Therefore, N2+N3+N4+N5+N6=11. It contradicts with Θ(12,3,3,3,1)=10. . □
Lemma 3.23
Θ(12,3,3,2,1)≤7.**
**Proof **The proof is subtly different from that of Lemma 3.22. By Theorem 3.16, Θ(12,3,3,2,1)≤8. Assume that Θ(12,3,3,2,1)=8. By Remark 3.15, N3(1)=0, N3(2)=1 and the equalities hold in (3.40), (3.61), (3.94) and (3.112). By (3.61), N3(3)=N5=0. By (3.41) and (3.94), N2=0 and N4(1)=4. Therefore, by (3.40), 2N4(2)+3N6=8, and by (3.112), 2N4(2)+N6=4. It follows that N6=2 and N4(2)=1. However, by Lemma 3.17, N4(2)=0, a contradiction. . □
For (m,n)∈{(2,4),(4,2),(3,12),(12,3)}, the conclusion follows from Lemmas 3.21, 3.22 and 3.23. For mn≡32(mod64), gcd(m,n,8)=4 and λa=2, exactly one of m and n is divided by 4 but not by 8. W.l.o.g., assume that n≡4(mod8) and m≡8(mod16). Then the conclusion follows from Lemma 3.20. For mn≡144(mod192), gcd(m,n,4)=4 and λa=2, we have 3∣mn and mn≡16(mod64). W.l.o.g., assume that 3∣m, and m,n≡4(mod16) or m,n≡12(mod16). Then the conclusion follows by Lemma 3.18. All the other cases follow from Theorem 3.16. . □
4 Recursive constructions
Let F be an (m,n,k,λa,1)-OOSPC. Define the (difference) leave of F, briefly DL(F), as the set of all nonzero elements in Zm×Zn which are not covered by ΔF=⋃X∈Fsupp(ΔX). F is said to be (s,t)-regular if DL(F)∪{(0,0)} forms an additive subgroup S×T of Zm×Zn, where S and T are, respectively, the additive subgroups of order s in Zm and order t in Zn.
Construction 4.1
(Filling Construction)*
Suppose that there exist*
(1)
an (s,t)-regular (m,n,k,λa,1)-OOSPCF1
with b1 codewords;
2. (2)
an (s,t,k,λa,1)-OOSPCF2 with b2 codewords.
Then there exists an (m,n,k,λa,1)-OOSPC with b1+b2 codewords.
Furthermore, if the given (s,t,k,λa,1)-OOSPC is (g,h)-regular, then the resulting (m,n,k,λa,1)-OOSPC is (g,h)-regular.
**Proof **Let us interpret all codewords of F2 as codewords in (smZm)×(tnZn) and add them to the codewords of F1. We then get the desired (m,n,k,λa,1)-OOSPC with b1+b2 codewords, whose leave is exactly DL(F2).
. □
Let G be an abelian group of order v.
A (G,k,λ)difference matrix (briefly, (G,k,λ)-DM) is a
k×λv matrix D=(dij) with entries from G such that for any
distinct rows x and y, the multiset {dxi−dyi:1≤i≤λv}
contains each element of G exactly λ times.
If G=Zv, the difference matrix is called cyclic and denoted by a (v,k,λ)-CDM.
When λa=1, the notation (s,t)-regular (m,n,k,1,1)-OOSPC is simply written as (s,t)-regular (m,n,k,1)-OOSPC.
Construction 4.2
[23, Construction 3.3]* (Inflation Construction)
Let m,n and v be positive integers. Suppose
that there exist*
(1)
an (s,t)-regular (m,n,k,1)-OOSPC;
2. (2)
a (v,k,1)-CDM.
Then there exist an (sv,t)-regular (mv,n,k,1)-OOSPC and an (s,tv)-regular (m,nv,k,1)-OOSPC.
Lemma 4.3
[8]*
Let v and k be positive integers such that gcd(v,(k−1)!)=1. Then there exists a (v,k,1)-CDM.*
Let m,n≡2(mod4), and H be the normal subgroup {(0,0),(0,2n),(2m,0),(2m,2n)} of Zm×Zn. Then the quotient group (Zm×Zn)/H is isomorphic to Z2m×Z2n. For (x,y)∈Z2m×Z2n, let D(x,y)=(x,y)+H be a coset of H in Zm×Zn, namely,
[TABLE]
The following proposition is straightforward from group theory.
Proposition 4.4
(1)
For any distinct (x,y) and (x′,y′) from Z2m×Z2n, D(x,y)∩D(x′,y′)=∅.
2. (2)
(Doubling Construction)* Let m,n≡2(mod4).
Suppose there exists an (2m,2n,3,1)-OOSPCF whose leave is L. Then there exists an (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 5∣F∣ codewords whose leave is*
[TABLE]
Especially, if the given (2m,2n,3,1)-OOSPC is (s,t)-regular, then the resulting (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC is (2s,2t)-regular.
**Proof **For each codeword F={(0,0),(x1,y1),(x2,y2)}∈F, construct a set BF which consists of the following five 3-subsets in A:
[TABLE]
satisfying that {α1,β1,β3}=D(x1,y1)∖Aee, {α2,β2,β4}=D(x2,y2)∖Aee and {α3,β2−β1,β4−β3}=D(x2−x1,y2−y1)∖Aee. This can be done because for any (x,y)∈Z2m×Z2n, by Proposition 4.5, ∣D(x,y)∩Aoo∣=∣D(x,y)∩Aoe∣=∣D(x,y)∩Aeo∣=∣D(x,y)∩Aee∣=1. So we can take α1∈Aoo, β1∈Aeo, β3∈Aoe, α2∈Aeo, β2∈Aoe, β4∈Aoo and α3∈Aoe.
Note that
±2α1=±(2x1,2y1),±2α2=±(2x2,2y2) and ±2α3=±(2(x2−x1),2(y2−y1)). They are distinct elements in Aee. It follows that
[TABLE]
Let B=F∈F⋃BF and V=Z2m×Z2n∖(L∪{(0,0)}). Then
[TABLE]
Thus B forms an (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 5∣F∣ codewords whose leave is of the form (4.161).
Especially, if the given (2m,2n,3,1)-OOSPC is (s,t)-regular, then its leave L along with {(0,0)} forms an additive subgroup S×T of Z2m×Z2n, where S and T are, respectively, the additive subgroups of order s in Z2m and order t in Z2n. It is readily checked that the leave L′ of the resulting (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC satisfies
[TABLE]
where S′ and T′ are, respectively, the additive subgroups of order 2s in Zm and order 2t in Zn.
Therefore, the resulting OOSPC is (2s,2t)-regular. . □
5 Determination of Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) with m,n≡2(mod4)
This section is devoted to constructing optimal (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPCs with λa=2,3 for m,n≡2(mod4). In this case, mn≡4(mod8) and gcd(m,n,2)=2. By Theorem 1.3, we have the following corollary.
Corollary 5.1
For any m,n≡2(mod4) and λa∈{2,3},
[TABLE]
Proposition 5.2
For any m and n such that gcd(mn,3)=1, an (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC is equivalent to an (m,n,3,3,1)-OOSPC.
**Proof **Let gcd(mn,3)=1 and X be a 3-subset of A. By Lemma 3.1, ∣supp(ΔX)∣≥3. Then by Lemma 3.2, λ(X)≤2. Hence, by the auto-correlation property (1′′), for gcd(mn,3)=1, an (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC is equivalent to an (m,n,3,3,1)-OOSPC. . □
5.1 (s,t)-regular (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPCs
Lemma 5.3
[24, Theorem 4.8]*
For any m and n such that mn≡1(mod6), there exists a (1,1)-regular (m,n,3,1)-OOSPC.*
Lemma 5.4
There exists a (1,3)-regular (m,n,3,1)-OOSPC for any m≡1,5(mod6) and n≡3(mod6) except for (m,n)=(1,9).
**Proof **Let m≡1,5(mod6). For n∈{3,9}, due to gcd(m,3)=gcd(m,9)=1, a (1,3)-regular (m,n,3,1)-OOSPC is equivalent to a cyclic Steiner triple system (CSTS) of order mn. It is known that a CSTS(mn) exists if and only if mn≡1,3(mod6) and mn=9 (see [9, Theorem 2.25]).
For n≥15, start from a (1,3)-regular (1,n,3,1)-OOSPC, which is equivalent to a CSTS(n). Apply Construction 4.2 with an (m,3,1)-CDM to obtain an (m,3)-regular (m,n,3,1)-OOSPC. Then apply Construction 4.1 to obtain a (1,3)-regular (m,n,3,1)-OOSPC. . □
Lemma 5.5
There exists a (1,3)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn−12 codewords for any m≡2,10(mod12) and n≡6(mod12).
**Proof **For (m,n)∈{(2,6),(2,18)}, all 245mn−12 codewords of a (1,3)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC are listed below:
[TABLE]
For m≡2,10(mod12), n≡6(mod12) and (m,n)=(2,18), by Lemma 5.4, there exists a (1,3)-regular (2m,2n,3,1)-OOSPC with 24mn−12 codewords. Apply Construction 4.6 to obtain a (2,6)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn−60 codewords. Then apply Construction 4.1 with a (1,3)-regular (2,6,3,2,1)-OOSPC, which has 2 codewords, to obtain a (1,3)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn−12 codewords. . □
Lemma 5.6
There exists a (3,3)-regular (m,n,3,1)-OOSPC* for any m,n≡3(mod6), m=9 and n=9.*
**Proof **Without loss of generality, assume that n≥m.
Case 1:m=3. When n=3, a (3,3)-regular (3,3,3,1)-OOSPC is trivial.
When n>9, start from a (1,3)-regular (1,n,3,1)-OOSPC, which is equivalent to a CSTS(n).
Then apply Construction 4.2 with a (3,3,1)-CDM to obtain a (3,3)-regular (3,n,3,1)-OOSPC.
Case 2:m>9. Then n>9. Start from a (3,3)-regular (3,n,3,1)-OOSPC, which exists by Case 1, and apply Construction 4.2 with an (3m,3,1)-CDM to obtain an (m,3)-regular (m,n,3,1)-OOSPC. Then apply Construction 4.1 with a (3,3)-regular (m,3,3,1)-OOSPC to obtain a (3,3)-regular (m,n,3,1)-OOSPC. . □
Lemma 5.7
There exists a (3,3)-regular (9,n,3,1)-OOSPC* for any n≡3(mod6).*
**Proof **For n=3, a (3,3)-regular (9,3,3,1)-OOSPC has three codewords:
{(0,0),(1,0),(2,1)}, {(0,0),(1,2),(5,0)}, {(0,0),(2,0),(4,2)}.
For n=9, there exists a (3,3)-regular (9,9,3,1)-OOSPC by [24, Lemma 4.5].
For n≥15, start from the (3,3)-regular (9,3,3,1)-OOSPC, and apply Construction 4.2 with an (3n,3,1)-CDM to obtain a (3,n)-regular (9,n,3,1)-OOSPC. Then apply Construction 4.1 with a (3,3)-regular (3,n,3,1)-OOSPC, which exists by Lemma 5.6, to obtain a (3,3)-regular (9,n,3,1)-OOSPC. . □
Denote by [a,b] the set of integers v such that a≤v≤b.
Lemma 5.8
For any m≡2(mod12) and n≡2(mod4),
there exists a (2,n)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245n(m−2) codewords.
**Proof **For m=2, the conclusion is trivial. For m≥14, all 245n(m−2) codewords of a (2,n)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC are listed as follows:
[TABLE]
where i∈[0,2n−1], j∈[0,12m−14], s∈[0,⌊24m−26⌋] and t∈[0,⌊24m−14⌋]. . □
Θ(m,n,3,2,1)=245mn+4* for any m,n≡2(mod12) and m,n≡10(mod12).*
Proof m,n≡2(mod12) and m,n≡10(mod12) both imply mn≡4(mod24). By Corollary 5.1, Θ(m,n,3,2,1)≤245mn+4. For (m,n)=(2,2), an optimal (2,2,3,2,1)-OOSPC has only one codeword {(0,0),(1,0),(0,1)}.
For (m,n)=(2,2), start from a (1,1)-regular (2m,2n,3,1)-OOSPC with 24mn−4 codewords, which exists by Lemma 5.3, and apply Construction 4.6 to obtain a (2,2)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn−20 codewords. Then apply Construction 4.1 with an optimal (2,2,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 1 codeword to obtain an optimal (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn+4 codewords. . □
Lemma 5.10
Θ(m,n,3,2,1)=245mn−4* for any m≡2(mod12) and n≡10(mod12).*
**Proof **By Corollary 5.1, Θ(m,n,3,2,1)≤245mn−4.
For m=2, set n=2t, where t≡5(mod6).
We here give an explicit construction for an optimal (2,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC on Z2×Z2×Zt with 125n−2=65t−1 codewords:
[TABLE]
For m≥14, begin with a (2,n)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245n(m−2) codewords, which comes from Lemma 5.8. Apply Construction 4.1 with a (2,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 125n−2 codewords to obtain an optimal (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn−4 codewords. . □
Lemma 5.11
For any m≡2,10(mod12) and n≡6(mod12), Θ(m,n,3,2,1)=245mn−12 and Θ(m,n,3,3,1)=245mn+12.
**Proof **The condition m≡2,10(mod12) and n≡6(mod12) implies mn≡12(mod24). By Corollary 5.1, Θ(m,n,3,2,1)≤245mn−12 and Θ(m,n,3,3,1)≤245mn+12. By Lemma 5.5,
there exists a (1,3)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn−12 codewords for any m≡2,10(mod12) and n≡6(mod12). Thus Θ(m,n,3,2,1)=245mn−12.
Start from the resulting (1,3)-regular OOSPC, and apply Construction 4.1 with an optimal (1,3,3,3,1)-OOSPC, which consists of the unique codeword {(0,0),(0,1),(0,2)}, to obtain an optimal (m,n,3,3,1)-OOSPC with 245mn+12 codewords. Thus Θ(m,n,3,3,1)=245mn+12. . □
Lemma 5.12
For any m,n≡6(mod12), Θ(m,n,3,2,1)=245mn−12 and Θ(m,n,3,3,1)=245mn+36.
**Proof **The condition m,n≡6(mod12) implies mn≡12(mod24). By Corollary 5.1, Θ(m,n,3,2,1)≤245mn−12 and Θ(m,n,3,3,1)≤245mn+36. When (m,n)=(6,6), the conclusion follows from Example 2.1. When (m,n)=(6,6), there is a (3,3)-regular (2m,2n,3,1)-OOSPC with 24mn−36 codewords by Lemmas 5.6 and 5.7. Apply Construction 4.6 to obtain a (6,6)-regular (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn−180 codewords. Then apply Construction 4.1 with a (6,6,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 7 codewords to obtain a (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC with 245mn−12 codewords. Thus Θ(m,n,3,2,1)=245mn−12. Apply Construction 4.1 with a (6,6,3,3,1)-OOSPC with 9 codewords to obtain a (m,n,3,3,1)-OOSPC with 245mn+36 codewords. . □
By Proposition 5.2, for any m and n such that gcd(mn,3)=1, an (m,n,3,2,1)-OOSPC is equivalent to an (m,n,3,3,1)-OOSPC. Note that Θ(m,n,3,λa,1)=Θ(n,m,3,λa,1). Now combining the results from Lemmas 5.9-5.12, one can complete the proof of Theorem 1.4.
6 Concluding remarks
Compared with (1.9), Theorem 1.3 provides a much more complicated upper bound on the size of an (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPC with λa∈{2,3}.
It seems that this bound is good for mn≡0(mod4). On one hand, when gcd(m,n)=1, an
(m,n,k,λa,λc)-OOSPC is equivalent to a 1-D (mn,k,λa,λc)-OOC [28]. Let Φ(mn,k,λa,λc) denote the largest possible size among all 1-D (mn,k,λa,λc)-OOCs. Then Θ(m,n,k,λa,λc)=Φ(mn,k,λa,λc) for gcd(m,n)=1. When v≡0(mod4), the exact value of Φ(v,3,λa,1) has been determined in the literature. Note that a 1-D (v,k,k,1)-OOC is often referred to as a conflict-avoiding code, which finds its application on a multiple-access collision channel without feedback.
It is easy to check that Theorems 6.1 and 6.2 satisfy the bound for Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) in Theorem 1.3 when gcd(m,n)=1 except for mn∈{48,64}.
On the other hand, when gcd(m,n)=1, Theorem 1.4 determines the values of Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) with λa=2,3 for m,n≡2(mod4), which coincides with the bound in Theorem 1.3. By computer search, it is shown that for any m and n such that mn≡0(mod4) and mn≤150, there exists an (m,n,3,λa,1)-OOSPC attaining the bound in Theorem 1.3 (see Table 1). The interested reader may get a copy of these data from the authors. We conjecture that when mn≡0(mod4), our bound for Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) with λa∈{2,3} shown in Theorem 1.3 is tight.
Theorem 1.4 determines the value of Θ(m,n,3,λa,1) with λa∈{2,3} for m,n≡2(mod4). To prove Theorem 1.4, the doubling construction (Construction 4.6) plays an important role. It seems that to solve other cases of m and n such that mn≡0(mod4), one must explore a quadrupling construction.
Bibliography29
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] R.J.R. Abel and M. Buratti, Some progress on ( v , 4 , 1 ) 𝑣 4 1 (v,4,1) difference families and optical orthogonal codes, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , Vol. 106 (2004), 59–75.
2[2] M. Buratti, Cyclic designs with block size 4 4 4 and related optimal optical orthogonal codes, Des. Codes Cryptography , Vol. 26 (2002), 111–125.
3[3] M. Buratti and A. Pasotti, Further progress on difference families with block size 4 4 4 or 5 5 5 , Des. Codes Cryptography , Vol. 56 (2010), 1–20.
4[4] M. Buratti, A. Pasotti, D. Wu, On optimal ( v , 5 , 2 , 1 ) 𝑣 5 2 1 (v,5,2,1) optical orthogonal codes, Des. Codes Cryptography , Vol. 68 (2013), 349–371.
5[5] J. Chen, L. Ji, and Y. Li, New optical orthogonal signature pattern codes with maximum collision parameter 2 2 2 and weight 4 4 4 , Des. Codes Cryptography , Vol. 85 (2017), 299–318.
6[6] J. Chen, L. Ji, and Y. Li, Combinatorial constructions of optimal ( m , n , 4 , 2 ) 𝑚 𝑛 4 2 (m,n,4,2) optical orthogonal signature pattern codes, Des. Codes Cryptography , Vol. 86 (2018), 1499–1525.
7[7] F.R.K. Chung, J.A Salehi, and V.K. Wei, Optical orthogonal codes: design, analysis, and applications, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , Vol. 35, No. 3 (1989), 595–604.