Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Improved Lower Bounds on the Capacity of the Binary Deletion Channel via a Learning Approach to Run-Length Inputs

Published 21 Sep 2026 in cs.IT | (2609.24908v1)

Abstract: The capacity C(d)C(d) of the i.i.d. binary deletion channel exists by Dobrushin's information-stability theorem, but no closed form is known. Classical constructive lower bounds from i.i.d. run-length coding have been evaluated only for one- or two-parameter families (geometric, Markov, or Morse-type). We show that the same infinite-blocklength functionals become strictly stronger when the run-length law PP is treated as a free distribution and optimized by learning. We reduce the Drinea--Mitzenmacher functional to a bilinear form in PP and prove that finite-support truncation is one-sided, so computed values remain valid lower bounds. We extend the Venkataramanan et al. reductions from geometric runs to arbitrary finite-support laws, including a residual-run HMM for output-bit entropy. Softmax gradient ascent searches PP; every reported number is a fresh one-sided evaluation of the formula, with no Monte Carlo and no finite length-entropy penalty. The envelope of the two optimized bounds exceeds Gallager's $1-h(d)$ (for $d&lt;1/2$) and the tabulated bounds of Drinea--Mitzenmacher, Venkataramanan et al., and Rubinstein--Con at every tested dd. Representative values: C(d)≥0.92212C(d)\ge 0.92212, $0.72939$, $0.56486$, $0.35127$, $0.22616$, $0.10414$, $0.02891$, $0.01322$ at d=0.01d=0.01, $0.05$, $0.10$, $0.20$, $0.30$, $0.50$, $0.80$, $0.90$. The largest absolute gain over that record is 3.7Ă—10<sup>−33.7\times 10<sup>{-3} bits (at d=0.30d=0.30); the largest relative gain is 6.8%6.8\% (at d=0.90d=0.90). For d≤0.45d\le 0.45 the envelope is the free-PP Venkataramanan functional; from d=0.50d=0.50 it is the learned Drinea--Mitzenmacher law. At large dd the optimizer finds sparse run-length combs that parametric families cannot represent. A concurrent enclosure of Papailiopoulos is stronger on much of [0,1][0,1], but our envelope remains larger at high dd (e.g. $0.02891$ vs $0.02884$ at d=0.80d=0.80; $0.01322$ vs $0.01293$ at d=0.90d=0.90).

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.