Interpolative Decoding Techniques

• Interpolative decoding is a technique that constructs interpolating polynomials or modules over finite fields to recover corrupted codewords.
• It leverages multiplicity augmentation and Gröbner basis methods to impose strict constraints and enhance error correction beyond traditional bounds.
• The method is applied across diverse coding frameworks—including classical block, rank-metric, and algebraic geometry codes—and even in behavioral modulation in LLMs.

Interpolative decoding is a class of algebraic decoding techniques centered on the construction and exploitation of interpolating polynomials or modules, typically over finite fields or related algebraic structures, that vanish on received (possibly corrupted) codewords with designed multiplicity or structural constraints. This approach underpins a range of state-of-the-art decoders for error correction in classical block codes (Reed–Solomon and alternant codes), rank-metric codes (Gabidulin, interleaved/linearized, and sum-rank codes), algebraic geometry codes, and even provides a parameterized mechanism for behavioral modulation in LLMs.

1. Foundational Principles and Key Paradigms

Interpolative decoding generalizes the fundamental idea that any function (e.g., codeword) subject to sufficient evaluation constraints on a subset of points can be recovered—wholly or in part—through algebraic interpolation. In the context of error correction, this principle is extended in two principal ways:

• Multiplicity Augmentation: Rather than finding a univariate polynomial that fits the received values, the decoder constructs a bivariate (or multivariate, possibly linearized) polynomial that vanishes at the received points (or appropriately-structured tuples) to a prescribed multiplicity $r$, ensuring that the resulting solution imposes more stringent constraints and allows recovery in high-noise regimes, notably beyond the classical “half-the-minimum distance” bound (0812.4937, Zeh et al., 2011, Wachter-Zeh et al., 2014).
• Module and Gröbner Basis Methods: The vanishing constraints define submodules of polynomial modules (e.g., $\mathbb{F}[x,y]$ or its extensions). Gröbner basis theory provides efficient means for constructing minimal generators, which directly yield solution candidates or facilitate structured root finding (0812.4937, Kuijper et al., 2014, Lee et al., 2011).

This paradigm dispenses with the “syndrome + key equation” framework prevalent in classical decoders, unifying list decoding, unique decoding, and error-erasure decoding in a common interpolation-based algebraic platform.

2. Core Algorithms and Structural Results

The implementation of interpolative decoding varies by code and metric, but exhibits several universal stages:

1. Formulation of an Interpolation Problem: Given a received set of (possibly corrupted) symbols $(x_i, y_i)$, and possibly higher-dimensional data, pose the problem of finding a nonzero $Q(x,y)$ such that $Q(x_i, y_i)$ vanishes to multiplicity $r$ for all $i$. Weighted degree and $y$-degree bounds are imposed to control list size and ensure the existence of solutions within desired capacity (0812.4937, Zeh et al., 2011, Wachter-Zeh et al., 2014).
2. Construction of the Interpolation Module (or Ideal): Encode the vanishing conditions as a module or ideal $I_r$ in a polynomial ring, often parameterized by the multiplicity vector or code parameters. In the modern formalism, this often involves module constructions over polynomial rings or their noncommutative analogs (skew/linearized) (0812.4937, Kuijper et al., 2014, Bartz et al., 2022).
3. Efficient Basis Computation: Employ a combination of module-basis extension, iterative Gröbner-basis updates, or binary-exponentiation (repeated ideal squaring and merging) to compute a minimal basis for $I_r$ or its module analog. The binary-exponentiation interpolation algorithm in (0812.4937) achieves a complexity improvement over both iterative interpolation and Lee–O'Sullivan's method, with re-encoding providing further acceleration.
4. Root Finding or Parametrization: Factorization of $Q(x, y)$ or structured root-finding (triangular linearized systems for linearized codes) extracts the set of codewords within the prescribed decoding radius. In rank-metric and interleaved settings, this is typically a linear system over a linearized polynomial ring, whose full-rank condition governs unique versus list decoding (Kuijper et al., 2014, Wachter-Zeh et al., 2014, Bartz et al., 2022).
5. Re-encoding and Compression: For high-rate codes, techniques such as re-encoding or periodicity projection simplify the interpolation system by inducing known zeros or block structures, resulting in reduced-dimensional homogeneous linear systems with dramatic savings in computational complexity (Senger, 2013).

3. Interpolative Decoding in Reed–Solomon and Alternant Codes

In Reed–Solomon and alternant code decoding, interpolative decoding replaces the classical key equation with the construction of a bivariate polynomial $Q(x, y)$ that passes through the received points $(x_i, y_i)$ with prescribed multiplicity. In the Guruswami–Sudan setting, this enables correction of up to the list-decoding radius, far beyond the unique-decoding bound (0812.4937, Zeh et al., 2011). The binary-exponentiation approach constructs $I_r$ via repeated ideal multiplication, with a randomized merge step ensuring rapid convergence. Re-encoding and periodicity projection introduce further memory and time economy by reducing the effective number of unknowns and equations (Senger, 2013).

List-size and complexity bounds for these decoders are controlled by interpolation module parameters $(r, \rho, l)$, balancing runtime against achievable decoding radius.

4. Interpolation in Rank-Metric, Sum-Rank, and Interleaved Codes

For Gabidulin, interleaved Gabidulin, linearized Reed–Solomon, and sum-rank metric codes, interpolative decoding techniques utilize multi-variate linearized polynomials vanishing at received data tuples. The key construction is the multivariate $q$-linearized interpolant $Q(x, y_1, \ldots, y_s)$, whose coefficients are determined by solving structured linear systems (Kuijper et al., 2014, Wachter-Zeh et al., 2014, Bartz et al., 2014, Bartz et al., 2022, Hörmann et al., 2023).

Distinctive technical mechanisms include:

• Skew/Linearized Polynomial Modules: Modules over $q$-linearized polynomial rings capture the algebraic structure of the code and channel, with efficient basis construction via minimal approximant or shifted Popov basis algorithms (Bartz et al., 2022).
• Root-Finding and List/Unique Decoding: The root-finding step reduces to structured (often triangular) systems; unique decoding is distinguished from list decoding by the full-rank condition of the solution space. High-probability unique decoding holds up to $\frac{s}{s+1}(n-k)$ sum-rank errors, well beyond the half-minimum-distance bound (Bartz et al., 2014, Bartz et al., 2022).
• Error-and-Erasure Capability: The interpolation framework extends directly to error and erasure patterns by composition with erasure-induced projectors in the linearized polynomial representation (Wachter-Zeh et al., 2014).

Decoders exploit block structure for parallelization, and simulations corroborate the tightness of decoding failure probability expressions.

5. Algebraic Geometry Codes and Generalizations

Interpolative decoding has been extended to algebraic geometry (AG) codes, both evaluation and differential, via the construction of interpolation modules in free modules over function fields and Riemann–Roch spaces (Lee, 2014, Lee et al., 2011). The recovery of message coefficients employs recursive Gröbner basis updates, majority voting, and "pairing/voting/rebasing" steps, enabling unique decoding up to the designed code bounds.

Key results include the module-based unification of syndrome and interpolation-based decoding, algorithmic regularity (enabling parallel implementation), and connections to the Feng–Rao/majority voting paradigm.

6. Interpolative Decoding in LLMs

Recent advances have appropriated the interpolative decoding paradigm for behavioral control in LLMs. Here, the mechanism is not error correction, but smooth behavioral modulation along continuous axes (e.g., psychological traits). Each axis is defined by a pair of opposed prompts, yielding two endpoint token distributions; decoding uses a convex combination parameterized by $\alpha$: $$D_\alpha(w|h) = (1 - \alpha) P_-(w|h) + \alpha P_+(w|h)$$ At each generation step, the model samples from $D_\alpha$ to “dial in” intermediate behaviors (Yeh et al., 23 Dec 2025).

Empirical studies confirm that this approach reliably modulates model outputs along intended trait dimensions (e.g., Big Five personality), with nearly linear mappings from $\alpha$ to standard inventory scores and to systematic changes in decision-theoretic tasks. Optimization in this interpolation space enables “twinning” of human subjects by matching observed sequences, achieving high behavioral fidelity. Nonetheless, the method’s generalization is constrained by prompt-semantic coverage and convexity limitations.

7. Complexity, Limitations, and Future Directions

Interpolative decoding achieves significant improvements in decoding complexity and error correction capacity. For Guruswami–Sudan interpolation, binary exponentiation and randomized merge enable runtimes $O(n r^3 (n - \sqrt{nk}))$, with further constant-factor gains when re-encoding is incorporated (0812.4937). In interleaved and sum-rank codes, the minimal approximant basis technique achieves subquadratic complexity in code length (Bartz et al., 2022, Hörmann et al., 2023). The complexity and empirical performance consistently scale favorably with error corrections extending beyond half the minimum distance, with low failure probability for random or typical error patterns.

Outstanding limitations include the restriction to behaviors (or error patterns) expressible within the “convex hull” or module structure imposed by the interpolation constraints. In LLM applications, prompt construction remains a manual, semantically ambiguous process, and interpolation cannot extrapolate beyond endpoint semantic variation (Yeh et al., 23 Dec 2025). In coding theory, extensions to heterogeneous multiplicities, soft-decision regimes, and further algebraic structures (e.g., rational curve fitting, Wu’s list decoding) remain active research topics.

---

References:

• Efficient Interpolation in the Guruswami-Sudan Algorithm (0812.4937)
• Iterative List-Decoding of Gabidulin Codes via Gröbner Based Interpolation (Kuijper et al., 2014)
• Efficient Interpolation-Based Decoding of Interleaved Subspace and Gabidulin Codes (Bartz et al., 2014)
• Fast Decoding of Interleaved Linearized Reed-Solomon Codes and Variants (Bartz et al., 2022)
• Interpolation-Based Decoding of Folded Variants of Linearized and Skew Reed-Solomon Codes (Hörmann et al., 2023)
• Re-Encoding Techniques for Interpolation-Based Decoding of Reed-Solomon Codes (Senger, 2013)
• Interpolative Decoding: Exploring the Spectrum of Personality Traits in LLMs (Yeh et al., 23 Dec 2025)
• Decoding of Differential AG Codes (Lee, 2014)
• Unique Decoding of Plane AG Codes via Interpolation (Lee et al., 2011)
• List and Unique Error-Erasure Decoding of Interleaved Gabidulin Codes with Interpolation Techniques (Wachter-Zeh et al., 2014)
• An Interpolation Procedure for List Decoding Reed--Solomon codes Based on Generalized Key Equations (Zeh et al., 2011)
• Efficient Interpolation-Based Decoding of Reed-Solomon Codes (Kadir et al., 2023)