Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Extremal orthogonal arrays

Alexander L. Gavrilyuk, Sho Suda

TL;DR

The work investigates extremal orthogonal arrays within the Hamming association scheme by leveraging Delsarte t-design theory. By showing that an extremal OA yields a fission scheme with $2s-1$ or $2s$ classes and deriving its second eigenmatrix, the authors obtain a new distance-inequality framework and a necessary modular condition for existence of tight 3-designs in $H(n,q)$. The results connect extremal designs to coding-theoretic objects (e.g., Golay codes) and extend previous inequalities of Ionin–Shrikhande to the OA/Hamming setting. Overall, the paper advances structural constraints and feasibility criteria for extremal and tight designs in Q-polynomial association schemes, with implications for the existence and classification of tight 3-designs in Hamming schemes.

Abstract

It is known that a Delsarte $t$-design in a $Q$-polynomial association scheme has degree at least $\left \lceil{\frac{t}{2}}\right \rceil $. Following Ionin and Shrikhande who studied combinatorial $(2s-1)$-designs (i.e., Delsarte designs in Johnson association schemes) having exactly $s$ block intersection numbers, we call a Delsarte $(2s-1)$-design with degree $s$ extremal and study extremal orthogonal arrays, which are Delsarte designs in Hamming association schemes. It was shown by Delsarte that a $t$-design with degree $s$ and $t\geq 2s-2$ in a Hamming association scheme induces an $s$-class association scheme. We prove that an extremal orthogonal array gives rise to a fission scheme of the latter one, which has $2s-1$ or $2s$ classes. As a corollary, a new necessary condition for the existence of tight orthogonal arrays of strength $3$ is obtained. Furthermore, as a counterpart to a result of Ionin and Shrikhande, we prove an inequality for Hamming distances in extremal orthogonal arrays. The inequality is tight as shown by examples related to the Golay codes.

Extremal orthogonal arrays

TL;DR

The work investigates extremal orthogonal arrays within the Hamming association scheme by leveraging Delsarte t-design theory. By showing that an extremal OA yields a fission scheme with or classes and deriving its second eigenmatrix, the authors obtain a new distance-inequality framework and a necessary modular condition for existence of tight 3-designs in . The results connect extremal designs to coding-theoretic objects (e.g., Golay codes) and extend previous inequalities of Ionin–Shrikhande to the OA/Hamming setting. Overall, the paper advances structural constraints and feasibility criteria for extremal and tight designs in Q-polynomial association schemes, with implications for the existence and classification of tight 3-designs in Hamming schemes.

Abstract

It is known that a Delsarte -design in a -polynomial association scheme has degree at least . Following Ionin and Shrikhande who studied combinatorial -designs (i.e., Delsarte designs in Johnson association schemes) having exactly block intersection numbers, we call a Delsarte -design with degree extremal and study extremal orthogonal arrays, which are Delsarte designs in Hamming association schemes. It was shown by Delsarte that a -design with degree and in a Hamming association scheme induces an -class association scheme. We prove that an extremal orthogonal array gives rise to a fission scheme of the latter one, which has or classes. As a corollary, a new necessary condition for the existence of tight orthogonal arrays of strength is obtained. Furthermore, as a counterpart to a result of Ionin and Shrikhande, we prove an inequality for Hamming distances in extremal orthogonal arrays. The inequality is tight as shown by examples related to the Golay codes.
Paper Structure (6 sections, 9 theorems, 18 equations)

This paper contains 6 sections, 9 theorems, 18 equations.

Key Result

Theorem 2.1

(CJ, cf. BCN) Let $(X, \{R_i\}_{i=0}^D)$ be an association scheme of $D$ classes with second eigenmatrix $Q$ and Krein parameters $q_{ij}^k$$(0 \le i,j,k \le D)$. Then

Theorems & Definitions (13)

  • Theorem 2.1
  • Lemma 2.2
  • Corollary 2.3
  • proof
  • Lemma 2.4
  • Theorem 2.5
  • Theorem 2.6
  • Lemma 3.1
  • proof
  • Proposition 3.2
  • ...and 3 more