IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 60, N. 10, PP. 5930-5937, OCTOBER 2014

1

New Lower Bounds on the Generalized Hamming
Weights of AG Codes

arXiv:1706.09770v1 [] 29 Jun 2017

Maria Bras-Amorós, Kwankyu Lee, and Albert Vico-Oton

Abstract—A sharp upper bound for the maximum integer not
belonging to an ideal of a numerical semigroup is given and the
ideals attaining this bound are characterized. Then the result
is used, through the so-called Feng-Rao numbers, to bound the
generalized Hamming weights of algebraic-geometry codes. This
is further developed for Hermitian codes and the codes on one of
the Garcia-Stichtenoth towers, as well as for some more general
families.
Index Terms—Numerical semigroup, ideal of a semigroup,
AG code, isometry-dual sets of AG codes, generalized Hamming weights, order bound, Feng-Rao number, Hermitian codes,
Garcia-Stichtenoth towers.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The generalized Hamming weights of a linear code are the
minimum size of the support of the linear subspaces of the
code of each given dimension. They have many applications
in a variety of fields of communications. The notion was first
used by Wei [40] to analyze the performance of the wiretap channel of type II introduced in [34] and in connection
to t-resilient functions. See also [28]. The connections with
the wire-tap channel have been updated recently in [37],
this time using network coding. The notion itself has also
been generalized for network coding in [30]. The generalized
Hamming weights have also been used in the context of list
decoding [21], [20]. In particular, Guruswami shows that his
(e, L)-list decodibility concept for erasures is equivalent with
the generalized Hamming weights for linear codes. Finally, the
generalized Hamming weights also appear for bounding the
covering radius of linear codes [24], and recently for secure
secret sharing based on linear codes [10], [26].
M. Bras-Amorós is with the Department of Computer Engineering and
Mathematics, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona 43007, Catalonia, Spain
(e-mail: maria.bras@urv.cat). She was partly supported by the Spanish
Government through project TIN2012-32757 “ICWT”, and CONSOLIDER
INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-0004 “ARES”, and by the Government of Catalonia
under grant 2014 SGR 537.
K. Lee is with the Department of Mathematics and Education, Chosun
University, Gwangju 501-759, Korea (e-mail: kwankyu@chosun.ac.kr). He
was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (2013R1A1A2009714).
Albert Vico-Oton is with the Department of Computer Engineering and
Mathematics, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona 43007, Catalonia, Spain
(e-mail: albert.vico@urv.cat). He was partly supported by the Spanish Government through project TIN2012-32757 “ICWT”, and CONSOLIDER INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-0004 “ARES”, and by the Government of Catalonia
under grant 2009 SGR 1135.
A small part of the results presented in this paper (Section II and a reduced
version of Theorem 11) was presented in the Forum ”Galois Geometries and
Applications” held at the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science
and the Arts in 2012 [5].

In this contribution, we deal with the generalized Hamming
weights of one-point AG codes from the perspective of the
associated Weierstrass semigroup, that is, the set of pole
orders of the rational functions having a unique pole at the
defining one point. A numerical semigroup is a subset of
the nonnegative integers N0 that contains 0, is closed under
addition, and has a finite complement in N0 . The elements
in this complement are called the gaps of the semigroup and
the number of gaps is called the genus. The maximum gap is
usually referred to as the Frobenius number of the semigroup
and the conductor is the Frobenius number plus one. By the
pigeonhole principle it is easy to prove that the Frobenius
number is at most twice the genus minus one, and there
are semigroups, called symmetric semigroups, attaining this
bound.
An ideal of a numerical semigroup is a subset of the
semigroup such that any element in the subset plus any
element of the semigroup add up to an element of the subset.
Again the ideal will be a subset of N0 with finite complement
in it. Our first result is an analogue of the upper bound on the
Frobenius number of the semigroup, for the largest integer not
belonging to an ideal, which will also be called the Frobenius
number of the ideal. Indeed, we prove that it is at most the size
of the complement of the ideal in the semigroup plus twice the
genus minus one (Theorem 3). This generalizes the bound on
the Frobenius number of the semigroup since that bound can
be derived from this bound by taking the ideal to be the whole
semigroup. Then we characterize the ideals whose Frobenius
number attains the bound. It turns out that the set of codes in
a sequence of one-point AG codes are pairwise isometric to
the set of duals of the same codes if and only if the set of
pole-orders defining the codes is exactly the complement of
one such ideal [19].
A nice tool for tackling the generalized Hamming weights
for AG codes are the generalized order bounds introduced in
[22], involving Weierstrass semigroups. In [13], a constant
depending only on the semigroup and the dimension of the
Hamming weights was introduced, from which the order
bounds could be completely determined for codes of rate low
enough. This constant was called Feng-Rao number. In the
present contribution, using the upper bound on the Frobenius
number of an ideal, we derive a lower bound on the Feng-Rao
numbers and consequently a new bound on the generalized
Hamming weights (Theorem 11, Corollary 13). This is done by
analyzing the intervals of consecutive gaps of the Weierstrass
semigroup. Consecutive gaps were already used in [16] for
bounding the minimum distance of codes and in [39] for
bounding the generalized Hamming weights, in this case for

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 60, N. 10, PP. 5930-5937, OCTOBER 2014

primal codes. In the last section, we study the intervals of
consecutive gaps for Hermitian codes and for codes in one of
the Garcia-Stichtenoth towers of codes attaining the DrinfeldVlăduţ bound, as well as for their respective generalizations to
semigroups generated by intervals and inductive semigroups.

2

B. Ideals attaining the upper bound
We will devote this section to characterize the ideals of
semigroups that attain the upper bound on the Frobenius
number of the ideal. We first need some preliminary lemmas.
Lemma 4. If G(i) = 0 then λi > c.

II. T HE F ROBENIUS

NUMBER OF AN IDEAL

From now on, Λ will denote a numerical semigroup and
the elements of Λ are denoted {λ0 = 0 < λ1 < . . . }.
The Frobenius number is F , the conductor is c, and the
genus is g. Given an ideal I of a numerical semigroup Λ,
we call the size of Λ \ I the difference of I with respect to
Λ. We call the ideals of the form a + Λ for some a ∈ Λ
principal ideals. It was proved in [23, Lemma 5.15] that the
difference of the principal ideal a + Λ is exactly a. So, for
principal ideals, the Frobenius number of the ideal is at most
the difference plus twice the genus of the semigroup minus
one. In Theorem 3, we will prove that the same holds for any
ideal of a numerical semigroup. Then we will characterize the
semigroups for which the inequality is indeed an equality.

A. An upper bound for the Frobenius number of an ideal
Define the set of divisors of λi by
D(i) = {λj 6 λi : λi − λj ∈ Λ}
and νi = #D(i) for i ∈ N0 . Some results related to the
sequence νi and also to its applications to coding theory can
be found for instance in [25], [3], [4], [29], [31], [32], [33].
Barucci [2] proved the next result.
Lemma 1. Any ideal of a numerical semigroup is an intersection of irreducible ideals and irreducible ideals have the
form Λ \ D(i) for some i.
The next result was proved in [23, Theorem 5.24].
Lemma 2. Let g(i) be the number of gaps smaller than λi
and G(i) the number of pairs of gaps adding up to λi . Then
νi = i − g(i) + G(i) + 1.
Now we can state the main result of this section.
Theorem 3. Suppose that a numerical semigroup has genus
g. Suppose that I is an ideal of the semigroup with difference
d. Then, the Frobenius number of I is at most d + 2g − 1. That
is, d + 2g + i ∈ I for all i > 0.
Proof: If two ideals satisfy the result, then their intersection also satisfies it. So by Lemma 1, it suffices to prove the
result for irreducible ideals. Now we want to prove the result
for the ideal I = Λ \ D(i). That is, νi + 2g > max{c, λi + 1},
where c is the conductor of Λ. If c > λi + 1 then we are
done since c 6 2g. Suppose then that λi + 1 > c. Then
g(i) = g, λi = i + g, and hence by Lemma 2, νi + 2g =
(i−g+G(i)+1)+2g = i+g+1+G(i) = λi +1+G(i) > λi +1.

Proof: If G(i) = 0 then, since 1, . . . , λ1 − 1 are gaps,
λi − λ1 + 1, . . . , λi − 1 are non-gaps. But also λi ∈ Λ so
the interval [λi − λ1 + 1, . . . , λi ] is included in Λ. Now, by
adding multiples of λ1 to the elements in this interval we get
the whole set of integers λi + k with k > 0. Then λi > c.
Lemma 5. G(i) = 0 if and only if {λi − F } ∪ {λi − F + h :
h 6∈ Λ, F − h 6∈ Λ} ⊆ Λ.
Proof: Suppose G(i) = 0. Then obviously λi − F ∈ Λ.
Now suppose that h 6∈ Λ, F − h 6∈ Λ. We need to see that
λi − F + h ∈ Λ. But λi − F + h = λi − (F − h) ∈ Λ since
G(i) = 0 and F − h 6∈ Λ. On the other hand, suppose that
{λi − F } ∪{λi − F + h : h 6∈ Λ, F − h 6∈ Λ} ⊆ Λ and we want
to prove that G(i) = 0. If G(i) 6= 0 then there exists a gap h′
such that λi − h′ is a gap. But λi − h′ = (λi − F ) + (F − h′ ).
Since λi − F ∈ Λ by hypothesis, F − h′ must be a gap. Let us
call this gap h = F −h′ . Then both h and F −h = h′ are gaps
and, by the hypothesis, λi −F +h ∈ Λ. But λi −F +h = λi −h′
is a gap, a contradiction. Then G(i) = 0.
Lemma 6. If G(i) = 0 then Λ \ D(i) = {λi − h : h ∈ Z \ Λ}.
Proof: By Lemma 4, we know that λi > c. To see the
inclusion ⊇ suppose that h ∈ Z \ Λ. If h < 0 then λi − h > λi
and thus λi ∈ Λ \ D(i). If h > 0 then h < c and, since
λi > c, λi − h > 0. Then λi − h ∈ Λ because G(i) = 0.
Finally λi − h 6∈ D(i) by definition of D(i). For the reverse
inclusion, suppose that λ ∈ Λ\D(i). If λ > λi then λ = λi −h
with h < 0 and so h ∈ Z \ Λ. If λ < λi then λi − λ is a gap
h because otherwise λ ∈ D(i). So, λ ∈ {λi − h : h ∈ Z \ Λ}.
Theorem 7. Suppose that Λ is a numerical semigroup of genus
g. Let I be an ideal of Λ with difference d > 0. Then the next
statements are equivalent:
1) The Frobenius number of I is exactly d + 2g − 1.
2) I = Λ \ D(i) for some i with G(i) = 0.
3) Λ\I = Λ∩((d+2g−1)−Λ) = {λ ∈ Λ : d+2g−1−λ ∈
Λ}
4) I = {λi − h : h ∈ Z \ Λ} for some i with G(i) = 0.
5) {a + h : h 6∈ Λ, F − h 6∈ Λ} ⊆ Λ and I = (a + Λ) ∪
{a + h : h 6∈ Λ, F − h 6∈ Λ} for some a ∈ Λ, a > 0.
Proof: (1)⇐⇒(2): Suppose first that I = Λ \ D(i) for
some i with G(i) = 0. Then d = νi . Also, by Lemma 4,
g(i) = g and λi = i + g. Now, by Lemma 2, d + 2g − 1 =
λi 6∈ I.
Conversely, suppose that the Frobenius number of I is d +
2g − 1. If I is a proper intersection of two ideals I ′ and I ′′
with difference d′ and d′′ respectively, then I has difference d
strictly larger than d′ and strictly larger than d′′ . If d + 2g − 1
does not belong to I then it does not belong either to I ′ or
to I ′′ , but d + 2g − 1 is strictly larger than d′ + 2g − 1 and

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 60, N. 10, PP. 5930-5937, OCTOBER 2014

strictly larger than d′′ + 2g − 1, contradicting Theorem 3. So,
I must be, by Lemma 1, Λ \ D(i) for some i.
Since I = Λ \ D(i), it holds d = νi . If λi < c, then
νi + 2g − 1 > 1 + 2g − 1 = 2g > c and so d + 2g − 1 ∈ I,
which contradicts our assumption. Therefore λi > c. Then
νi = i−g+G(i)+1 by Lemma 2. So d+2g−1 = i+g+G(i) =
λi + G(i). Since d + 2g − 1 6∈ I, it follows that G(i) = 0.
(2)⇐⇒(3) is immediate by replacing i by d + g − 1.
(2)⇐⇒(4) follows immediatelly from Lemma 6.
(4)⇐⇒(5) follows from Lemma 5, by setting a = λi − F ,
and using the equality {λi − h : h ∈ Z \ Λ} = {a + (F − h) :
h ∈ Z \ Λ}, and the fact that {F − h : h ∈ Z \ Λ} = Λ ∪ {h :
h 6∈ Λ, F − h 6∈ Λ}.
As an example, consider the semigroup
Λ = {0, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, →}.
We will list all the ideals I satisfying d + 2g − 1 6∈ I (d the
difference of I). Since the largest i for which G(i) > 0 is 16
as 11 + 11 = 22 = λ16 , all ideals I = Λ \ D(i) with i > 17
attain the bound. It remains to see what indices i between 6
and 15 satisfy G(i) = 0.
For i = 6, G(i) > 0 since λi = 12 = 11 + 1.
For i = 7, G(i) > 0 since λi = 13 = 11 + 2.
For i = 8, G(i) > 0 since λi = 14 = 11 + 3.
For i = 9, G(i) = 0. Indeed, {15 − 1 = 14, 15 − 2 =
13, 15 − 3 = 12, 15 − 6 = 9, 15 − 7 = 8, 15 − 11 = 4} ⊆ Λ.
For i = 10 G(i) = 0. Indeed, {16 − 1 = 15, 16 − 2 =
14, 16 − 3 = 13, 16 − 6 = 10, 16 − 7 = 9, 16 − 11 = 5} ⊆ Λ.
For i = 11 G(i) > 0 since λi = 17 = 11 + 6.
For i = 12 G(i) > 0 since λi = 18 = 11 + 7.
For i = 13 G(i) = 0. Indeed, {19 − 1 = 18, 19 − 2 =
17, 19 − 3 = 16, 19 − 6 = 13, 19 − 7 = 12, 19 − 11 = 8} ⊆ Λ.
For i = 14 G(i) = 0. Indeed, {20 − 1 = 19, 20 − 2 =
18, 20 − 3 = 17, 20 − 6 = 14, 20 − 7 = 13, 20 − 11 = 9} ⊆ Λ.
For i = 15 G(i) = 0. Indeed, {21 − 1 = 20, 21 − 2 =
19, 21−3 = 18, 21−6 = 15, 21−7 = 14, 21−11 = 10} ⊆ Λ.
Hence, all ideals attaining the bound in Theorem 3 are

3

with D(17) = {0, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23}, d = 12,
d + 2g − 1 = 23; and Λ \ D(i) for all i > 17. In this last
case, D(i) = {0, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, . . ., i + 6 − 12, i + 6 −
10, i + 6 − 9, i + 6 − 8, i + 6 − 5, i + 6 − 4, i + 6}, d = i − 5,
d + 2g − 1 = i + 6.
In the next corollary we prove that for a symmetric semigroup, the ideals attaining the bound on the Frobenius number
of the ideal are exactly the principal ideals.
Corollary 8. Let Λ be a symmetric numerical semigroup with
Frobenius number F and genus g. Suppose that I is an ideal
of Λ with difference d. Then the Frobenius number of I is
d + 2g − 1 if and only if I is principal.
Proof: It follows from Theorem 7 and the fact that for
any gap h of a symmetric semigroup, F − h ∈ Λ.
This can be checked again with the previous example since
the semigroup Λ in there is symmetric. Notice though that the
hypothesis of being symmetric is necessary. For instance, take
Λ = {0, 4, 8, 9, . . . } which has genus 6 and Frobenius number
7 and so it is not symmetric. Consider its ideal
I = Λ\D(10) = Λ\{0, 4, 8, 12, 16} = {9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, . . .}
Its difference is d = 5 and its Frobenius number is d+2g−1 =
16. However, I is not
9 + Λ = {9, 13, 17, 18, . . . }.
The elements 10, 11, 14, 15 have to be included in I in order
to have d + 2g − 1 6∈ I. Hence, I is not principal as I =
(9 + Λ) ∪ {10, 11, 14, 15}.

Remark 9. It is shown in [19] that the ideals attaining the
bound in Theorem 3 arise in the characterization of sequences
of one-point AG codes that are auto-dual in the following
sense. Two codes C, D ⊆ Fnq are said to be x-isometric, for
x ∈ Fnq if and only if the map χx : Fnq → Fnq given by the
component-wise product χx (v) = x ∗ v satisfies χx (C) = D.
Then, a sequence of codes (Ci )i=0,...,n is said to satisfy the
isometry-dual condition if there exists x ∈ (F∗q )n such that
⊥
I9 = Λ\D(9) = {4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, . . .},Ci is x-isometric to Cn−i
for all i = 0, 1, . . . , n. Now let
P1 , . . . , Pn , Q be different rational points of a (projective, nonwith D(9) = {0, 5, 10, 15}, d = 4, d + 2g − 1 = 15;
singular, geometrically irreducible) curve with genus g and
define
Cm = {(f (P1 ), . . . , f (Pn )) : f ∈ L(mQ)}. Note that
I10 = Λ\D(10) = {5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, . . .},
it can be the case that Cm = Cm−1 . Let W be the Weierstrass
with D(10) = {0, 4, 8, 12, 16}, d = 5, d + 2g − 1 = 16;
semigroup at Q and let W ∗ = {0} ∪ {m ∈ N, m > 0 : Cm 6=
∗
C
m−1 } = {m0 = 0, m1 , . . . , mn }. Then W \ W is an ideal
I13 = Λ \ D(13) = {8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, . . .},
of W (this is stated in different words in [19, Corollary 3.3.]).
with D(13) = {0, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19}, d = 8, d + 2g − 1 = In particular, Cm0 , Cm1 , . . . , Cmn satisfies the isometry-dual
19;
condition if and only if n + 2g − 1 ∈ W ∗ , that is, if and only
if W \ W ∗ hits the bound in Theorem 3. This is proved in
I14 = Λ \ D(14) = {9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, . . .},
[19, Proposition 4.3.].
with D(14) = {0, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20}, d = 9, d + 2g −
1 = 20;
III. A LOWER BOUND ON THE F ENG -R AO NUMBERS
I15 = Λ \ D(15) = {10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, . . .},

with D(15) = {0, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21}, d = 10, d +
2g − 1 = 21;
I17 = Λ \ D(17) = {12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, . . .},

A. Feng-Rao numbers
Suppose Λ = {λ0 = 0 < λ1 < . . . } is a numerical
semigroup. In coding theory, the ν sequence of Λ defined
above is very important. In particular, for an algebraic curve
with Weierstrass semigroup Λ at a rational point P , the order

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 60, N. 10, PP. 5930-5937, OCTOBER 2014

(or Feng-Rao) bound on the minimum distance of the duals of
the one-point codes defined on P by the evaluation of rational
functions having only poles at P of order at most λm is defined
as δ(m) = min{νi : i > m} [15], [25], [23]. Some results on
its computation can be found in [8], [23], [3], [29], [31], [32],
[33].
A generalization of this bound is the r-th order bound on the
generalized r-th generalized Hamming weight. For this define
D(i) as before and
D(i1 , . . . , ir ) = D(i1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ D(ir ).
Then the r-th order bound is defined as
δr (m) = min{#D(i1 , . . . , ir ) : i1 , . . . , ir > m}.
This definition was introduced in [22]. It is proved by Farrán
and Munuera in [13] that for each numerical semigroup Λ
and each integer r > 2 there exists a constant Er = E(Λ, r),
called r-th Feng-Rao number, such that
1) δr (m) = m+2−g +Er for all m such that λm > 2c−2
[13, Theorem 3],
2) δr (m) > m + 2 − g + Er for any m such that λm > c
[13, Theorem 8],
where c and g are respectively the conductor and the genus of
Λ. Note that this is an extension of the Goppa bound for the
case r = 1, with Er = 0 [23, Theorem 5.24].
Furthermore, Er satisfies
3) r 6 Er 6 λr−1 if g > 0 (and r > 2) [13, Proposition
5],
4) Er = λr−1 if r > c [13, Proposition 5],
5) Er = r − 1 if g = 0.
Some further results related to the Feng-Rao number can be
found in [13], [14], [11]. Here we use the main result in the
previous section to obtain a lower bound on Er , which is
strictly better than the bound Er > r for r > 2 and for
semigroups with more than two intervals of gaps.
B. Bound on the Feng-Rao numbers
For our bound on the Feng-Rao numbers we first need the
next lemma.
Lemma 10. Consider the set of sets
A(a1 , ar , r, ℓ) =

4

is ar − a1 + 1 − r. So, ar − a1 + 1 − r > r−ℓ
ℓ−1 or, equivalently,
ℓ−1 > (ℓ−1)(a1 −ar )+ℓ(r−1). Hence, α(A) = a1 +ℓ−1 =
max{a1 + ℓ − 1, a1 + (ℓ − 1)(a1 − ar ) + ℓ(r − 1)}.
Otherwise, we can assume that α(A) > a1 + (ℓ − 1). In this
case, A must be equal to

{a1 , a1 + 1, a1 + 2, . . . , α(A) = ar − ℓt} ∪ {ar − ℓt + 2, . . . , ar − ℓ(t − 1
∪ · · · ∪ {ar − 2ℓ + 2, . . . , ar − ℓ} ∪ {ar − ℓ + 2, . . . , ar },
for t the number of integers in the interval [a1 , ar ] not
belonging to A, that is, t = ar − a1 + 1 − r. So, α(A) =
a1 + (ℓ − 1)(a1 − ar ) + ℓ(r − 1) = max{a1 + ℓ − 1, a1 + (ℓ −
1)(a1 − ar ) + ℓ(r − 1)}.
Theorem 11. Suppose that ℓ > 1 is an integer and that nℓ−1
is the number of intervals of at least ℓ − 1 gaps of Λ. Then
the following inequality holds.





(ℓ − 1)nℓ−1
r
,r − 1 +
(1).
Er > min r − 2 +
ℓ−1
ℓ
Proof: By definition of δr (m), there exist integers
i1 , . . . , ir with m < i1 < · · · < ir such that
δr (m) = #D(i1 , . . . , ir ). The integers i1 , . . . , ir minimize
#D(i1 , . . . , ir ). Denote A the set {i1 , . . . , ir }. Suppose that
m is an integer with m > 2c − 1 − g. By the definition of Er ,
δr (m) = m + 2 − g + Er .
Since A minimizes #D(i1 , . . . , ir ), it necessarily holds that
i1 = m+1. Applying Theorem 3 to the ideal Λ\D(i1 , . . . , ir ),
we get (m+2−g+Er)+(2g−1) > λir = g+ir . Reorganizing
the inequality gives
ir 6 m + 1 + Er .

(2)

Suppose now that there are no ℓ consecutive integers in A.
Then


r − (ℓ − 1)
.
(3)
ir > m + 1 + r − 1 +
ℓ−1
l
m
r
Now, by (2), Er > r − 2 + ℓ−1
. Suppose on the other hand
that there are at least ℓ consecutive integers in A. Let ij be
the maximum integer in A such that ij − ℓ + 1, . . . , ij ∈ A
and so ij−ℓ+1 = ij − ℓ + 1, . . . , ij−1 = ij − 1 and
λij−ℓ+1 = λij − ℓ + 1, . . . , λij−1 = λij − 1.
Let
Γ = {λ ∈ Λ : λ + 1, . . . , λ + ℓ − 1 6∈ Λ}.

{A ⊂ N0 : #A = r,

In particular, if λ ∈ Γ then λ < c, for c the conductor of Λ.
min(A) = a1 , max(A) = ar ,
A contains at least ℓ consecutive integers}.Obviously #Γ = nℓ−1 . If λ ∈ Γ then
For each A ∈ A define α(A) = max{a ∈ A : a − ℓ +
1, . . . , a ∈ A}. If A has minimum α(A) among the sets in A,
then

(λij − 1) − λ

∈ D(ij−1 ) \ D(ij ),

(λij − 2) − λ

α(A) = max{a1 + ℓ − 1, a1 + (ℓ − 1)(a1 − ar ) + ℓ(r − 1)}.

(λij − ℓ + 1) − λ

∈ D(ij−2 ) \ D(ij ),
..
.
∈ D(ij−ℓ+1 ) \ D(ij ).

Proof: Suppose that A has minimum α(A) among the
sets in A. If a1 , a1 + 1, . . . , a1 + (ℓ − 1) ∈ A and α(A) =
r−ℓ
aℓ = a1 + ℓ − 1, this means that there must be at least ℓ−1
integers in the interval [a1 , ar ] not belonging to A since for
each ℓ − 1 integers remaining in A there must be at least one
element not in A. But the number of integers in [a1 , ar ] \ A

and so
{λij −1−λ, λij −2−λ, . . . , λij −ℓ+1−λ} ⊆ D(ij−ℓ+1 , . . . , ij−1 )\D(ij ).
In fact,
∪λ∈Γ {λij −1−λ, . . . , λij −ℓ+1−λ} ⊆ D(ij−ℓ+1 , . . . , ij−1 )\D(ij )

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 60, N. 10, PP. 5930-5937, OCTOBER 2014

and the sets in this union are disjoint. Indeed, for λ, λ′ ∈ Γ,
with λ > λ′ , it holds λ − λ′ > ℓ. Then, min{λij − 1 −
λ′ , . . . , λij − ℓ + 1 − λ′ } = λij − ℓ + 1 − λ′ > λij + 1 − λ >
max{λij − 1 − λ, . . . , λij − ℓ + 1 − λ}.
So,
#D(i1 , . . . , ir ) >
>
=

#D(ij−ℓ+1 , . . . , ij )
(ℓ − 1)nℓ−1 + νij

(4)

(ℓ − 1)nℓ−1 + ij + 1 − g.

Since D(i1 , . . . , ir ) = m + 2 − g + Er we get that m + 2 −
g + Er > (ℓ − 1)nℓ−1 + ij + 1 − g, so
Er > (ℓ − 1)nℓ−1 + ij − m − 1.

(5)

Now, by the maximality of j, and by Lemma 10,
ij > max{i1 + ℓ − 1, i1 + (ℓ − 1)(i1 − ir ) + ℓ(r − 1)}. (6)
This implies
ij > i1 + ℓ − 1,

(7)

ij > i1 + (ℓ − 1)(i1 − ir ) + ℓ(r − 1).

(8)

and

5

bound makes sense when ℓ < r/2 + 1. The same happens for
nℓ−1 = 0. So, we are interested in the values of ℓ such that
• nℓ−1 > 0
• ℓ < r/2 + 1.
Corollary 13. Let m be such that λm > c and let ℓ > 2. Then




(ℓ − 1)nℓ−1
r
, r−1+
}.
δr (m) > m+2−g+min{r−2+
ℓ−1
ℓ
Remark 14. From bound (1), taking ℓ = 2, we deduce that, if
n is the number of intervals of (at least one) gaps of Λ, then
Er > min{2(r − 1), r − 1 + ⌈n/2⌉}.

(9)

Remark 15. If r = 2 or n 6 2 then bound (9) equals the
bound Er > r. But in any other case, bound (9) is better.
Corollary 16. If Λ is a semigroup with conductor c and n
intervals of gaps then, for any m with λm > c,

m − g + 2r
if r 6 ⌈n/2⌉ + 1,
δr (m) >
m − g + r + ⌈n/2⌉ + 1 otherwise.
C. Sharpness of the bound

Analyzing the proof of Theorem 11 we see that the
bound (1) may be sharp only if
1) The inequality in (2), obtained applying Theorem 3 to
the ideal Λ \ D(i1 , . . . ir ), is indeed an equality. This
means, by applying Theorem 7 to the same ideal, that
Er > (ℓ − 1)nℓ−1 + i1 + (ℓ − 1)(i1 − ir ) + ℓ(r − 1) − m − 1
D(i1 , . . . , ir ) = D(ir ), and so i1 , . . . , ir−1 ⊆ ir − Λ. In
= (ℓ − 1)nℓ−1 + (ℓ − 1)(i1 − ir ) + ℓ(r − 1)
particular, ir − ir−1 > λ1 .
> (ℓ − 1)nℓ−1 − (ℓ − 1)Er + ℓ(r − 1)
2) Either the inequality in (3) or both the inequalities in
l
m
(4) and (6) are indeed equalities, which means that the
ℓ−1
and we conclude that Er > r − 1 + (ℓ−1)n
.
difference between ir and ir−1 is at most two. So, ir −
ℓ
We have seen that, depending on whether I contains
ir−1 6 2.
m ℓ
l
r
or
consecutive integers or not, either Er > r − 2 + ℓ−1
We conclude that the only semigroups for which the bound
m
l
may be sharp are hyperelliptic semigroups, that is, semigroups
(ℓ−1)nℓ−1
}. So, we
Er > max{(ℓ − 1)(nℓ−1 + 1), r − 1 +
ℓ
that contain 2.
deduce the bounds
It is proved in [14, Theorem 1] that for hyperelliptic


r
semigroups,
Er = λr−1 = 2(r − 1). The bound (1) for the
Er > min{r − 2 +
, (ℓ − 1)(nℓ−1 + 1)},
ℓ−1
hyperelliptic semigroup of genus g is





(ℓ − 1)nℓ−1
r
if ℓ > 2
 r−1
,r − 1 +
}.
Er > min{r − 2 +
ℓ−1
ℓ
2(r − 1)
if ℓ = 2 and r − 1 6 ⌈g/2⌉
Er >

r − 1 + ⌈g/2⌉ if ℓ = 2 and r − 1 > ⌈g/2⌉
Notice, though, that the second bound is always at least as
good as the
l firstm one, so thelfirst one can
m be ommitted. Indeed, Hence the bound is sharp if and only if Λ is hyperelliptic,
(ℓ−1)nℓ−1
r
if r − 2 + ℓ−1
6 r−1+
, then we are done. On ℓ = 2, and r 6 1 + ⌈g/2⌉.
m
l
m
lℓ
r
ℓ−1
> r −1+ (ℓ−1)n
the contrary, assume that r −2+ ℓ−1
ℓ m .
l
D. An example
(ℓ−1)nℓ−1
>
We need to prove that in this case r − 1 +
ℓ
As an example consider the semigroup
(ℓ − 1)(nℓ−1 +
l 1). m
l
m
l
m
{0, 3, 6, 9, . . . , 36, 37, 38, . . . },
r
ℓ−1
r
If r − 2 + ℓ−1
> r − 1 + (ℓ−1)n
then ℓ−1
>
ℓ
m
l
(ℓ−1)nℓ−1
(ℓ−1)nℓ−1
r
which implies that ℓ−1
> 1+
and with ℓ = 3. Let us analyze the bounds in (1) and (9) for
1+
ℓ
ℓ
different values of r. In this case nℓ−1 = n1 = 12 and so the
n
(ℓ−1)nℓ−1
) = (ℓ − 1)((nℓ−1 + 1) − ℓ−1
so r > (ℓ − 1)(1 +
bound in (1) is
ℓ
ℓ ).
(ℓ−1)nℓ−1
lrm
Thislimplies r m
+
> (ℓ − 1)(nℓ−1 + 1) and so r −
ℓ
, r + 7}
min{r − 2 +
(ℓ−1)nℓ−1
> (ℓ − 1)(nℓ−1 + 1) as desired.
1+
2
ℓ
while the bound in (9) is
Remark 12. Notice that if r 6 2(ℓ − 1) then the bound in
min{2(r − 1), r + 5}.
Theorem 11 does not improve the bound Er > r. So, the
On one hand, using (5) and (7), we deduce that Er > (ℓ −
1)(nℓ−1 + 1). On the other hand, using (5) and (8), and then
(2),

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 60, N. 10, PP. 5930-5937, OCTOBER 2014

Case r = 6: Bound (1) is min{7, 13} = 7 while bound (9)
is min{10, 11} = 10. So, bound (9) (with the first element
being the minimum) is better than bound (1).
Case r = 8: Bound (1) is min{10, 15} = 10 while bound
(9) is min{14, 13} = 13 So, bound (9) (with the second
element being the minimum) is better than bound (1).
Case r = 15: Bound (1) is min{21, 22} = 21 while bound
(9) is min{28, 20} = 20 So, bound (1) (with the first element
being the minimum) is better than bound (9).
Case r = 20: Bound (1) is min{28, 27} = 27 while bound
(9) is min{38, 25} = 25 So, bound (1) (with the second
element being the minimum) is better than bound (9).
IV. E XAMPLES OF

THE COMPUTATION OF THE NUMBER OF
INTERVALS OF GAPS

Now we analyze nℓ for two classical families of codes,
that is, for Hermitian codes and for codes in one of the
Garcia-Stichtenoth’s towers of codes attaining the DrinfeldVlăduţ bound, as well as their respective generalizations to
semigroups generated by intervals and inductive semigroups.
A. Hermitian codes

6

1 > ka + kx − k + 1. The number of gaps of these sets is
(a − 1) − k(x − 1). So,



(a − 1) − k(x − 1) > ℓ
nℓ = # k such that
k>0


a−1−ℓ
= # k such that 0 6 k 6
x−1
k
( j
a−1−ℓ
+ 1 if 1 6 ℓ 6 a
x−1
=
0
if ℓ > a
We see that this result generalizes the one previously found
for Hermitian codes. We leave it as an open problem to
compare the bound proved in Theorem 11, using this value
of nℓ with the results in [11].
C. Codes on the Garcia-Stichtenoth tower of codes
Garcia and Stichtenoth gave in [17] a celebrated tower of
function fields attaining the Drinfeld-Vlăduţ bound, which
became of great importance in the area of algebraic coding
theory. Since then other towers have also been found, although
we will focus on the tower in [17]. It is defined over the finite
field with q 2 elements Fq2 for q a prime power. It is given by
F1 = Fq2 (x1 ); Fm = Fm−1 (xm ), with xm satisfying

Let q be a prime power. The Hermitian curve over Fq2 is
defined by the affine equation
xq+1 = y q + y
3

and it has a single rational point at infinity and q more
rational points. Its weight hierarchy has already been studied
in [41], [1]. However, for its simplicity, we wanted to give a
description of nℓ . The Weierstrass semigroup at the rational
point at infinity is generated by q and q + 1 [38], [23]. Some
results concerning this semigroup can be found in [6] and, in
particular, concerning the weight hierarchy, in [12].
The semigroup generated by q and q + 1 is {0} ∪ {q, q +
1}∪{2q, 2q +1, 2q +2}∪· · ·∪{(q −2)q, (q −2)q +1, . . . , (q −
2)q + (q − 2) = (q − 1)q − 2} ∪ {j ∈ N0 : j > (q − 1)q}. It
is easy then to see that the lengths of the intervals of gaps, as
they appear in the semigroup, are q − 1, q − 2, . . . , 1. So,

q − ℓ if 1 6 ℓ 6 q
nℓ =
0
if ℓ > q
B. A generalization: semigroups generated by intervals
The semigroup of the Hermitian curve can be thought as
generated by the interval of length 2 starting at q. Suppose
that a numerical semigroup is generated by the interval of
x integers starting at a: {a, a + 1, . . . , a + x − 1}. These
semigroups can be found, for instance, in [18]. Also, the FengRao numbers of such semigroups are studied in [11].
In this case, the semigroup is {0} ∪ {a, a + 1, . . . , a + x −
1} ∪ {2a, 2a + 1, . . . , 2a + 2x − 2} ∪ · · · ∪ {ka, . . . , ka + kx −
k} ∪ {(k + 1)a, . . . , (k + 1)a + (k + 1)x − (k + 1)} ∪ . . . .
The gap intervals correspond to the sets between ka + kx −
k + 1 and (k + 1)a − 1 for k > 0 and whenever (k + 1)a −

xqm + xm =

xqm−1
q−1
xm−1
+1

.

It is shown in [17] that the number of its rational points is
Nq (Fm ) > (q 2 − q)q m−1 and that the genus gm of Fm is
m+1
m−1
gm = (q ⌊ 2 ⌋ − 1)(q ⌈ 2 ⌉ − 1). Hence, the ratio between
the genus g(Fm ) and Nq2 (Fm ) converges to 1/(q − 1), the
Drinfeld-Vlăduţ bound, as m increases. From these curves one
can construct asymptotically good sequences of codes.
For every function field Fm in the tower we distinguish
the rational point Qm that is the unique pole of x1 . The
Weierstrass semigroup Λm at Qm in Fm was recursively
described in [35]. Indeed, the semigroups are given recursively
by
Λ1
Λm

=
=

N0
m+1
q · Λm−1 ∪ {i ∈ N0 : i > q m − q ⌊ 2 ⌋ }.

(10)

In [7] a non-recursive description of these semigroups is given
as follows.
⌊m
2 ⌋

Λm =

G

q m−2i+1 Ai ⊔ {j ∈ N0 : j > cm },

(11)

i=1
m+1

where cm is the conductor of Λm , which is q m − q ⌊ 2 ⌋ , and
Ai = {c2i−1 + j : j = 0, . . . , q i−1 (q − 1) − 1}.
From (11) we can deduce that there are exactly #Ai =
q i−1 (q − 1) intervals of length q m−2i+1 − 1. Now, if j
is maximum such that ℓ 6 q m−2j+1 − 1 then nℓ =
P
j
i−1
(q −1) = q j −1. But ℓ 6 q m−2j+1 −1 is equivalent
i=1 q
m+1−logq (ℓ+1)
m+1−logq (ℓ+1)
and we can take j = ⌊
⌋.
to j 6
2
2
So,
nℓ = q ⌊

m+1−logq (ℓ+1)
⌋
2

− 1.

(12)

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 60, N. 10, PP. 5930-5937, OCTOBER 2014

If N is even then

D. Inductive semigroups
In [36] an inductive sequence of semigroups is defined as a
sequence for which there exist sequences (am : m ∈ N) and
(bm : m ∈ N), with am bm 6 bm+1 such that Λ1 = N0 and
Λm = am Λm−1 ∪ {n ∈ N0 : n > am bm } or all m > 1. See
also [9], [27].
The semigroups in the previous subsection are an example
of inductive sequence of semigroups with am = q for all
m. In general, if am = q for all m, then the semigroup Λm
equals the disjoint union of the next sets (recall the condition
qbm 6 bm+1 for all m > 1).
m−1

Λ(q
m

)

m−2

)

m−3

)

Λ(q
m

7

(q − 1)

N
X

k=1

q

⌊ k−1
2 ⌋

!

N

= 2(q − 1)(1 + q + q 2 + · · · + q 2 −1 )
q N/2 − 1
q−1
= 2(q N/2 − 1),

= 2(q − 1)

while, if N is odd, then
!
N
X
N −1
⌊ k−1
⌋
= 2(q − 1)(1 + q + q 2 + · · · + q 2 −1 ) + (q −
(q − 1)
q 2

= {q m−1 , 2q m−1 , . . . , b2 q m−1 },
= {b2 q m−1 + q m−2 , b2 q m−1 + 2q m−2 , . . . , b3 q m−2 },

k=1

= 2(q − 1)
= 2(q

N −1
2

N +1

q

N −1
2 −1

q−1

− 1) + q

+ (q − 1)q
N +1
2

−q

N −1
2

N −1
2

N −1

= q 2 + q 2 − 2.
= {b3 q m−2 + q m−3 , b3 q m−2 + 2q m−3 , . . . , b4 q m−3 },
..
.
N +1
(q)
In both cases, we obtain that nℓ = q ⌊ 2 ⌋ − 1. Now, substitutΛm
= {bm−1 q 2 + q, bm−1 q 2 + 2q, . . . , bm q},
⌊m+1−logq (ℓ+1)⌋
⌋
2
ing N by its value, we check that nℓ = q ⌊
− 1.
Λ(1)
=
{b
q
+
1,
b
q
+
2,
.
.
.
}.
m
m
m
The floor in the numerator of the exponent is redundant, and
so this result coincides with (12).
m−2
−b2 qm−1
=
So, Λm has b2 intervals of q m−1 − 1 gaps, b3 q qm−2
m−3
−b3 qm−2
R EFERENCES
= b4 −
b3 − qb2 intervals of q m−2 − 1 gaps, b4 q m−3
Λ(q
m

q

qb3 intervals of q m−3 − 1 gaps, and so on. In general, it has
bk+1 − qbk intervals of q m−k − 1 gaps, for k > 1, where b1
may be assumed to be 0.
Now, when looking for intervals with at least ℓ consecutive
gaps, we need to take into account that q m−k − 1 > ℓ if and
only if k 6 m − logq (ℓ + 1). Let N = ⌊m − logq (ℓ + 1)⌋.
Then,

[1] Angela I. Barbero and Carlos Munuera. The weight hierarchy of
Hermitian codes. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 13(1):79–104 (electronic),
2000.
[2] Valentina Barucci. Decompositions of ideals into irreducible ideals in
numerical semigroups. J. Commut. Algebra, 2(3):281–294, 2010.
[3] Maria Bras-Amorós. Acute semigroups, the order bound on the minimum distance, and the Feng-Rao improvements. IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, 50(6):1282–1289, 2004.
[4] Maria Bras-Amorós. A note on numerical semigroups. IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, 53(2):821–823, 2007.
[5] Maria Bras-Amorós, Kwankyu Lee, and A. Vico-Oton. Semigroup
Ideals, Intervals of Gaps, and Generalized Hamming Weights of AG
N
X
Codes. Proceedings of the Academy Contact Forum “Galois Geometries
bk+1 − qbk
nℓ =
and Applications”. The Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science
k=1
and the Arts, pp. 69–78, 2014.
N
[6] Maria Bras-Amorós and Michael E. O’Sullivan. On semigroups generX
ated by two consecutive integers and improved Hermitian codes. IEEE
= bN +1 +
(1 − q)bk .
(13)
Trans. Inform. Theory, 53(7):2560–2566, 2007.
k=1
[7] Maria Bras-Amorós and Michael E. O’Sullivan. The order bound on
the minimum distance of the one-point codes associated to the GarciaStichtenoth tower. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 53(11):4241–4245,
Let us check that this result generalizes (12). In fact, for the
2007.
[8] A. Campillo and J. I. Farrán. Computing Weierstrass semigroups and
inductive semigroups in the previous section, one has bm =
m−1
the Feng-Rao distance from singular plane models. Finite Fields Appl.,
q m−1 − q ⌊ 2 ⌋ . Substituting this value in (13) we get
6(1):71–92, 2000.
[9] Antonio Campillo, José Ignacio Farrán, and Carlos Munuera. On the
!
parameters of algebraic-geometry codes related to Arf semigroups. IEEE
N
X
Trans. Inform. Theory, 46(7):2634–2638, 2000.
k−1
⌋
⌋
k−1
⌊
N
⌊N
(q
−q 2 )
nℓ = q − q 2 + (1 − q)
[10] R. dela Cruz, A. Meyer, and P. Sole. An extension of Massey scheme
for secret sharing. In Information Theory Workshop, IEEE, 2010.
k=1
!
[11]!M. Delgado, J. I. Farrán, P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, and D. Llena. On the
N
N
X k−1 generalized Feng-Rao numbers of numerical semigroups generated by
X
N
= q N − q ⌊ 2 ⌋ − (q − 1)
q ⌊ 2 ⌋ intervals. Math. Comp., 82(283):1813–1836, 2013.
q k−1 + (q − 1)
k=1
k=1
Delgado, J. I. Farrán, P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, and D. Llena. On the
! [12] M.
weight hierarchy of codes coming from semigroups with two generators.
N
N
X
k−1
N
q −1
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 60(1):282–295, 2014.
= q N − q ⌊ 2 ⌋ − (q − 1)
+ (q − 1)
q⌊ 2 ⌋
[13] J. I. Farrán and C. Munuera. Goppa-like bounds for the generalized
q−1
k=1
Feng-Rao distances. Discrete Appl. Math., 128(1):145–156, 2003.
!
N
International Workshop on Coding and Cryptography (WCC 2001)
X k−1
N
(Paris).
= 1 − q ⌊ 2 ⌋ + (q − 1)
q⌊ 2 ⌋ .
[14] J.I. Farrán, P.A. Garcı́a Sánchez, and D. Llena. On the Feng-Rao
k=1
numbers. In VII Jornadas de Matemática Discreta y Algorı́tmica, 2010.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 60, N. 10, PP. 5930-5937, OCTOBER 2014

[15] Gui Liang Feng and T. R. N. Rao. A simple approach for construction
of algebraic-geometric codes from affine plane curves. IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, 40(4):1003–1012, 1994.
[16] Arnaldo Garcı́a, Seon Jeong Kim, and Robert F. Lax. Consecutive
Weierstrass gaps and minimum distance of Goppa codes. J. Pure Appl.
Algebra, 84(2):199–207, 1993.
[17] Arnaldo Garcia and Henning Stichtenoth. On the asymptotic behaviour
of some towers of function fields over finite fields. J. Number Theory,
61(2):248–273, 1996.
[18] P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez and J. C. Rosales. Numerical semigroups generated
by intervals. Pacific J. Math., 191(1):75–83, 1999.
[19] Olav Geil, Carlos Munuera, Diego Ruano, and Fernando Torres. On the
order bounds for one-point AG codes. Adv. Math. Commun., 5(3):489–
504, 2011.
[20] Parikshit Gopalan, Venkatesan Guruswami, and Prasad Raghavendra.
List decoding tensor products and interleaved codes. In STOC’09—
Proceedings of the 2009 ACM International Symposium on Theory of
Computing, pages 13–22. ACM, New York, 2009.
[21] Venkatesan Guruswami. List decoding from erasures: bounds and code
constructions. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 49(11):2826–2833, 2003.
[22] Petra Heijnen and Ruud Pellikaan. Generalized Hamming weights of
q-ary Reed-Muller codes. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 44(1):181–196,
1998.
[23] Tom Høholdt, Jacobus H. van Lint, and Ruud Pellikaan. Algebraic
geometry codes. In Handbook of coding theory, Vol. I, II, pages 871–
961. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998.
[24] H. Janwa and A. K. Lal. On generalized Hamming weights and the
covering radius of linear codes. In Applied algebra, algebraic algorithms
and error-correcting codes, volume 4851 of Lecture Notes in Comput.
Sci., pages 347–356. Springer, Berlin, 2007.
[25] Christoph Kirfel and Ruud Pellikaan. The minimum distance of codes
in an array coming from telescopic semigroups. IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, 41(6, part 1):1720–1732, 1995. Special issue on algebraic
geometry codes.
[26] J. Kurihara and T. Uyematsu. Strongly-secure secret sharing based
on linear codes can be characterized by generalized Hamming weight.
In 49th Annual Allerton Conference Communication, Control, and
Computing, 2011.
[27] C. Munuera, F. Torres, and J. Villanueva. Sparse numerical semigroups.
In Applied algebra, algebraic algorithms, and error-correcting codes,
volume 5527 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 23–31. Springer,
Berlin, 2009.
[28] Carlos Munuera. Generalized Hamming weights and trellis complexity.
Advances in Algebraic Geometry Codes, E. Martinez-Moro, C. Munuera,
D. Ruano (eds.), World Scientific, pages 363–390, 2008.
[29] Carlos Munuera and Fernando Torres. A note on the order bound on
the minimum distance of AG codes and acute semigroups. Adv. Math.
Commun., 2(2):175–181, 2008.
[30] Chi-Kin Ngai, Raymond W. Yeung, and Zhixue Zhang. Network
generalized Hamming weight. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 57(2):1136–
1143, 2011.
[31] Anna Oneto and Grazia Tamone. On numerical semigroups and the
order bound. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 212(10):2271–2283, 2008.
[32] Anna Oneto and Grazia Tamone. On the order bound of one-point
algebraic geometry codes. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 213(6):1179–1191,
2009.
[33] Anna Oneto and Grazia Tamone. On some invariants in numerical
semigroups and estimations of the order bound. Semigroup Forum,
81(3):483–509, 2010.
[34] L. H. Ozarow and A. D. Wyner. Wire-tap channel II. In Advances in
cryptology (Paris, 1984), volume 209 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci.,
pages 33–50. Springer, Berlin, 1985.
[35] Ruud Pellikaan, Henning Stichtenoth, and Fernando Torres. Weierstrass
semigroups in an asymptotically good tower of function fields. Finite
Fields Appl., 4(4):381–392, 1998.
[36] Ruud Pellikaan and Fernando Torres. On Weierstrass semigroups and the
redundancy of improved geometric Goppa codes. IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, 45(7):2512–2519, 1999.
[37] Salim El Rouayheb, Emina Soljanin, and Alex Sprintson. Secure
network coding for wiretap networks of type II. IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, 58(3):1361–1371, 2012.
[38] Henning Stichtenoth. A note on Hermitian codes over GF(q 2 ).
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 34(5, part 2):1345–1348, 1988. Coding
techniques and coding theory.
[39] Lizhong Tang. Consecutive Weierstrass gaps and weight hierarchy of
geometric Goppa codes. Algebra Colloq., 3(1):1–10, 1996.

8

[40] Victor K. Wei. Generalized Hamming weights for linear codes. IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory, 37(5):1412–1418, 1991.
[41] Kyeongcheol Yang, P. Vijay Kumar, and Henning Stichtenoth. On
the weight hierarchy of geometric Goppa codes. IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, 40(3):913–920, 1994.

Maria Bras-Amorós received her PhD in Applied Mathematics in 2003 from
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya and part of her doctoral and postdoctoral
work was developed at San Diego State University, California. She is a tenuretrack associate professor at Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona. She has
been with Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya and Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona. Her main research interests are in the area of coding theory and
discrete mathematics.

Kwankyu Lee received the B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in Mathematics
in 1998, 2000, and 2005 respectively, from Sogang University in Korea. He
is an associate professor in the Department of Mathematics and Education at
Chosun University in Gwangju, Korea. His research interests include algebraic
coding theory, cryptography, and discrete mathematics.

Albert Vico-Oton received his PhD in Computer Science in 2013 from the
University Rovira i Virgili, Catalonia, Spain. He is currently a member of the
engineering team at Midokura, working on the innovative Midokura’s software
defining networking solutions for private clouds and data center management.
He also worked as the team leader of the Distributed Applications and
Networks Area - DANA http://dana.i2cat.net at the i2CAT Foundation research
center of Catalonia, where he leaded different network research projects based
on Future Internet with special focus on SDN technologies. His research
interests include software defined networking, network function virtualization,
coding theory, and discrete mathematics.

