I‑AIMS Institute for Artificial Intelligence
and Mathematical Sciences
/

Code Equivalence and Automorphism Groups of Weighted Superelliptic Codes

Lubjana Beshaj, Tanush Shaska

I-AIMS preprint sh-141 · 2026

We study permutation and monomial equivalence for one-point codes on weighted superelliptic curves. On strata where Hₘ ≃ ℤ/nℤ × ℤ/mℤ acts regularly on the evaluation set, we prove that these codes are Cartesian character codes and determine their primal and dual minimum distances. We compute the projective monomial normalizer of the regular action and classify the compatible permutation and monomial equivalences through the induced actions on the defining sets. When d > n and m ≥ 2, the common permutation automorphism group of the full filtration is exactly Hₘ, and the regular action can be recovered from its two lowest nonconstant members. We determine the full permutation automorphism group in closed form at the top of the filtration and give a field-independent finite certificate for PAut(Cₛ) = Hₘ in the remaining primitive cases treated here. The hull dimension is bounded by the genus on every regular stratum, apart from the type (3,3,3). Explicit examples show that length, dimension, and hull dimension do not determine monomial equivalence, and that the hull profile together with the regular automorphism subgroup does not determine the curve up to isomorphism. As an application, we determine the corresponding hull-based invariants and punctured signatures used in support-splitting methods.

MSC classes: Primary 94B27, 94A60, 14G50; Secondary 94B05, 14H37, 14H51, 11T71

References

  1. M. Bardet, A. Otmani, and M. Saeed-Taha, Permutation code equivalence is not harder than graph isomorphism when hulls are trivial, 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2019, pp. 2464–2468.
  2. A. Barenghi, J.-F. Biasse, E. Persichetti, and P. Santini, On the computational hardness of the code equivalence problem in cryptography, Adv. Math. Commun. 17 (2023), no. 1, 23–55.
  3. Thierry Berger and Pascale Charpin, The automorphism group of generalized Reed–Muller codes, Discrete Math. 117 (1993), 1–17.
  4. J.-F. Biasse, G. Micheli, E. Persichetti, and P. Santini, LESS is more: code-based signatures without syndromes, Progress in Cryptology – AFRICACRYPT 2020, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., vol. 12174, Springer, 2020, pp. 45–65.
  5. René Bienert and Benjamin Klopsch, Automorphism groups of cyclic codes, J. Algebraic Combin. 31 (2010), 33–52.
  6. Eduardo Camps-Moreno, Jun Bo Lau, Hiram H. López, and Welington Santos, The permutation group of Reed– Solomon codes over arbitrary points, 2026, arXiv:2601.00122.
  7. C. Carlet and S. Guilley, Complementary dual codes for counter-measures to side-channel attacks, Adv. Math. Commun. 10 (2016), no. 1, 131–150.
  8. C. Carlet, S. Mesnager, C. Tang, Y. Qi, and R. Pellikaan, Linear codes over Fq are equivalent to LCD codes for q > 3, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 64 (2018), no. 4, 3010–3017.
  9. A. Couvreur, I. Márquez-Corbella, and R. Pellikaan, Cryptanalysis of McEliece cryptosystem based on algebraic geometry codes and their subcodes, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 63 (2017), no. 8, 5404–5418.
  10. Arne Dür, The automorphism groups of Reed–Solomon codes, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 44 (1987), no. 1, 69–82.
  11. M. Giulietti and G. Korchmáros, On automorphism groups of certain Goppa codes, Des. Codes Cryptogr. 47 (2008), 177–190.
  12. K. Guenda, S. Jitman, and T. A. Gulliver, Constructions of good entanglement-assisted quantum error correcting codes, Des. Codes Cryptogr. 86 (2018), no. 1, 121–136.
  13. D. Joyner and A. Ksir, Automorphism groups of some AG codes, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 52 (2006), no. 7, 3325–3329.
  14. Hiram H. López, Gretchen Matthews, and Ivan Soprunov, Monomial-Cartesian codes and their duals, with applications to LCD codes, quantum codes, and locally recoverable codes, Des. Codes Cryptogr. 88 (2020), no. 8, 1673–1685.
  15. Hiram H. López, Carlos Rentería, and Rafael H. Villarreal, Affine cartesian codes, Des. Codes Cryptogr. 71 (2014), no. 1, 5–19.
  16. F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane, The theory of error-correcting codes, North-Holland Mathematical Library, vol. 16, North-Holland, 1977.
  17. J. Mezinaj and T. Shaska, Hulls, linear equivalence, and weighted superelliptic codes, 2026, arXiv:2608.02850v2.
  18. E. Persichetti and P. Santini, A new formulation of the linear equivalence problem and shorter LESS signatures, Advances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT 2023, Part VII, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., vol. 14444, Springer, 2023, pp. 351–378.
  19. E. Petrank and R. M. Roth, Is code equivalence easy to decide?, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 43 (1997), no. 5, 1602–1604.
  20. R. Sanjeewa and T. Shaska, Determining equations of families of cyclic curves, Albanian J. Math. 2 (2008), no. 3, 199–213.
  21. N. Sendrier, On the dimension of the hull, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 10 (1997), no. 2, 282–293.
  22. ———, Finding the permutation between equivalent linear codes: the support splitting algorithm, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 46 (2000), no. 4, 1193–1203.
  23. N. Sendrier and D. E. Simos, The hardness of code equivalence over Fq and its application to code-based cryptography, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., vol. 7932, Springer, 2013, pp. 203–216.
  24. T. Shaska, Quantum weighted algebraic geometry codes, Des. Codes Cryptogr. 94 (2026), no. 158, Art. 158.
  25. T. Shaska and Q. Wang, On the automorphism groups of some AG-codes based on Ca,b curves, Serdica J. Comput. 1 (2007), no. 2, 193–206.
  26. G. Skersys, The average dimension of the hull of cyclic codes, Discrete Appl. Math. 128 (2003), 275–292.
  27. H. Stichtenoth, On automorphisms of geometric Goppa codes, J. Algebra 130 (1990), no. 1, 113–121.

All preprints