\section{Introduction}

In modern times, the need for large scale data storage is swiftly increasing. This need is present for example in large data centers and in cloud storage. The large scale of these distributed data storage systems makes hardware failures common. However, the data should be preserved regardless of failures, and error correcting codes can be utilized to prevent data loss.

A traditional approach is to look for codes which simultaneously maximize error tolerance and minimize storage space consumption. However, this tends to yield codes for which error correction requires an unrealistic amount of communication between storage nodes. \textit{Locally repairable codes} (LRCs) solve this problem by allowing errors to be corrected locally, in addition to the global level.

Besides the parameters $(n,k,d)$ referring to the length, dimension, and minimum distance of a regular linear code, respectively, a LRC is characterized by two additional parameters, $r$ and $\delta$. Informally speaking, the local error correction is enabled by dividing the code symbols into locality sets whose size is at most $r+\delta-1$ and inside which any $\delta-1$ symbols can be recovered using the rest of the symbols in the locality set.
\begin{comment} The results in this paper apply to \textit{almost affine} LRCs, which are a generalization of linear LRCs. \end{comment}

\subsection{Related Work}

The notion of a LRC was first introduced in \cite{papailiopoulos2014locally}. The generalized Singleton bound for linear $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$-LRCs states that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:singleton}
d \leq n - k + 1 - \left ( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil - 1 \right)(\delta - 1).
\end{equation}
This bound was given in \cite{gopalan12} for $\delta=2$ and in \cite{prakash2012optimal} for a general $\delta$. This bound has then been generalized for both linear and nonlinear codes in several ways, see \emph{e.g.}  \cite{LRCpapailiopoulos}, \cite{cadambe13}, \cite{rawat15} and \cite{tamo16}.

The class of \emph{almost affine} codes is a generalization of the class of linear codes. In \cite{simonis98} it was proved that every almost affine code induces a matroid. Many important properties (but not all) of almost affine codes are \emph{matroid invariants} in the sense that the properties only depend on the matroid structure of the code. Matroid theory was used in \cite{tamo2013optimal} in order to prove that the minimum distance of a class of linear LRCs achieves the generalized Singleton bound.  It was proved in \cite{westerback15} that every almost affine LRC induces a \emph{matroid} such that the parameters $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$ of the LRC appear as matroid invariants.
Consequently, the parameters $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$ were generalized to matroids and the bound \eqref{eq:singleton} was proven to also hold for all matroids, which is nontrivial since not all matroids are induced by almost affine codes.

 An even more general Singleton bound was given for polymatroids in \cite{westerback2015applications}, motivated by the fact that all general LRCs induce a polymatroid.

Results on the existence and non-existence of linear $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$-LRCs achieving the generalized Singleton bound were given in \cite{song2014optimal}. Codes or matroids achieving the generalized Singleton bound are here called \emph{perfect}.  Using the \emph{lattice of cyclic flats} of matroids, the non-existence results of \cite{song2014optimal} were strengthened in  \cite{westerback15}.

There are many different constructions of perfect LRCs, e.g. see \cite{prakash2012optimal}, \cite{tamo2013optimal}, \cite{song2014optimal} \cite{silberstein2013optimal}, \cite{tamo2014family}. Using a matroid-based construction in \cite{westerback15}, classes of linear LRCs with a large span on the parameters $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$ and local repair sets were given. By this construction, linear perfect $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$-LRCs were constructed for all the parameters from the existence results given in \cite{song2014optimal}. Further, again by the matroid-based construction, a general lower bound was given on the maximal achievable minimum distance $d_{\rm{max}}(n,k,r,\delta)$ that a linear LRC with parameters $(n,k,r,\delta)$ can have.

\subsection{Contributions}

This paper strengthens several results given in \cite{westerback15}. Firstly, using the matroid-based construction we extend the class of linear perfect $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$-LRCs with $\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil=2$. Secondly, we improve the general lower bound on $d_{\rm{max}}(n,k,r,\delta)$ for linear LRCs and prove that the new bound is optimal for the matroid-based construction. The results of this paper were originally presented in the bachelor thesis of the first author \cite{kandi}, which provides a more comprehensive account as well as full proofs.

\iffalse
\subsection{Notation}
\begin{small}
	\begin{tabular}{ll}
		$F_I$ & $F_I=\bigcup_{i \in I} F_i$, the union of subsets $F_i$\\
		& with $i \in I \subseteq [n]$ \\
	\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\fi

\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:polymatroids-codes}

\subsection{Almost Affine Locally repairable codes}

In this section, we will define an almost affine $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$-LRC. As usual, $n$ denotes the length of a codeword and $d$ its minimum (Hamming) distance. An almost affine code is defined as follows:

\begin{definition}
	A code $C \subseteq \Sigma^n$, where $\Sigma$ is a finite set of size $s \geq 2$, is \emph{almost affine} if for each $X \subseteq [n]$ we have $\log_s(|C_X|) \in \mathbb{Z}$.
\end{definition}

Here $[n]=\{1,2,...,n\}$ and $C_X$ denotes the projection of the code $C$ to $\Sigma^{|X|}$, \emph{i.e.}, $C_X = \{(c_{i_1},...,c_{i_{m}}): \mathbf{c} = (c_1,...,c_n) \in C\}$, where $X = \{i_1, \ldots, i_m\} \subseteq [n]$.
The parameter $k$ is, as usual, defined as $k=\log_s(|C|)$.

The local error correction of a LRC is performed inside \emph{$(r,\delta)$-locality sets}:

\begin{definition}
	When $1\leq r \leq k$ and $\delta \geq 2$, an $(r,\delta)$-locality set of $C$ is a subset $S\subseteq [n]$ such that
	\begin{equation*}

	\begin{alignedat}{3}
	& \textrm{(i)}  && |S|\leq r+\delta-1, \\
	&  \textrm{(ii)} \ && d(C_S) \geq \delta, \textrm{where $d(C_S)$ is the min. distance of $C_S$}.
	\end{alignedat}
	\end{equation*}
\end{definition}

\iffalse
The condition (ii) could also be equivalently expressed as either of the following:

\begin{equation*}
\begin{alignedat}{3}
&  \textrm{\emph{(ii)\textquotesingle}} \quad && l \in S, L=\{ i_1,...,i_{|L|}\} \subseteq S \setminus \{l\} \textrm{ and } |L|=|S|-(\delta-1) \Rightarrow \\
& && |C_{L \cup \{l\}}| = |C_L|,\\
&  \textrm{\emph{(ii)\textquotesingle \textquotesingle}} \quad && d(C_S) \geq \delta \textrm{, where $d(C_S)$ is the minimum distance of $C_S$}.
\end{alignedat}
\end{equation*}
\fi

We say that $C$ is a \emph{locally repairable code} with \emph{all-symbol locality} $(r,\delta)$ if every code symbol $l \in [n]$ is included in an $(r,\delta)$-locality set.

\subsection{Matroids}

Matroids are combinatorial structures that capture, in an abstract sense, a certain kind of dependence common to various mathematical structures.
Of the numerous equivalent matroid definitions, we will use the one utilizing the \emph{rank function} $\rho$. In the following, $2^E$ denotes the set of all subsets of $E$.

\begin{definition}
	\label{DefMat}
	A matroid $M=(E,\rho)$ is a finite set $E$ along with a rank function $\rho: 2^E \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ satisfying the following conditions for every subsets $X,Y \subseteq E$:
	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{alignedat}{3}
	& \textrm{(i)} \quad && 0 \leq \rho (X) \leq |X|, \\
	& \textrm{(ii)} \quad && X \subseteq Y \Rightarrow \rho (X) \leq \rho (Y), \\
	& \textrm{(iii)} \quad && \rho(X) + \rho(Y) \geq  \rho (X \cup Y) + \rho(X \cap Y).
	\end{alignedat}
	\end{equation*}
\end{definition}

This definition is for instance satisfied by the set of column vectors $E$ of a matrix over a field, and $\rho(X)$ being equal to the rank of the submatrix consisting of the column vectors indexed by $X$.
If $E$ is the set of edges of an undirected graph, then a matroid is obtained by letting $\rho(X)$ be the size of a minimal spanning tree of the subgraph with edges $X$.

Next, we define some matroid concepts relevant to us.
 A subset $X\subseteq E$ is said to be \emph{independent} if $\rho(X)=|X|$. The \emph{nullity} of a set $X \subseteq E$ is defined by $\eta(X) = |X|-\rho(X)$.

A \emph{circuit} is a dependent set $X \subseteq E$ whose all proper subsets are independent, \emph{i.e.},  $\rho(X \setminus \{x\}) = \rho(X) = |X|-1 $ for every $x \in X$. A set $X\subseteq E$ is $cyclic$ if it is a union of circuits. We denote the sets of circuits and cyclic sets of a matroid by $\mathcal{C}(M)$ and $\mathcal{U}(M)$, respectively.

The \emph{closure} of a set $X \subseteq E$ is defined by $\mathrm{cl}(X) = \{x \in E: \rho(X \cup \{x\}) = \rho(X)\}$. A set $X\subseteq E$ is a \emph{flat} if $X=\mathrm{cl}(X)$. A \emph{cyclic flat} is a flat that also is a cyclic set.

The \textit{restriction of $M=(E,\rho)$ to $X$} is the matroid $M|X=(X,\rho_{|X})$ where $\rho_{|X}(Y)=\rho(Y)$ for $Y \subseteq X$.

A \textit{lattice} is a partially ordered set for which every pair of two elements has a unique infimum, \textit{meet}, and a unique  supremum, \textit{join}. The cyclic flats of a matroid have the property that they form a finite lattice $(\mathcal{Z}, \subseteq)$ with meet $X\wedge Y = \bigcup_{C \in \mathcal{C}(M): C \subseteq X\cap Y} C$ and join $X \vee Y = \mathrm{cl}(X \cup Y)$, for $X,Y \in \mathcal{Z}$ \cite{bonin2008lattice}.

\iffalse
\begin{align*}
& X\wedge Y = \bigcup_{C \in \mathcal{C}(M): C \subseteq X\cap Y}, \\ \vspace{0.25 cm}
& X \vee Y = \mathrm{cl}(X \cup Y).
\end{align*}
\fi

The least element of the lattice is the element $0_{\mathcal{Z}}\in \mathcal{Z}$ such that  $X \subseteq 0_{\mathcal{Z}} \Rightarrow X=0_{\mathcal{Z}}$ for every $X\in \mathcal{Z}$. Correspondingly, the greatest element   is the element $1_{\mathcal{Z}}\in \mathcal{Z}$ such that $1_{\mathcal{Z}} \subseteq X \Rightarrow X=0_{\mathcal{Z}}$ for every $X\in \mathcal{Z}$.

The sets of the atoms $A_{\mathcal{Z}}$ and coatoms $coA_{\mathcal{Z}}$ are defined by
$A_{\mathcal{Z}}=\{X\in \mathcal{Z} \setminus \{0_{\mathcal{Z}}\}: \nexists Y \in \mathcal{Z}\te{ such that }  0_{\mathcal{Z}} \subsetneq Y \subsetneq X\}$ and $coA_{\mathcal{Z}}=\{X\in \mathcal{Z} \setminus \{1_{\mathcal{Z}}\}: \nexists Y \in \mathcal{Z}\te{ such that }  X \subsetneq Y \subsetneq 1_{\mathcal{Z}} \}$, respectively.

Matroids can also be defined via this \emph{lattice of cyclic flats}, which is our main tool for constructing and analyzing matroids in this paper. The associated axioms are presented in the following theorem:
\begin{thm}[\cite{bonin2008lattice}]
	Let $\mathcal{Z} \subseteq 2^E$ and let $\rho$ be a function $\rho: \mathcal{Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$. There is a matroid $M$ on $E$ for which $\mathcal{Z}$ is the set of cyclic flats and $\rho$ is the rank function restricted to the sets in $\mathcal{Z}$ if and only if

	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{alignedat}{2}
	(Z0) \quad & \te{$\mathcal{Z}$ is a lattice under inclusion,} \\
	(Z1) \quad & \rho(0_{\mathcal{Z}})= 0, \\
	(Z2) \quad & X,Y \in \mathcal{Z} \te{ and } X \subsetneq Y \Rightarrow \\
	& 0 < \rho(Y)-\rho(X)<|Y|-|X|,\\
	(Z3) \quad & X,Y \in \mathcal{Z} \Rightarrow\rho(X) + \rho(Y) \geq \\
	& \rho(X \vee Y) + \rho(X \wedge Y) + |(X \cap Y) \setminus (X \wedge Y)|.
	\end{alignedat}
	\end{equation*}
\end{thm}

\section{Matroids and LRCs}

\subsection{Relationship between matroids and almost affine LRCs}

The following theorem defines the associated matroid $M_C$ of an almost affine code $C$.

\begin{thm}[\cite{simonis98}]
Let $C \subseteq \sum^n$ be an almost affine code, where $|\sum| = s$. Then $M_C = ([n], \rho_C)$ is a matroid, where \vspace{-0.2 cm}
$$
\rho_C(X) = \log_s(|C_X|) \hbox{, for } X \subseteq [n]. \vspace{-0.2 cm}
$$
\end{thm}
The following result can be viewed as a definition of the parameters $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$ for a matroid from the viewpoint of its cyclic flats. Hence, the parameters $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$ of an almost affine LRC $C$ can be analyzed using its associated matroid $M_C = (\rho_C, [n])$ in the theorem below.

\begin{comment}
The theorem that allows us to analyze the parameters $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$ of a LRC via its associated matroid is the following \cite{westerback15}: \newline

\begin{thm}[\cite{westerback15}]
	Let $C$ be an almost affine LRC with the associated matroid $M_C=( [n],\rho_C)$. Then the parameters $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$ of $C$ are matroid invariants, where
	\label{thmParamsFromMatroids}
	\begin{equation*}

	\begin{alignedat}{4}
	&\textrm{(i)} && k = \rho_C([n]), \\
	&\textrm{(ii)} && d = \min\{|X|: X \subseteq [n] \hbox{, } \rho_C([n] \setminus X) < k\},  \\
	&\textrm{(iii)} \quad && \textrm{$C$ has all-symbol locality $(r,\delta)$ if and only if for} \\
	& &&\textrm{every $j\in [n]$  there exists a subset $S_j \subseteq [n]$ such that } \\
	&  &&\textrm{a) } j \in S_j, \\
	& &&\textrm{b) } |S_j|\leq r+\delta-1, \\
	& && \te{c) } d(C_{S_j}) = \min\{|X|: X \subseteq S_j \hbox{, } \rho(S_j \setminus X) < \rho(S_j)\}\\
	& && \hspace{8pt} \geq \delta, \\
	& && \te{or the equivalent condition to (c) that} \\
	&  &&\te{c') } \textrm{For all $L \subseteq S_j$ with $|L|=|S_j|-(\delta-1)$, and all} \\
	& && \hspace{14pt} \textrm{$l\in S_j \setminus L$, } \textrm{we have $\rho_C (L\cup l) = \rho_C(L) $.}
	\end{alignedat}
	\end{equation*}
	\end{thm}

	Now we can view the above results as a definition for the parameters  $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$ for matroids. From the viewpoint of the lattice of cyclic flats the parameters are obtained as follows:
\end{comment}

	\begin{thm}[\cite{westerback15}]
		Let $M=(E,\rho)$ be a matroid with \newline $0 < \rho(E)$ and $1_{\mathcal{Z}} = E$. Then \vspace{-0.2 cm}
		\label{thmParamsFromCyclicFlats}
		\begin{equation*}
		\begin{alignedat}{3}
		&(i) \quad && n=|1_{\mathcal{Z}}|, \\
		&(ii) \quad && k = \rho(1_{\mathcal{Z}}), \\
		&(iii) \quad && d=n-k+1-\max\{\eta(Z): Z \in coA_{\mathcal{Z}}\}, \\
		&(iv) \quad && \te{$M$ has locality $(r,\delta)$ if and only if for each $x \in E$} \\
		& && \te{there exists a cyclic set $S_x \in \mathcal{U}(M)$ such that} \\
		& && \te{a) } x \in S_x, \\
		& && \te{b) } |S_x| \leq r+\delta-1, \\
		& && \te{c) } d(M|S_x) = \\
		& && \quad \eta(S_x)+1-\max\{\eta(Z): Z \in coA_{\mathcal{Z}(M|S_x)}\} \geq \delta.
		\end{alignedat}
		\end{equation*}
		\end{thm}
		\begin{comment}

		 In \cite{westerback15} the following result is proved: \newline

		\begin{lemma}
			\label{lemmaMaxNullity}
			\te{If $\rho(X) < \rho(E)$ and $1_{\mathcal{Z}} = E$, then $\eta(X) \leq \max\{\eta(Z): Z \in coA_{\mathcal{Z}} \}$}.
			\end{lemma}

\subsection{The generalized Singleton bound for almost affine LRCs}

In \cite{prakash2012optimal}, the following bound was derived for LRCs:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqGenSingleton}
d \leq n-k+1- \left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right)(\delta-1).
\end{equation}

The bound was proven to also apply for $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$-matroids in \cite{westerback15}. Matroids achieving this bound are called \textit{perfect}.

\section{Matroid construction}

The main matroid construction that is used in the constructive proofs of both \cite{westerback15} and this article is the following: \newline
\end{comment}

\subsection{Matroid-based constructions of linear LRCs}

The matroid-based construction of linear LRCs that is used in the constructive proofs of both \cite{westerback15} and this article is the following:

	\emph{Construction 1} \cite{westerback15}: Let $F_1,...,F_m$ be a collection of subsets of a finite set $E$, $k$ a positive integer, and $\rho: \{F_i\}_{i \in [m]} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ a function such that
	\begin{equation}
	\label{eqCorollIII.1}
	\begin{alignedat}{3}
	& (i) \quad && 0<\rho(F_i)< |F_i| \te{ for } i \in [m], \\
	& (ii) \quad && F_{[m]} = E, \\
	& (iii) \quad && k \leq F_{[m]}-\sum_{i \in [m]} \eta(F_i), \\
	& (iv) \quad &&  |F_{[m]\setminus \{j\}} \cap F_j|<\rho(F_j) \te{ for all } j \in [m],
	\end{alignedat}
	\end{equation}
		where for every element $i \in [m]$ and subset $I \subseteq [m]$, \vspace{-0.1 cm}
	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{alignedat}{3}
	& \te{(a) \quad}&&\eta(F_i)=|F_i|-\rho(F_i)\,, \\
	& \te{(b) \quad}&& F_I=\bigcup_{i \in I} F_i\,.
	\end{alignedat}\vspace{-0.3 cm}
	\end{equation*}

	Further, we extend $\rho$ to a function for subsets $I \subseteq [m]$ by \vspace{- 0.2 cm}

	$$\rho(F_I) = \min\{|F_{I}|-\sum_{i \in I} \eta(F_i), k \}\,.$$

	\vspace{- 0.2 cm}

\begin{thm}[\cite{westerback15}]
		\label{thmc1props}
	The previous construction defines a matroid $M(F_1,...,F_m;k;\rho)$ which equals $M_C=([n],\rho_C)$ for some linear LRC $C$ over a sufficiently large $\mathbb{F}_q$ such that

		$$
		\begin{alignedat}{3}
			& \te{(i)} \quad && \mathcal{Z} = \{F_I:I\subseteq [m], \rho(F_I)<k  \} \cup E\,, \\
			& \te{(ii)} && n=|E|\,, \\
			& \te{(iii)} && k=\rho(E)\,, \\
			& \te{(iv)} && d = n-k+1 -\max\{\sum_{i \in I}\eta(F_i): F_I \in \mathcal{Z} \setminus E \}\,, \\
			& \te{(v)} && \delta-1 = \min_{i \in [m]}\{\eta(F_i)\}\,, \\
			& \te{(vi)} && r = \max_{i \in [m]}\{\rho(F_i)\}\,.
		\end{alignedat}
		$$

		For each $i \in [m]$, any subset $S \subseteq F_i$ with $|S|=\rho(F_i)+ \delta-1$ is a locality set of the matroid.

	\end{thm}

The motivation to use this construction comes from the fact that a matroid from it has a maximal $d$, given the matroid's  set of atoms $\{F_i\}$, rank function $\rho: \{F_i\} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ restricted to the atoms, and dimension $k$. This follows from the fact that its cyclic flats $F_I$ have minimal size and maximal rank, achieving the bound in Z3 when $\rho(F_I)<k$.

In a proof given later, we will use the following more specialized version of the matroid-based construction given above.

\begin{comment}
		In a proof given later, we will use the following more specialized construction, which yields a class of matroids
\end{comment}

\begin{comment}
	\begin{thm}[\cite{westerback15}]
		\label{thmc1props}
		The previous construction defines a matroid $M=(E,\rho)$  such that
		$$
		\begin{alignedat}{3}
			& \te{(i)} \quad && \mathcal{Z} = \{F_I:I\subseteq [m], \rho(F_I)<k  \} \cup E\,, \\
			& \te{(ii)} && n=|E|\,, \\
			& \te{(iii)} && k=\rho(E)\,, \\
			& \te{(iv)} && d = n-k+1 -\max\{\sum_{i \in I}\eta(F_i): F_I \in \mathcal{Z} \setminus E \}\,, \\
			& \te{(v)} && \delta-1 = \min_{i \in [m]}\{\eta(F_i)\}\,, \\
			& \te{(vi)} && r = \max_{i \in [m]}\{\rho(F_i)\}\,.
		\end{alignedat}
		$$

		For each $i \in [m]$, any subset $S \subseteq F_i$ with $|S|=\rho(F_i)+ \delta-1$ is a locality set of the matroid.
		\end{thm}

		There are good reasons for using this construction. Firstly, it satisfies many properties required of a matroid achieving the generalized Singleton bound, presented in \cite{westerback15}. Among others, its locality sets are atoms of its lattice of cyclic flats and its other cyclic flats have maximal rank and minimal nullity with respect to the atoms. All of these contribute to minimizing the maximal nullity of a coatom and thus maximizing $d$, in accordance with Theorem \ref{thmc1props}.

		Secondly, it has been proven in \cite{westerback15} that the matroids yielded by this construction correspond to linear LRCs.

		In a proof given later, we will use the following more specialized construction, which yields a class of matroids obtainable from Construction 1. \newline
\end{comment}

			\emph{Graph construction 1: (\cite[v2]{westerback15})} Let $G = G(\alpha, \beta, \gamma; k, r, \delta)$ be a graph with vertices $[m]$ and edges $W$, where $(\alpha, \beta)$ are two functions $[m] \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$, $\gamma: W \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$, and $(k,r,\delta)$ are three integers with $0<r<k$ and $\delta \geq 2$, such that \vspace{-0.1 cm}

			\begin{equation}
			\label{eqconds1}
			\begin{alignedat}{2}
			& \textrm{(i)} \quad \textrm{$G$ is a graph with no 3-cycles,} \\
			& \textrm{(ii)} \quad  0 \leq \alpha (i) \leq r-1 \textrm{ for } i \in [m], \\
			& \textrm{(iii)} \quad  \beta(i) \geq 0 \textrm{ for } i \in [m], \\
			& \textrm{(iv)} \quad  \gamma(w) \geq 1 \textrm{ for } w \in W, \\
			& \textrm{(v)} \quad  k \leq rm - \sum_{i \in [m]} \alpha(i) - \sum_{w \in W} \gamma(w), \\
			& \textrm{(vi)} \quad r - \alpha(i) > \sum_{w=\{i,j\} \in W} \gamma(w) \textrm{ for } i \in [m].
			\end{alignedat} \vspace{-0.1 cm}
			\end{equation}

			\begin{comment}
			\begin{align}
			\label{eqconds1}
			\begin{split}
			& \textrm{(i)} \quad \textrm{$G$ is a graph with no 3-cycles,} \\
			& \textrm{(ii)} \quad  0 \leq \alpha (i) \leq r-1 \textrm{ for } i \in [m], \\
			& \textrm{(iii)} \quad  \beta(i) \geq 0 \textrm{ for } i \in [m], \\
			& \textrm{(iv)} \quad  \gamma(w) \geq 1 \textrm{ for } w \in W, \\
			& \textrm{(v)} \quad  k \leq rm - \sum_{i \in [m]} \alpha(i) - \sum_{w \in W} \gamma(w), \\
			& \textrm{(vi)} \quad r - \alpha(i) > \sum_{w=\{i,j\} \in W} \gamma(w) \textrm{ for } i \in [m].
			\end{split}
			\end{align}
			\end{comment}

			\begin{thm}[\cite{westerback15}, v2]
				\label{thmConstr1}
				Let $G(\alpha, \beta, \gamma; k, r, \delta)$ be a graph on $[m]$ such that the conditions (i)-(vi) given in \eqref{eqconds1} are satisfied. Then there is an $(n,k,r,d,\delta)$-matroid $M(F_1,...,F_m;k;\rho)$ given by Theorem \ref{thmc1props} with \vspace{-0.5 cm}

				\begin{align*}
				\begin{split}
				& \textrm{(i)} \quad n = (r+\delta-1)m - \sum_{i \in [m]} \alpha(i) + \sum_{i \in [m]} \beta(i) - \sum_{w \in W} \gamma(w), \\
				& \textrm{(ii)} \quad d = n-k+1 - \max_{I \in V_{<k}} \{(\delta-1)|I|+\sum_{i \in I} \beta(i) \},
				\end{split}
				\end{align*}\vspace{-0.4 cm}

				where
				\begin{equation*}
				V_{<k} = \{I \subseteq [m]: r|I|- \sum_{i \in I} \alpha(i) - \sum_{i,j \in I, w = \{i,j\}\in W} \gamma(w) < k\}.
				\end{equation*}

			\end{thm}

\section{Main results}

Our first result is an expanded class of parameters $(n,k,r,\delta)$ for which the generalized Singleton bound \eqref{eq:singleton} can be achieved for linear LRCs. The previous bound in \cite{westerback15} was identical to this bound for $2a \leq r-1$ but weaker otherwise. The parameter restrictions $0<r<k\leq n - \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil(\delta-1)$ and $\delta \geq 2$ are required for $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$-matroids to exist \cite{westerback15}. \newline

\begin{thm}
	\label{thmResult1}
Define $a=r\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -k$ and $b=(r+\delta-1)\lceil\frac{n}{r+\delta-1}\rceil-n$, and let $(n,k,r,\delta)$ be integers such that $0<r<k\leq n - \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil(\delta-1)$, $\delta \geq 2$, $b>a \geq \lceil k/r \rceil -1$, and $\lceil k/r \rceil = 2$. If \vspace{- 0.2 cm}
	\begin{equation}
	\left\lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil \geq \left\lceil b/a \right\rceil + 1\,,
	\end{equation}
	then the maximal achievable minimum distance for linear LRCs with parameters $(n,k,r,\delta)$ is
	 $$d_{\rm{max}} = n-k+1-\left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right)(\delta-1)\,.$$

	\begin{IEEEproof}  We prove our result by giving an explicit construction of perfect matroids $M(F_1,\ldots,F_m;k;\rho)$ of Thm. \ref{thmc1props} for the desired parameter values.

		\emph{A matroid construction.} Let $n'$, $r'$, $\delta'$, and  $k$ be integers such that $0<r'<k\leq n' - \left\lceil k/r' \right\rceil(\delta'-1)$, $\delta' \geq 2$, $b'>a'$, and $m \geq \left\lceil b'/a' \right\rceil + 1$, where we define \vspace{-0.4 cm}

		\begin{align*}
		& b' = \left\lceil \frac{n'}{r'+\delta'-1} \right\rceil (r'+\delta'-1) - n' , \\
		& a'=\left\lceil k/r' \right\rceil r' -k ,\\
		& m = \left\lceil \frac{n'}{r'+\delta'-1} \right\rceil.
		\end{align*}

		Let $F_1, ..., F_m = \{F_i\}_{i \in [m]}$ be a collection of finite sets with $E = \bigcup_{i \in m}F_i$ and $X \subseteq E$ a set such that \vspace{- 0.2 cm}

		\begin{equation*}

		\begin{alignedat}{3}
		&\te{(i)} \quad && F_i \cap F_j \subseteq X \quad \te{ for }i,j \in [m] \te{ with } i \neq j, \\
		&\te{(ii)} \quad && |X| = a', \\
		&\te{(iii)} \quad && |F_i| = r' + \delta' - 1 \quad \te{ for } i \in [m], \\
		&\te{(iv)} \quad && |F_i \cap X| = a' \te{ for } 1 \leq i \leq \left\lceil b'/a' \right\rceil, \\
		&\te{(v)} \quad && |F_i \cap X| = b'- \left(\left\lceil b'/a' \right\rceil  - 1 \right)a' \te{ for } i = \left\lceil b'/a' \right\rceil + 1,\\
		&\te{(vi)} \quad && |F_i \cap X| = 0 \te{ for } i > \left\lceil b'/a' \right\rceil + 1. \\
		\end{alignedat}
		\end{equation*}

		Let $\rho$ be a function $\rho:   \{F_i\}_{i \in [m]} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\rho(F_i)=r'$ for each $i \in [m]$.

		For the rest of the proof, we first check that this construction satisfies the conditions in \eqref{eqCorollIII.1}. Then we use Theorem \ref{thmc1props} to show that it yields perfect matroids (and thus linear LRCs) for the desired class of parameters $(n,k,r,\delta)$,  which are shown to equal their primed counterparts. The details of this can be found in \cite{kandi}.

		\iffalse
		Now we prove that this gives a matroid obtainable from Theorem \ref{thmCorollIII.1}. The set $E$ is clearly finite and the conditions (i) and (ii) of \eqref{eqCorollIII.1} are trivially satisfied. Let us next calculate the size of $F_{[m]}=E$ by adding each of the sets $F_i$ to the union one at a time, in order according to their index $i$. Let us write $s = r'+\delta'-1$.  The first set $F_1$ adds $|F_1| =s$ elements. As $X \subseteq F_1$ and the sets in $\{F_i\}_{i \in [m] \setminus \{1\}}$ only intersect with $X$, each subsequent set $F_i$ adds $|F_i|- |F_i \cap X|$ elements. Thus we get the following: The sets $F_i$ for $2 \leq i \leq \lceil b'/a' \rceil$ each add $s-a'$ new elements. The set $F_{\lceil b'/a' \rceil+1}$ adds $s - (b'- (\lceil b'/a' \rceil  - 1 )a')$ new elements. The rest of the sets add $s$ elements each. Simple cancellation of terms then gives us

		\begin{equation*}
		\begin{alignedat}{2}
		|F_{[m]}|& = s + \left( \left\lceil b'/a' \right\rceil -1\right)(s-a') + s - \left(b'- \left(\left\lceil b'/a' \right\rceil  - 1 \right)a'\right) + \left(\left\lceil n'/s \right\rceil - \left(\left\lceil b'/a' \right\rceil + 1\right)\right) s \\
		& = \left\lceil n'/s \right\rceil s - b' \\
		& = n'.
		\end{alignedat}
		\end{equation*}

		Using $s-a'$ as a lower bound for the number of elements added by the sets $F_i$ with $3 \leq i  \leq \lceil n'/s \rceil$ and recalling that $r' > a$ and $\lceil k/r' \rceil = 2$, we get the following:

		\begin{equation*}
		\begin{alignedat}{2}
		&|F_{[m]}|-\sum_{i \in [m]} \eta(F_i) \\
		\geq & \ s+s-a' + \left(\left\lceil n'/s \right\rceil -2 \right)(s-a') - \left\lceil n'/s \right\rceil (\delta'-1) \\
		= &  \ 2r' - a' + \left(\left\lceil n'/s \right\rceil -2 \right) (r'-a')\\
		\geq & \left\lceil k/r' \right\rceil r' -a' \\
		= & \ k.
		\end{alignedat}
		\end{equation*}

		This shows that the construction satisfies \eqref{eqCorollIII.1} (iii). When I $\subseteq [m], j \in [m] \setminus I$, we have $|F_I \cap F_j| \leq |X \cap F_j|\leq a' < r' = \rho(F_j)$, so \eqref{eqCorollIII.1} (iv) is also satisfied. Thus the construction gives a matroid obtainable from Theorem \ref{thmCorollIII.1}.

		According to Theorem \ref{thmConstr1Props} we now have

		\begin{equation*}
		\begin{alignedat}{3}
		& \te{(i)} \quad && n = |E| = n', \\
		& \te{(ii)} \quad && k = \rho(E), \\
		& \te{(iii)} \quad && d = n-k+1-(\delta-1) = n-k+1-\left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right)(\delta-1), \\
		& \te{(iv)} \quad && \delta = \delta', \\
		& \te{(v)} \quad && r = r'. \\
		\end{alignedat}
		\end{equation*}

		Note that (i),(ii), (iv) and (v) imply that $a=a'$ and $b=b'$ so we can stop using the primed letters. For (iii), note that for every $F_i, F_j \in \{F_t\}_{t \in [m]}$ we have

		\begin{equation*}
		\begin{alignedat}{2}
		&\rho(F_{\{i,j\}} ) =  |F_{\{i,j \}}|-\sum_{i \in \{i,j\}} \eta(F_i) \\
		= \ & |F_{\{i,j\}}| - 2(\delta-1) \\
		\geq \ & |F_i|+|F_j| - |X| - 2(\delta-1) \\
		= \ & \rho(F_i) + \rho(F_j) - a \\
		= \ & r+r-(2r-k) \\
		= \ & k,
		\end{alignedat}
		\end{equation*}

		which implies that for any $i,j$, $F_{\{i,j\}}  \notin \mathcal{Z}_{<k}$. Due to \eqref{rankEqs} (ii), for any unions $F_I$ with $|I| \geq 2$ we have $F_I \notin \mathcal{Z}_{<k}$. Thus $\mathcal{Z}_{<k} = \{F_i\}_{i \in [m]}$ as $r<k$.

		Now we have shown that the construction gives a matroid that achieves the generalized Singleton bound for every desired parameter set $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$.
		\fi

	\end{IEEEproof}
\end{thm}

Our second main result is an improved lower bound for $d$. The actual improvement is the bound \eqref{newbound} as the bound \eqref{remainingbound} is identical to what was used in \cite{westerback15}. \newline

\begin{thm}
	\label{raja}
	Let $(n,k,r,\delta)$ be integers such that $0<r<k\leq n - \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil(\delta-1)$, $\delta \geq 2$, and $b>a$. Also let $m=\left\lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil - 1$ and $v = r+\delta-1-b-\left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor m$. 	Then for linear LRCs with parameters $(n,k,r,\delta)$:

	If $\delta-1 \leq \left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right) \left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor
	+ \min\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\}$, we have
	\begin{equation}
	\label{remainingbound}
	d_{\rm{max}} \geq n-k+1-\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil(\delta-1).
	\end{equation}

	Otherwise, if $\delta-1 > \left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right) \left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor
	+ \min\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\}$, then \vspace{-0.4 cm}

	\begin{equation}
	\label{newbound}
	\begin{split}
	d_{\rm{max}} \geq \ & n-k+1 - \min\left\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right\}\\
	& - \left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right)\left(\left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor+\delta-1\right).
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	We denote the right side of the bound \eqref{newbound} by $d_{\rm{new}}$. This bound is an improvement over its counterpart $d_{\rm{old}} = n-k+1-\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil(\delta-1)+(b-r)$ in \cite{westerback15}, since \vspace{- 0.3 cm}

	\iffalse
	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
	d_{\rm{new}} = & n-k+1- \left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right)\left(\left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor+\delta-1\right) \\
	& - \min\left\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right\},
	\end{split}
	\end{equation*}
	\fi

	\begin{equation}
	\label{parannus}
	d_{\rm{new}} - d_{\rm{old}} \geq \left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor \left(m-\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil +1\right) \geq 0.
	\end{equation}

\end{thm}

\begin{IEEEproof}
	Let $n' \in \mathbb{Z}$ be such that it satisfies the conditions for $n$ in Theorem \ref{raja}.

	\emph{A graph construction}. Let $G(\alpha, \beta, \gamma; k, r, \delta)$ be intended as an instance of Graph construction 1 with \vspace{- 0.4 cm}

	\begin{align}
	\begin{split}
	& \textrm{(a)} \quad m = \left\lceil \frac{n'}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil - 1,\\
	& \textrm{(b)} \quad  W=\emptyset, \\
	& \textrm{(c)} \quad \alpha (i)= 0 \textrm{ for } i \in [m], \\
	& \textrm{(d)} \quad \beta (i) = \begin{cases} \left\lceil \frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m} \right\rceil \textrm{ for } 1 \leq i \leq v' \vspace{1.5 mm}, \\
	\left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m} \right\rfloor \textrm{ for } v' <  i \leq m,
	\end{cases}
	\end{split}
	\end{align}

	where $b' = \left\lceil \frac{n'}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil (r+\delta-1) - n'$ and $v' = r+\delta-1-b'-\left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m} \right\rfloor m$.

	The rest of the proof consists of checking that the conditions in \eqref{eqconds1} are satisfied and using Theorem \ref{thmConstr1} to show that the construction yields the expected $d$ for all desired parameter sets $(n,k,r,\delta)$. Finally, the inequalities in \eqref{parannus} will be proved. A full version of the proof can be found in \cite{kandi}.

	\iffalse Now we have to show that the conditions in equation \eqref{c1} apply in order to prove that this is indeed an instance of Graph construction 1.  Conditions (i), (ii) and (iv) are trivially satisfied. As $b' < r+\delta-1$, (iii) is also true. For our construction G, requirement (v) is simplified to the form $k \leq rm$, which is true as

	\begin{equation*}
	k=\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil r - a \leq \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil r \leq \left(\left\lceil \frac{n'}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil - 1\right) r = mr.
	\end{equation*}

	As $W= \emptyset$, $\alpha (i)= 0 \textrm{ for } i \in [m]$ and $r>0$, (vi) is
	also true. Thus G is an instance of Graph construction 1.

	We have $\sum_{i \in [m]}\beta(i) = r+\delta-1-b'$ because of the following:  If  $\frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m}  \in \mathbb{Z}$:

	\begin{equation*}
	\sum_{i \in [m]}\beta(i) = m \cdot \frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m} = r+\delta-1-b'.
	\end{equation*}

	If $\frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m}  \notin \mathbb{Z}$:

	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
	\sum_{i \in [m]}\beta(i) &= \left\lceil \frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m} \right\rceil  v' + \left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m} \right\rfloor (m-v') \\
	&= v' + \left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b'}{m} \right\rfloor m \\
	&= r+\delta-1-b'.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation*}

	From Theorem \ref{c1thm} we get thus that
	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
	n&=(r+\delta-1)m + \sum_{i \in [m]}\beta (i) \\
	&= (r+\delta-1)(m+1)-b' \\
	&= (r+\delta-1)\left\lceil \frac{n'}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil-\left( \left\lceil \frac{n'}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil (r+\delta-1) - n'\right) \\
	&= n'.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation*}

	This shows that we can use this construction for any desired parameter set $(n,k,r,\delta)$ satisfying the requirements in Theorem \ref{raja}. As $n=n'$ also $a=a'$, $b=b'$ and $v=v'$, so we can from now on only use the non-primed letters.

	Using Theorem \ref{c1thm} (ii), we show next that this construction gives a $d$ that is the desired lower bound for $d_{\rm{max}}$. We have $\max_{I \in V_{<k}}(|I|) = \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1 $, as  for every $I \in [m], \sum_{i \in I} \alpha(i) = \sum_{w \in I \times I} \gamma(w) = 0$. Clearly $(\delta-1)|I|+\sum_{i \in I} \beta(i)$ is maximized with a maximal $|I|$, so we get from Theorem \ref{c1thm} (ii) that

	\begin{equation*}
	d = n-k+1-
	\left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1 \right) (\delta-1) -
	\left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right)\left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor  - \min\left\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right\}.
	\end{equation*}

	We now get the bound in \eqref{newbound} by rearranging the right side of this equation.

	Next we prove the result in \eqref{parannus}. By simple cancellation of identical terms and some rearranging we get the following inequality that is equivalent to the first inequality in \eqref{parannus}:

	\begin{equation*}
	m \left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor + \min\left\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right\} \leq r+\delta-1-b.
	\end{equation*}

	This inequality can be seen to be true by using $v$ as an upper bound for $\min\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\}$ and substituting $v$ by its definition. Thus the first inequality \eqref{parannus} is true. The second inequality in \ref{parannus} is true because $m = \lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \rceil - 1 \geq \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil$  by Lemma \ref{suhderaja}.

	The combined bound of \eqref{remainingbound} and \eqref{newbound} is always at least as good as \eqref{oldbound} because $d_{\rm{new}} \geq d_{\rm{old}}$ and we always use the stricter of the two bounds \eqref{remainingbound} and \eqref{newbound} in our result.\newline

	\fi

\end{IEEEproof}

\begin{exam} To see that the difference $d_{\rm{new}}-d_{\rm{old}}$ is not identically zero, consider for instance the graph construction used in the proof with  parameter values $n'=139, k=60, r=20, \delta=21$.
\end{exam}

 Lastly, we show that the bound in Thm. \ref{raja} for matroids (linear LRCs) from Construction 1  is tight for parameter sets $(n,k,r,\delta)$ for which there exists no perfect matroid (linear LRC) from Construction 1. \newline

\begin{thm}
	\label{thmResult3}
Let $(n,k,r,\delta)$ be integers such that there exists no perfect $(n,k,d',r,\delta)$-matroid from Construction 1.  Let $M$ be an $(n,k,d,r,\delta)$-matroid from Construction 1 and let us denote the bound in Theorem \ref{raja} by $d_{b}=d_{b}(n,k,r,\delta)$. Then $d \leq d_b$.

	\iffalse
	Let $(n,k,r,\delta)$ be integers such that $d_{\rm{max}}<n-k+1-(\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1)(\delta-1)$ for matroids from Theorem \ref{thmCorollIII.1}. Then the bound in Theorem \ref{raja} is strict for matroids from \ref{thmCorollIII.1}, \emph{i.e.}, if $\delta-1 \leq \left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right) \left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor
	+ \min\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\}$, we have
	\begin{equation}
	d_{\rm{max}} = n-k+1-\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil(\delta-1).
	\end{equation}

	Otherwise, if $\delta-1 > \left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right) \left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor
	+ \min\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\}$, then

	\begin{equation}
	d_{\rm{max}} = n-k+1- \left( \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right)\left(\left\lfloor \frac{r+\delta-1-b}{m} \right\rfloor+\delta-1\right)  - \min\left\{v, \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil -1\right\}.
	\end{equation}
	\fi
\end{thm}

\begin{IEEEproof}
	A more detailed proof can be found in \cite{kandi}. Let $M=M(F_1,...,F_m;k;\rho)$ be a matroid from Construction 1 for which there exists no perfect matroid from the same construction with the same parameters $(n,k,r,\delta)$.

	Assume that $\max\{|I| : F_I \in \mathcal{Z}_{<k}\} \geq \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil$. Using Theorem \ref{thmc1props} (iii), we then obtain $ d \leq n-k+1-\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil(\delta-1)$, as $\eta(F_i) \geq \delta-1$ for every $i \in [m]$.

	Thus the theorem holds in this case and we are only left with the case $\max\{|I| : F_I \in \mathcal{Z}_{<k}\} = \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil - 1$, as we easily see that $\max\{|I| : F_I \in \mathcal{Z}_{<k}\}<\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1$ is impossible.

	There must be an atom $F_i$ with $\eta(F_i) > \delta-1$, since otherwise the matroid would be perfect. Next we show that our current assumptions imply $m < \lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \rceil$. We do this by showing that $m \geq \lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \rceil$ would allow the existence of perfect matroids, which is a contradiction. The perfect matroids are constructed by, roughly speaking, repeatedly decreasing the nullity of atoms $F_u$ with $\eta(F_u)>\delta-1$ by an element of $F_u$ to another atom $F_i$. which either has $\rho(F_i)<r$ or overlaps with another atom $F_k$. In the former case, $\rho(F_i)$ will be increased by one, and in the latter case, the element in the intersection will no longer be part of $F_i$.

	\iffalse
	repeatedly applying Algorithm 1, which takes a Construction 1 matroid $M_i$ satisfying
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item $\max\{|I| : F_I \in \mathcal{Z}_{<k}\} = \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil - 1$,
		\item $m \geq \lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \rceil$,
		\item $\exists F_u \in A_{\mathcal{Z}(M_i)}: \ \eta(F_u) > \delta-1$,
	\end{enumerate}
	and returns another Construction 1 matroid $M_{i+1}$ still satisfying the conditions 1. and 2. above but having the nullity of the atom $F_u$ with $\eta(F_u) > \delta-1$ reduced by one.

	\begin{algorithm}

		\caption{From $M_i$ to $M_{i+1}$}
	\begin{small}
			\begin{algorithmic}[1]
			\State $F_u$ is an atom with $\eta(F_u)>\delta-1$.
			\State $x$ is an element $x \in F_u$.
			\State $F_u \gets F_u \setminus \{x\}$
			\If {$\forall i \in [m]: x \notin F_i$}
			\If {$\exists F_j: \rho(F_j)<r$}
			\State $F_j \gets F_j \cup \{x\}$
			\State $\rho(F_j) \gets \rho(F_j)+1$
			\Else
			\State $F_k, F_l$ are distinct atoms with $|F_k \cap F_l| \geq 1$.
			\State $y$ is an element $y \in F_k \cap F_l$.
			\State $F_k \gets F_k \setminus \{y\}$
			\State $F_k \gets F_k \cup \{x\}$
			\EndIf

			\EndIf

		\end{algorithmic}
	\end{small}
	\end{algorithm}

	The definition of the algorithm is otherwise clearly sound, but we need to prove that the atoms $F_k$ and $F_l$ required on line 9 exist. Assume on the contrary that they do not. Then $|\bigcup_{i \in [m]}F_i| > \left\lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil (r+\delta-1) \geq n$, which is a contradiction. Thus the desired $F_k$ and $F_l$ exist.

	Next, we need to prove that $M_{i+1}$ is a matroid from Construction 1. We do this by proving that the conditions (i)-(iv) of \eqref{eqCorollIII.1} are satisfied, see \cite{kandi} for the remaining details.

	\fi

	\iffalse
	Condition (i) stays satisfies after executing lines 1-3 as originally $|F_u| = \rho(F_u) + \eta(F_u) > \rho(F_u)+1$. Lines 5-7 preserve the condition as both the rank and the size of the atom are increased by one. Lines 9-12 preserve the size and rank of $F_k$ and $F_l$. Condition (ii) is satisfied as $x$ is re-added and $y$ always remains in $F_l$. Condition (iii) is satisfied for $M_{i+1}$ as it is satisfied for $M_i$, and the nullity of an atom is never increased and $|F_{[m]}|=|E|$ stays constant.

	To prove (iv), first note that the condition is equivalent to every atom $F_i$ having at least $\eta(F_i)+1$ elements that are not contained in any other atom, \emph{i.e.}, are non-shared.

	On lines 1-3, $F_u$ may lose one non-shared element, but its nullity also decreases by one. Also, $x$ can not be unique to any other atom besides $F_u$. On lines 5-6, $x$ does not belong to any atom and we do not increase the nullity or decrease the amount of unique elements of $F_j$. Similarly on lines 10-11, $y$ is not unique to any atom and we do not alter the nullities or decrease the amounts of unique elements of $F_k$ or $F_l$. Thus $M_{i+1}$ satisfies (iv) and we have proved that $M_{i+1}$ is a matroid from Theorem \ref{thmCorollIII.1}.
	\fi

	\iffalse
	The new matroid $M_{i+1}$ also satisfies $\max\{|I| : F_I \in \mathcal{Z}_{<k}\} = \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil - 1$. This is because the nullity of an atom is never increased, and $F_u$ is the only atom whose size is reduced, but this is compensated by correspondingly reducing its nullity. Thus $\rho'_{i+1}(F_I) \geq \rho'_i(F_I)$ for every $I \subseteq [m]$, where we denote $\rho'(F_I) = |F_{I}|-\sum_{i \in I} \eta(F_i)$, and the subscript distinguishes between the matroids $M_i$ and $M_{i+1}$.

	Thus we can repeatedly use Algorithm 1 to decrease the nullity of some atom $F_u$ with $\eta(F_u)>\delta-1$ until every atom has $\eta(F_i)=\delta-1$. From Theorem \ref{thmc1props} (iii) we then see that we have obtained an perfect matroid. However, this is a contradiction and therefore $m < \left\lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil$.

	\fi

	Let us denote $s=\sum_{i \in [m]} \eta(F_i)$. Let us distribute this nullity evenly among the atoms $F_i$, \emph{i.e.}, set \vspace{- 0.4 cm}

\begin{equation*}
	\eta (F_i) = \begin{cases} \left\lceil s/m \right\rceil \textrm{ for } 1 \leq i \leq s- \left\lfloor s/m \right\rfloor m \vspace{1.5 mm}, \\
	\left\lfloor s/m \right\rfloor \textrm{ for } s- \left\lfloor s/m \right\rfloor m <  i \leq m.
	\end{cases}
	\end{equation*}

	For minimizing $\max\left\{\sum_{i \in I}\eta(F_i): |I|= \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1 \right\}$, this setup is clearly optimal and yields the bound \vspace{-0.4 cm}

	\begin{equation}
	\label{eqBoundTasajako}
	\begin{split}
	& \max\left\{\sum_{i \in I}\eta(F_i): |I|= \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1 \right\} \\
	& \geq \left(\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1\right)\left\lfloor s/m \right\rfloor + \min\left\{\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1, s- \left\lfloor s/m \right\rfloor m  \right\}.
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	The bound in \eqref{eqBoundTasajako} is clearly increasing as a function of $s$, and $s$ is bounded by $s \geq n-rm$. Thus we obtain the bound

	\iffalse
	We have
	\begin{equation*}
	\sum_{i \in [m]} |F_i|  =   \sum_{i \in [m]} \rho(F_i) + \sum_{i \in [m]} \eta(F_i) \geq |E|,
	\end{equation*}
	so $s \geq n-rm$. As the bound in \eqref{eqBoundTasajako} is increasing as a function of $s$, we obtain the bound
	\fi
	\vspace{- 0.3 cm}
	\begin{equation}
	\label{eqBoundTasajako2}
	\begin{split}
	& \max\left\{\sum_{i \in I}\eta(F_i): |I|= \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1 \right\} \geq \left(\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1\right)\left\lfloor \frac{n-rm}{m} \right\rfloor\\
	& \hspace{28pt}+ \min\left\{\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1, n-rm- \left\lfloor \frac{n-rm}{m} \right\rfloor m  \right\}.
	\end{split} \vspace{-0.5 cm}
	\end{equation}

	\vspace{-0.2 cm}This bound is in turn decreasing as a function of $m$ and we can obtain a new bound by substituting $m = \lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \rceil-1$.

	By additionally substituting $v$ and $b$ by their definitions in \eqref{newbound}, we can see that the bounds \eqref{newbound} and \eqref{eqBoundTasajako2} are equal.

	We have thus proved that the value of $d$ for non-perfect matroids is always bounded from above by either the bound \eqref{remainingbound} or the bound \eqref{newbound}. This proves the theorem.

	\iffalse
	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
	& \max\{\sum_{i \in I}\eta(F_i): F_I \in \mathcal{Z}_{<k} \} \\
	= & \max\{\sum_{i \in I}\eta(F_i): |I|= \left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1 \} \\
	\geq & \left(\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1\right)\left\lfloor s/m \right\rfloor + \min\{\left\lceil k/r \right\rceil-1, s- \left\lfloor s/m \right\rfloor m  \}
	\end{split}
	\end{equation*}

	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
	\sum_{i \in [m]} |F_i| & =   \sum_{i \in [m]} \rho(F_i) + \sum_{i \in [m]} \eta(F_i) \geq |E|=n \\
	s = \sum_{i \in [m]} \eta(F_i) & \geq n - \sum_{i \in [m]} \rho(F_i) \\
	& \geq n - rm \\
	& \geq n - r\left(\left\lceil \frac{n}{r+\delta-1} \right\rceil -1 \right)
	\end{split}
	\end{equation*}
	\fi

\end{IEEEproof}

\begin{remark}
 The class of matroids constructed in \eqref{eqCorollIII.1} constitutes a small subclass of the class of matroids called gammoids \cite{westerback15}. A method of constructing linear codes from  gammoids can be extracted by using \cite{lindstrom1973vector}. The smallest field size required by LRCs is an important issue, since it affects the computational complexity of the code. In general for gammoids there is a known upper bound for the field size, $2^n$ \cite{lindstrom1973vector}. However, we are convinced that this bound is not tight for the construction given in \eqref{eqCorollIII.1}. We have ongoing research on explicit constructions of linear LRCs over small fields obtained from \eqref{eqCorollIII.1} and conjecture an upper bound on the smallest  field size that is polynomial with $n$. However, explicit constructions of LRCs for the matroid-based construction given in \eqref{eqCorollIII.1} are out of the scope of this paper.
\end{remark}

\section{Conclusions}

 In this paper, we provided an expanded class of parameters for which perfect linear LRCs exist (Thm. \ref{thmResult1}). We also gave a general lower bound for the maximal minimum distance $d_{max}$ (Thm. \ref{raja}), which we proved to be optimal for sub-perfect LRCs from Construction 1 (Thm. \ref{thmResult3}).

{\begin{comment}
However, not much is currently known regarding the matter, the best known upper bound being $2^n$ \cite{westerback15}\cite{lindstrom1973vector}. This bound is not tight, and an upper bound polynomial with $n$ is conjectured.

Even though the ultimate aim of these results are to aid in the design of better LRCs, explicit constructions of LRCs are out of the scope of this paper. There however exists results on how to do it: First, gammoids corresponding to matroids from Construction 1 are constructed in \cite{westerback15}. Second, a method of constructing linear codes from the gammoids is implicitly present in the proofs of \cite{lindstrom1973vector}.

The field size required by the codes is an important issue, since it affects the computational complexity of the code. However, not much is currently known regarding the matter, the best known upper bound being $2^n$ \cite{westerback15}\cite{lindstrom1973vector}. This bound is not tight, and an upper bound polynomial with $n$ is conjectured.

\end{comment}}

These theorems suggest the following two-stage approach for solving $d_{max}(n,k,r,\delta)$ for almost affine LRCs: The first goal is to derive an expression for $d_{max}$ restricted to sub-perfect LRCs.
Then, full knowledge of $d_{max}$ would be achieved by determining the class of parameters $(n,k,r,\delta)$ for which perfect LRCs exist.

Theorem \ref{thmResult3} is an attempt at accomplishing the first task. It is only a partial result towards this goal as it is limited to matroids from Construction 1. However, matroids from Construction 1 have a maximal $d$ given their setup of atoms, which suggests that the bound in Theorem \ref{raja} is tight or almost tight in the general case for sub-perfect matroids.

Theorem \ref{thmResult1} in turn is an addition to the existing results on for which parameter values perfect matroids exist. A complete solution of this second question would seem to require solving hard problems of extremal set theory.