|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
We investigate the design of algorithms resilient to memory faults, i. e., algorithms that, despite the corruption of some memory values during their execution, are able to produce a correct output on the set of uncorrupted values. In this framework, we consider two fundamental problems: sorting and searching. In particular, we prove that any O(nlog n) comparison-based sorting algorithm can tolerate at most O((nlog n)1/2) memory faults. Furthermore, we present one comparison-based sorting algorithm with optimal space and running time that is resilient to O((nlog n)1/3) faults. We also prove polylogarithmic lower and upper bounds on fault-tolerant searching. REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
Additional Classification:
General Terms:
Keywords:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||