Paper detail

Correcting $k$ Deletions and Insertions in Racetrack Memory

One of the main challenges in developing racetrack memory systems is the limited precision in controlling the track shifts, that in turn affects the reliability of reading and writing the data. A current proposal for combating deletions in racetrack memories is to use redundant heads per-track resulting in multiple copies (potentially erroneous) and recovering the data by solving a specialized version of a sequence reconstruction problem. Using this approach, $k$-deletion correcting codes of length $n$, with $d \ge 2$ heads per-track, with redundancy $\log \log n + 4$ were constructed. However, the known approach requires that $k \le d$, namely, that the number of heads ($d$) is larger than or equal to the number of correctable deletions ($k$). Here we address the question: What is the best redundancy that can be achieved for a $k$-deletion code ($k$ is a constant) if the number of heads is fixed at $d$ (due to implementation constraints)? One of our key results is an answer to this question, namely, we construct codes that can correct $k$ deletions, for any $k$ beyond the known limit of $d$. The code has $4k \log \log n+o(\log \log n)$ redundancy for $k \le 2d-1$. In addition, when $k \ge 2d$, our codes have $2 \lfloor k/d\rfloor \log n+o(\log n)$ redundancy, that we prove it is order-wise optimal, specifically, we prove that the redundancy required for correcting $k$ deletions is at least $\lfloor k/d\rfloor \log n+o(\log n)$. The encoding/decoding complexity of our codes is $O(n\log^{2k}n)$. Finally, we ask a general question: What is the optimal redundancy for codes correcting a combination of at most $k$ deletions and insertions in a $d$-head racetrack memory? We prove that the redundancy sufficient to correct a combination of $k$ deletion and insertion errors is similar to the case of $k$ deletion errors.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.