In the string correction problem, we are to transform one string into another using a set of prescribed edit operations. In string correction using the Damerau-Levenshtein (DL) distance, the permissible edit operations are: substitution, insertion, deletion and transposition. Several algorithms for string correction using the DL distance have been proposed. The fastest and most space efficient of these algorithms is due to Lowrance and Wagner. It computes the DL distance between strings of length m and n, respectively, in O(mn) time and O(mn) space. In this paper, we focus on the development of algorithms whose asymptotic space complexity is less and whose actual runtime and energy consumption are less than those of the algorithm of Lowrance and Wagner. We develop space- and cache-efficient algorithms to compute the Damerau-Levenshtein (DL) distance between two strings as well as to find a sequence of edit operations of length equal to the DL distance. Our algorithms require O(s min{m,n}+m+n) space, where s is the size of the alphabet and m and n are, respectively, the lengths of the two strings. Previously known algorithms require O(mn) space. The space- and cache-efficient algorithms of this paper are demonstrated, experimentally, to be superior to earlier algorithms for the DL distance problem on time, space, and enery metrics using three different computational platforms. Our benchmarking shows that, our algorithms are able to handle much larger sequences than earlier algorithms due to the reduction in space requirements. On a single core, we are able to compute the DL distance and an optimal edit sequence faster than known algorithms by as much as 73.1% and 63.5%, respectively. Further, we reduce energy consumption by as much as 68.5%. Multicore versions of our algorithms achieve a speedup of 23.2 on 24 cores.

This paper reviews some of the recent advances in the development of algorithms for wireless sensor networks. We focus on sensor deployment and coverage, routing, and sensor fusion.

An RNA folding/RNA secondary structure prediction algorithm determines the non-nested/pseudoknot-free structure by maximizing the number of complementary base pairs and minimizing the energy. Several implementations of Nussinov’s classical RNA folding algorithm have been proposed. Our focus is to obtain run time and energy efficiency by reducing the number of cache misses. Three cache-efficient algorithms, ByRow, ByRowSegment and ByBox, for Nussinov’s RNA folding are developed. Using a simple LRU cache model, we show that the Classical algorithm of Nussinov has the highest number of cache misses followed by the algorithms Transpose (Li et al.), ByRow, ByRowSegment, and ByBox (in this order). Extensive experiments conducted on four computational platforms–Xeon E5, AMD Athlon 64 X2, Intel I7 and PowerPC A2–using two programming languages–C and Java–show that our cache efficient algorithms are also efficient in terms of run time and energy. Our benchmarking shows that, depending on the computational platform and programming language, either ByRow or ByBox give best run time and energy performance. The C version of these algorithms reduce run time by as much as 97.2% and energy consumption by as much as 88.8% relative to Classical and by as much as 56.3% and 57.8% relative to Transpose. The Java versions reduce run time by as much as 98.3% relative to Classical and by as much as 75.2% relative to Transpose. Transpose achieves run time and energy efficiency at the expense of memory as it takes twice the memory required by Classical. The memory required by ByRow, ByRowSegment, and ByBox is the same as that of Classical. As a result, using the same amount of memory, the algorithms proposed by us can solve problems up to 40% larger than those solvable by Transpose.

We propose a new algorithm, PMS6, for the (l,d)-motif discovery problem in which we are to find all strings of length l that appear in every string of a given set of strings with at most d mismatches. The run time ratio PMS5/PMS6, where PMS5 is the fastest previously known algorithm for motif discovery in large instances, ranges from a high of 2.20 for the (21,8) challenge instances to a low of 1.69 for the (17,6) challenge instances. Both PMS5 and PMS6 require some amount of preprocessing. The preprocessing time for PMS6 is 34 times faster than that for PMS5 for (23,9) instances. When preprocessing time is factored in, the run time ratio PMS5/PMS6 is as high as 2.75 for (13,4) instances and as low as 1.95 for (17,6) instances.