f1; Sample Clauses

f1;. N g. Thus, if an omissive error occurred, it was required to substitute a default value for the missing value. This action had the e ect of transforming omissive errors into transmissive errors. The only exception allowed was for a value transmitted by a globally recognized faulty process (i.e. a benign fault). This value could be discarded because it was assured a priori that all other non-faulty processes would do likewise, preserving the equality jVij = jVjj. As a result, the previous voting algorithms could not exploit the omissive behavior of malicious faults. Similarly, a process could not simply disregard its locally diagnosed transmissive errors, such as parity errors. The process either had to use the erroneous value as received, or substitute the value with a default. This is again to ensure jVij = jVjj. A variant of the MSR family [11] of voting algorithms will be exploited. The new family of algorithms, called Omission MSR, or OMSR algorithms, di er from MSR algorithms in that the size of voting multiset V is not xed and may change in every round of voting. Speci cally, during a voting round, when an OMSR algorithm receives either an omissive error or a self-evident transmissive error, it simply discards that error. No defaults are substituted into the voting multiset V. Thus, omissive errors remain omissive, and self- evident errors become omissive. As a result, the equality of jVij and jVjj is no longer preserved.