Resequencing Analysis of Stop-and-Wait ARQ for Parallel Multichannel Communications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider a multichannel data communication system in which the stop-and-wait automatic-repeat-request protocol for parallel channels with an in-sequence delivery guarantee (MSW-ARQ-inS) is used for error control. We evaluate the resequencing delay and the resequencing buffer occupancy, respectively. Under the assumption that all channels have the same transmission rate but possibly different time-invariant error rates, we derive the probability generating function of the resequencing buffer occupancy and the probability mass function of the resequencing delay. Then, by assuming the Gilbert-Elliott model for each channel, we extend our analysis to time-varying channels. Through examples, we compute the probability mass functions of the resequencing buffer occupancy and the resequencing delay for time-invariant channels. From numerical and simulation results, we analyze trends in the mean resequencing buffer occupancy and the mean resequencing delay as functions of system parameters. We expect that the modeling technique and analytical approach used in this paper can be applied to the performance evaluation of other ARQ protocols (e.g., the selective-repeat ARQ) over multiple time-varying channels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it