Hop reservation multiple access (HRMA) for multichannel packet radio networks
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
A new multichannel MAC protocol called hop reservation multiple access (HRMA) for packet-radio networks is introduced, specified and analyzed. HRMA is based on very-slow frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) and takes advantage of the time slotting necessary for frequency hopping. HRMA allows a pair of communicating nodes to reserve a frequency hop (channel) using a hop reservation and handshake mechanism on every hop to guarantee collision-free data transmission in the presence of hidden terminals. HRMA provides a baseline to offer QoS in ad-hoc networks based on simple half-duplex slow FHSS radios. We analyze the throughput achieved in HRMA for the case of a fully-connected network assuming variable-length packets, and compare it against an ideal multichannel access protocol and the multichannel slotted ALOHA protocol. The numerical results show that HRMA can achieve much higher throughput than multichannel slotted ALOHA in the traffic-load ranges of interest especially when the average packet length is large compared to a slot size, in which case the maximum throughput of HRMA is close to what can be obtained with an ideal protocol.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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