MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155861592 · doi:10.1109/pimrc.2009.5449889

A network coded ARQ protocol for broadcast streaming over hybrid satellite systems

2009· article· en· W2155861592 on OpenAlexaff
Sameh Sorour, Shahrokh Valaee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetransmissionComputer networkComputer scienceSelective Repeat ARQGo-Back-N ARQNetwork packetTransmission delayGoodputAutomatic repeat requestHybrid automatic repeat requestSliding window protocolReal-time computingThroughputWirelessTelecommunicationsTelecommunications link

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the high round trip delay in satellite systems, the retransmission of lost packets using conventional ARQ schemes is performed in a very rigid manner and after a very long time of the initial packet transmission. This results in a high average packet delay and packet drop rate in broadcast streaming applications. Moreover, conventional ARQ schemes are generally inefficient in broadcast scenarios. In this paper, we propose a network coded ARQ protocol that performs both proactive and reactive packet retransmissions in hybrid satellite systems. The proposed protocol employs a network coding approach to generate efficient proactive retransmission packets without the knowledge of lost packets. This not only allows the transmission of these coded retransmissions before the arrival of the initial packets to their destinations but also achieves more efficient packet recovery compared to conventional ARQ. Reactive retransmissions in response to packet acknowledgments are then employed if one or more packets are still lost. Simulation results show considerable gains for our proposed protocol over the selective repeat ARQ protocol in terms of average packet delay, packet drop rate and goodput.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207