Analysis of a Random Channel Access Scheme with Multi-Packet Reception
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 key advantage of viewing communications in wireless networks as multiple access rather than a plurality of point-to-point transmissions, is its robustness towards multiple access interference. Concurrent packet transmissions are allowed to coexist thus deviating from the traditional view of enforcing collision-footprints around the transmitter-receiver pairs. What are the performance gains of employing channel access strategy based on a multiple access channel in a multihop wireless network? We consider a wireless multihop network, where nodes have a joint decoding capability to resolve up to K multiple concurrent packet transmissions from other nodes in their range. The basic assumptions are that the packet transmissions are asynchronous, i.e., nodes are completely uncoordinated, and that the packet transmission at each node is based on a probabilistic model. In this paper, we show that a simple random access strategy for communication over such channels offers significant gains in throughput while reducing latency in congested wireless networks. More precisely, we characterize the throughput performance gains through an exact analysis for the case of K=2 and also offer tight approximations for arbitrary K. Furthermore, we study the asymptotic throughput behavior and prove asymptotic optimality of random channel access over multiple access channel.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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