HARQ and AMC: Friends or Foes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To ensure reliable communications in randomly varying and error-prone channels, wireless systems use adaptive modulation and coding (AMC) as well as hybrid ARQ (HARQ). In order to elucidate their compatibility and interaction, we compare the throughput provided by AMC, HARQ, and their combination (AMC-HARQ) under two operational conditions: in slow- and fast block-fading channels. Considering both incremental redundancy HARQ and repetition redundancy HARQ, we optimize the rate-decision regions for AMC/HARQ and compare them in terms of attainable throughput. Under a fairly general model of the channel variation and the decoding functions, we conclude that: 1) adding HARQ on top of AMC may be counterproductive in the high average signal-to-noise ratio regime for fast fading channels and 2) HARQ is useful for slow fading channels, but it provides moderate throughput gains. We provide explanations for these results which allow us to propose paths to improve AMC-HARQ systems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".