Performance of random medium access control, an asymptotic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random Medium-Access-Control (MAC) algorithms have played an increasingly important role in the development of wired and wireless Local Area Networks (LANs) and yet the performance of even the simplest of these algorithms, such as slotted-Aloha, are still not clearly understood. In this paper we provide a general and accurate method to analyze networks where interfering users share a resource using random MAC algorithms. We show that this method is asymptotically exact when the number of users grows large, and explain why it also provides extremely accurate performance estimates even for small systems. We apply this analysis to solve two open problems: (a) We address the stability region of non-adaptive Aloha-like systems. Specifically, we consider a fixed number of buffered users receiving packets from independent exogenous processes and accessing the resource using Aloha-like algorithms. We provide an explicit expression to approximate the stability region of this system, and prove its accuracy. (b) We outline how to apply the analysis to predict the performance of adaptive MAC algorithms, such as the exponential back-off algorithm, in a system where saturated users interact through interference. In general, our analysis may be used to quantify how far from optimality the simple MAC algorithms used in LANs today are, and to determine if more complicated (e.g. queue-based) algorithms proposed in the literature could provide significant improvement in performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".