Analyzing Age Performance of Hybrid-ARQ: A Unified Explicit Result
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we offer an explicit, unified result that can generally depict the age performance of error-correcting techniques at the physical layer. We first propose a more realistic code-based status update system, wherein different types of delay elements, e.g., the coding delay, transmission delay, propagation delay, decoding delay and feedback delay are comprehensively considered. Under this system, we derive closed-form average Age of Information (AoI) expressions for reactive HARQ and proactive HARQ, respectively. On the basis of these explicit expressions, and utilizing the existing results for finite-length codes, we formulate an AoI minimization problem to investigate the age-optimal codeblock assignment strategy in the finite block-length (FBL) regime. Through case studies and analytical results, we provide comparative insights between reactive HARQ and proactive HARQ from the perspective of freshness of information. The numerical results and optimization solutions reveal that proactive HARQ draws its strength from both superior age performance and system robustness, thus enabling the potential to provide new system advancement for a freshness-critical status update system. The full paper version of this work is available on the arXiv at https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01257.
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 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".