Energy Performance of LR-FHSS: Analysis and Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-range frequency hopping spread spectrum (LR-FHSS) is a pivotal advancement in the LoRaWAN protocol that is designed to enhance the network's capacity and robustness, particularly in densely populated environments. Although energy consumption is paramount in LoRaWAN-based end devices, this is the first study in the literature, to our knowledge, that models the impact of this novel mechanism on energy consumption. In this article, we provide a comprehensive energy consumption analytical model of LR-FHSS, focusing on three critical metrics: average current consumption, battery lifetime, and energy efficiency of data transmission. The model is based on measurements performed on real hardware in a fully operational LR-FHSS network. While in our evaluation, LR-FHSS can show worse consumption figures than LoRa, we find that with optimal configuration, the battery lifetime of LR-FHSS end devices can reach 2.5 years for a 50 min notification period. For the most energy-efficient payload size, this lifespan can be extended to a theoretical maximum of up to 16 years with a one-day notification interval using a cell-coin battery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".