Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) in Wireless Communications Systems and Standards: A Contemporary Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic repeat request (ARQ) schemes, and in particular hybrid-ARQ (HARQ) schemes, which jointly adopt forward error correction (FEC) and ARQ, are essential to provide reliable data transmission in wireless communications systems. However, the feedback from the receiver to the transmitter and the retransmission process used in ARQ incurs significant cost in terms of power efficiency, throughput, computational power and delay. Unfortunately, such drawbacks can limit their applications to several current and emerging technologies. More specifically, the increasing number of wireless users has create spectrum scarcity, relying on small-size batteries create power constraints, deployment of real-time applications boost the demand for ultra-low delay networks, and the ultra-small low-cost Internet of Things (IoT) devices has limited signal processing and computation capabilities. Consequently, extensive research efforts have been dedicated to overcome the limitations inherent in HARQ. This survey paper provides an extensive literature review of the state-of-the-art HARQ techniques and discusses their integration in various wireless technologies. Moreover, it provides insights on advantages and disadvantages of particular ARQ types and discusses open problems and future directions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".