Paper detail

Coding Versus ARQ in Fading Channels: How reliable should the PHY be?

This paper studies the tradeoff between channel coding and ARQ (automatic repeat request) in Rayleigh block-fading channels. A heavily coded system corresponds to a low transmission rate with few ARQ re-transmissions, whereas lighter coding corresponds to a higher transmitted rate but more re-transmissions. The optimum error probability, where optimum refers to the maximization of the average successful throughput, is derived and is shown to be a decreasing function of the average signal-to-noise ratio and of the channel diversity order. A general conclusion of the work is that the optimum error probability is quite large (e.g., 10% or larger) for reasonable channel parameters, and that operating at a very small error probability can lead to a significantly reduced throughput. This conclusion holds even when a number of practical ARQ considerations, such as delay constraints and acknowledgement feedback errors, are taken into account.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.