Paper detail

Strategic Contention Resolution in Multiple Channels

We consider the problem of resolving contention in communication networks with selfish users. In a \textit{contention game} each of $n \geq 2$ identical players has a single information packet that she wants to transmit using one of $k \geq 1$ multiple-access channels. To do that, a player chooses a slotted-time protocol that prescribes the probabilities with which at a given time-step she will attempt transmission at each channel. If more than one players try to transmit over the same channel (collision) then no transmission happens on that channel. Each player tries to minimize her own expected \textit{latency}, i.e. her expected time until successful transmission, by choosing her protocol. The natural problem that arises in such a setting is, given $n$ and $k$, to provide the players with a common, anonymous protocol (if it exists) such that no one would unilaterally deviate from it (equilibrium protocol). All previous theoretical results on strategic contention resolution examine only the case of a single channel and show that the equilibrium protocols depend on the feedback that the communication system gives to the players. Here we present multi-channel equilibrium protocols in two main feedback classes, namely \textit{acknowledgement-based} and \textit{ternary}. In particular, we provide equilibrium characterizations for more than one channels, and give specific anonymous, equilibrium protocols with finite and infinite expected latency. In the equilibrium protocols with infinite expected latency, all players transmit successfully in optimal time, i.e. $Θ(n/k)$, with probability tending to 1 as $n/k \to \infty$.

preprint2018arXivOpen 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.