jump to navigation

The Impact of Channel Feedback on Opportunistic Relay Selection for Hybrid-ARQ in Wireless Networks August 5, 2009

Posted by flashbuzzer in Research.
Tags: ,
trackback

My second journal paper appeared in the IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology last March. You can find a pre-print on arXiv here.

Here are my thoughts on this paper’s strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths: In this paper, we studied a practical problem, namely that of relay selection in a wireless network, and obtained a near-practical solution to this problem. It should be stressed that rate-compatible punctured coding is an important element of industry standards such as IEEE 802.16e and 3GPP LTE. Also, a well-crafted comment from one of the paper’s anonymous reviewers motivated us to thoroughly revise Section 5.1; the results of the revision strengthened our belief in our solution’s near-practicality. In particular, we cited various parameters from the IEEE 802.11a standard to support our assertion that opportunistic relay selection would not significantly increase the level of signaling overhead in a wireless network.

Weaknesses: An inherent limitation to studying a practical problem is the resultant difficulty in obtaining meaningful, closed-form mathematical results. Mathematical elegance is a quality that is rarely attributed to hybrid-ARQ and convolutional coding; combining those two transmission strategies with opportunistic relay selection limited us to the relatively simple analytical results in Section 4. Also, I used an insufficient number of Monte Carlo trials to obtain the simulation results in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. This resulted in plots that would have greatly benefited from either the addition of error bars or additional test runs.

This was my first accepted IEEE journal paper, which was a nice milestone in my graduate school career. I also greatly enjoyed the paper revision process, as it was my first opportunity to mull over reviewer comments and determine how to address them. Formulating a coherent plan for a paper revision is often difficult, but it is well worth the time and effort; for example, I always enjoy reading well-written author responses to my comments whenever I serve as an anonymous reviewer.

Advertisements

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: