2015
DOI: 10.1186/s13634-015-0273-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic network coding for two-hop lossy transmissions

Abstract: In this paper, we consider network transmissions over a single or multiple parallel two-hop lossy paths. These scenarios occur in applications such as sensor networks or WiFi offloading. Random linear network coding (RLNC), where previously received packets are re-encoded at intermediate nodes and forwarded, is known to be a capacity-achieving approach for these networks. However, a major drawback of RLNC is its high encoding and decoding complexity. In this work, a systematic network coding method is proposed… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Obviously, the issue of rank deficiency can be solved since the receiver can still decode some original packets even though the receiver cannot receive a sufficient number of linearly independent packets. On the other hand, SNC can achieve the same performance as the receiver receives a sufficient number of transmitted packets [ 22 , 23 ]. In addition, the second drawback (i.e., high decoding complexity) can be solved by brief propagation (BP) and Gaussian Elimination (GE) algorithms that are used for decoding with low computational complexity compared to RLNC [ 24 ].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Obviously, the issue of rank deficiency can be solved since the receiver can still decode some original packets even though the receiver cannot receive a sufficient number of linearly independent packets. On the other hand, SNC can achieve the same performance as the receiver receives a sufficient number of transmitted packets [ 22 , 23 ]. In addition, the second drawback (i.e., high decoding complexity) can be solved by brief propagation (BP) and Gaussian Elimination (GE) algorithms that are used for decoding with low computational complexity compared to RLNC [ 24 ].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this subsection, we compared the performance of our scheme to two other baseline schemes that were RLNC [ 16 ] and SNC [ 23 ]. This is because both of them employed redundancy-based reliability mechanism to use the advantage of coding for providing the capability of error correction over lossy wireless channel like our proposal scheme.…”
Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies investigated the tradeoffs between AL-FEC, physical, and MAC layer parameters for broadcast services over WLANs [12,13], Long-Term Evolution (LTE) [14,15], and Digital Video Broadcasting-Handheld (DVB-H) [16] and found that only a welldesigned and optimized system can maximize spectral efficiency and user's QoE. Some research has been conducted into cross-layer optimization frameworks that modify AL-FEC redundancy based on the physical layer modulation and coding schemes (MCSs) used to enable dependable video streaming applications across unreliable wireless channels [17][18][19][20][21]. However, because each multicast user has a different channel condition, multicast video broadcasting to numerous viewers poses extra limitations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the authors showed that decoding complexity and per‐packet delay can be reduced if packets can traverse the entire network in the systematic (uncoded) form. Hence, SNC has been exploited in many applications such as content distribution [2], sensor networks or Wi‐Fi offloading [3], and multimedia streaming [4]. Nevertheless, the complete analysis of the decoding performance has not been fully derived.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%