fails to detect the presence of errors or fails to determine the

exactlocations of theerrors.Ineither
case, an erroneous
wordisdelivered
to theuser. Sinceno retransmission is
required in an FEC error-control system, no feedback channel
is needed. The throughput of the system is constant, and is
equal to the rate of the code used by the system.
FEC error-control systems, however, do have some drawbacks. When a received word is detected in error, it must be
decoded, and the decoded word must be delivered to the user
regardless of whetheritiscorrect
or incorrect. Since the
probability of adecodingerrorismuch
greater than the
probability of anundetected error, it isharder to achieve
high system reliability with
FEC schemes. In order to attain
high reliability, a long, powerful error-correcting
code must
be used andalargecollection
of errorpatternsmust
be
corrected. This makesdecodinghard
to implement and
expensive. For
these
reasons, ARQ schemes
are
often
preferred
over
FEC schemes for
error
control
in
data
communicationssystemssuch
as packet-switchingdata
networks and computer communications networks. However,
incommunications(ordatastorage)systems
wherefeedbackchannelsarenotavailable
or retransmissionisnot
suitable for some reason, FEC is the only choice.
Thispaper
surveys a number of ARQ schemes. They
representalternativesolutions
to thedesign
of retransmission
protocols,
particularly
the
mode in
which
the
transmitterstores,orders,andretransmitsthecodewords
which have been received in error. These different schemes
have arisen primarily in an attempt
to combat the problem
that, when the channel error rate increases, the throughput
of an ARQ error-control system may deteriorate very rapidly.
This is caused bythetimewastedinretransmittingthe
codewords detected in error. This problem becomes particularly severe if there is significant round-trip delay between
the transmission of a codeword and the receipt of its error
statusinformationbackat
the transmitter. Long delayis
inevitable when satellites or longterrestrialchannels
are
being used.
Anotherapproach to error control is through
theuse of
hybrid ARQ schemes which incorporate both FEC and retransmission.Hybrid ARQ schemes offerthepotentialforbetter
performance if appropriate ARQ and FEC schemes are
properly combined. Either block or convolutional codes may

December 1984-Vo1.22, No. 1 2

IEEE Communications Magazine

be used for FEC. This paper also discusses different classes

of hybrid ARQ schemes and their performance.

Basic ARQ Schemes

Based on retransmission strategies, there are three basic
types of ARQ schemes: stop-and-wait ARQ, g o - b a c k 4 ARQ,
and
selective-repeat
ARQ [3, 16-21]. The stop-and-wait
scheme represents the simplest ARQ procedureand
was
implemented in early error-control systems. The IBM Binary
SynchronousCommunication
(BISYNC) procedure,forexample, was of the stop-and-wait type [22]. In a stop-and-wait
ARQ error-control system, the transmitter sends a codeword
to the receiver and waits for an acknowledgment, as shown
in Fig. 1. A positive acknowledgment (ACK) from the receiver
indicatesthatthetransmittedcodewordhas
been successfully received, and the transmitter sends the next codeword
in the queue. Anegativeacknowledgment
(NAK) fromthe
receiverindicatesthat the transmittedcodewordhas been
detected in error; the transmitter then resends the codeword
andagainwaitsforanacknowledgment.Retransmissions
continue until the transmitter receives an ACK.
This scheme is simple but inherently inefficient because of
the idle time spent waiting for an acknowledgment
of each
transmitted codeword. One possible remedy is to make the
block (or code) length n extremely long. However, the use of
a very long block length does not really provide a solution,
since the probability that a block contains errors increases
withtheblocklength.
Hence, usingalongblocklength
reduces the
idle
time
but
increases
the
frequency
of
retransmissions for each codeword. Moreover, a long block
length may be impractical in many applications because of
restrictions imposed by the data format.
By the 1970's, ARQ systems were in extensive use in
packet-switched and other data networks. Higher data rates
andutilization
of satellitechannelswithlonground-trip
delaysestablishedthe
need forcontinuoustransmission
strategies to replacethestop-and-waitprocedures.Internationalstandardsorganizations
suchas CCITT (the International Telegraph and Telephone ConsultativeCommittee)
began makingeffortsforprotocolstandardization.
This
resultedin the high-level data link. control (HDLC) and the
CCITT X.25 standards. These envisaged the use of a go-back-

N ARQ system on full duplex links. This remains the standard

for packet-switching networks.
The basicgo-back-N ARQ scheme is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The transmitter continuously transmits codewords in order
andthenstoresthempendingreceipt
of anACKlNAKfor
each. The acknowledgment for a codeword arrives after a
round-tripdelay,definedasthetimeintervalbetweenthe
transmission of a codeword and the receipt
of an acknowledgment for that codeword. During this interval, N - 1 other
codewordsarealsotransmitted.
Wheneverthe transmitter
receivesa NAK indicating that a particular codeword, say
codeword i , was received in error, it stops transmitting new
codewords. Then it goes back to codeword i and proceeds to
retransmit
that
codeword
and
the
N - 1 succeeding
codewordswhichweretransmittedduring
one round-trip
delay. At
the
receiving
end,
the
receiver
discards
the
erroneouslyreceivedword
i and all N - 1 subsequently
received words, whether they are error-free or not. Retransmissioncontinuesuntilcodeword
i ispositivelyacknowledged. In each retransmission for codeword i , the transmitter
resendsthesamesequenceofcodewords.
As soonas
codeword i ispositivelyacknowledged,thetransmitter
proceeds to transmit new codewords.
The main drawback of go-back-N ARQ is that, whenever a
received word is detected in error, the receiver also rejects
the next N - 1 received words, even though many
of them
may be error free. As a result, they must be retransmitted.
This represents a waste of transmissions, which can result in
severe deterioration of throughputperformancelarge
if
round-trip
delay
is
involved.
For example,
consider
a
satellitechannelwitharound-tripdelay
of approximately
700 ms. If the codeword length n is 1000 bits long and the bit
rateis 1 Mb/s,thenin
one round-tripdelay, N = 700
codewordsaretransmitted.
Therefore,when one received
word is detected in error, 700 received words are rejected. If
errors occur often enough, the system throughput may fall
off very rapidly.
The go-back4 ARQ scheme becomes quite ineffective for
communicationssystemswithhighdataratesandlarge
round-tripdelays.Thisineffectivenessis
caused bythe
retransmission of manyerror-freecodewordsfollowinga
codeword detected in error. This can be overcome by using
the selective-repeat ARQ protocol. In a selective-repeat ARQ
error-controlsystem,codewordsarealsotransmittedcon-

tinuously.However,thetransmitteronly
resends
those
codewords that are negatively acknowledged (NAKed). After
resendinga
NAKed codeword,thetransmittercontinues
transmittingnewcodewordsinthetransmitterbuffer(as
illustratedin Fig. 3). Withthis scheme, abuffermust
be
provided at the receiver
to store the error-free codewords
following
received
a
word
detected
in
error,
because,
ordinarily, codewords must be delivered to the end user in
correct order, for example, in point-to-point communications.
When the first NAKed codeword is successfully received, the
receiver then releases any error-free codewords in consecutive order from the receiver buffer until the next erroneously
received
word
is
encountered.
Sufficient
receiver
buffer
storage must be provided in a selective-repeat ARQ system;
otherwise, buffer overflow may occur and codewords may be
lost.
Reliability and Throughput Efficiencies of the Basic ARQ Schemes
The performance of an ARQ error-control
system
is
normally measured by its reliability and throughput .efficiency.Inan ARQ system,thereceivercommitsadecoding
error whenever it accepts a received word with undetected
errors. Such an event is called an error event. Let P(E) denote
the probability of an error event. Clearly, for an ARQ system
to be reliable,the P(E) should be madeverysmall.
The
throughput efficiency (simple throughput) of an ARQ system
is defined as the ratio of the average number of information

December 1984-Vol. 22, No. 12

IEEE Communications Magazine

bits successfully accepted by the receiver per unit time to the

total number of bits that could be transmitted per unit time.
Allthreebasic
ARQ schemesachieve
the samesystem
reliability, but they provide different throughput efficiencies.
Suppose that an ( n , k ) linear block code C is used for error
detectioninan
ARQ system. Let usdefinethefollowing
probabilities:

c andthatthefeedbackchannelisnoiseless.First,
we
consider the stop-and-wait ARQ scheme. Let A be the idle time
of the transmitter between two successive transmissions. Let
6 be the bitrate
of thetransmitter.
Even thoughthe
transmitter does nottransmitduringtheidleperiod,the
effect of the idle period on the throughput must be taken into
consideration.In one round-trip delay time, the transmitter
couldtransmit n+hs bitsif it didnotremainidle.
For a
codeword to be receivedcorrectly,theaverage
numberof
bits that the transmitter could have transmitted is

PC = probabilitythata
received n-bitwordcontains
no
error;
Pd = probability that a received word contains a detectable
error pattern; and
Pe = probability that a received word contains
anundetectable error pattern.

+ A6)Pc + 2(n + AS)Pc(I - PC)

+ 3(n + AS)P, (1
+ . . . + (n + As) PC (1 - PC)'-'+ . . .
= (0 + AS)PC(1 4- 2(1 PC) + 3 (1 PC)' + . . .)

Tsw = (n

Obviously, PC+ Pd + Pe = 1. The probability PCdepends on the

channelerrorstatistics,andtheprobabilities
Pd and Pe
depend on both the channel statistics and the choice
of the
(n,k) error-detectingcode
C. Pe isnormallycalledthe
probability of undetected error of the code.
A received word is accepted by the receiver only if it either
contains no errors or contains an undetectable error pattern.
Since an undetectable error pattern can occur
on the initial
transmission of a word or on any retransmission, the
P(E)
thatthereceivedwordin
an ARQ systemisacceptedand
that a decoding error is made is given by

Therefore, the throughput of a stop-and-wait ARQ system is

where k / n is the rate of the code used by the system. For

data communications systems with high data rates and large
round-tripdelays, A 6 / n becomes verylarge because it is
impractical to use a very large n. In this case, the throughput
performance ofthe
stop-and-wait ARQ schemebecomes
unacceptable. For example, consider a satellite communications system with a data rate of 1 Mbls. Assume the roundtrip delay for a satellite channel
to be 700 ms. Then ~6 =
0.7 X l o 6 . To make ASln small compared to one, n should be
chosen in the range ofone million bits! It is impractical to
use suchalong code.Suppose that we choose n =10000
bits. Then A6/n = 70. Inthis case, thethroughput of the
system becomes negligible.
Ina g o - b a c k 4 (GBN)ARQ system, retransmission of an
NAK'ed codeword always involves resending
N codewords.
Consequently,foracodeword
to be successfully received,
the average number of transmissions is

P(E) = pe + PdPe + Pd2 Pe + . . .

= Pe (1

+ Pd + Pd2 + . . .)

(1)

If theerror-detecting code C isproperly chosen, Pe can be

made very small relative to PC, and hence P ( E ) can be made
very small. If the received word contains a detectable error
pattern, it isnotacceptedbythereceiverandaretransmission is requested.
For a random error channel with bit error rate t,
PC

(1 - E ) " .

(2)

It has been provedthatlinearblock

codes existwith the
probability of undetectederror Pe satisfyingthefollowing
upper bound [6, 7 , 101:

Pe I[ l - (1 - , ) k ] 2 - ( " - k ' .

TGBN

(3)

+ (N + 1)Pc(1 PC)+ (2N + 1)Pc(1 - P c ) ~

+ . . . + (QN + l ) P c ( l - Pc)Q+ . . .

1 ' PC

= 1 + N(1 - PC)
PC

Codes satisfying the above bound have been found and will
be discussedinalatersection.
If sucha code is used for
errordetection
and if thenumber
of paritybits, n-k, is
sufficiently large, P, can be made very small relative to PC
and hence P ( E ) << 1. For example, let C be the (2047,2014)
triple-error-correcting primitive BCH code. This code satisfies
the bound given by (3) [14]. Suppose that this code is used
forerrordetectioninan
ARQ system. Let E =
(a very
high bit error rate).Then PC- 1.25 X lo-', and Pe 5 lo-''. From
( l ) ,we have

and the throughput of a GBN ARQ system is

We see thatthethroughput
dependson boththechannel
errorrateandtheround-tripdelay
N. The term (1 - Pc)N
represents the effect of thechannelerrorrate
and the
round-tripdelay. For communicationssystemswherethe
data rate is not too high and the round-trip delay is small, N
can be made small by choosing a reasonably long
code. In
this case, theeffect of the round-trip delay is insignificant
and the GBNARQ scheme provides high throughput performance. However, for a communications system with a high
data rate and a long round-trip delay, N may become very
large. As aresult, (1 - Pc)N becomes significantlylarge,
especially when thechannelbiterrorrate
E ishigh. This

P(E) I8 x
From this example we see that high system reliability can be
achievedbyan ARQ error-control scheme usingverylittle
parity overhead.
Now we examine the throughput performance of the three
basic ARQ schemes. For simplicity, we assume that the
forward channel is a random-error channel with bit error rate
December 1984-VOl. 22, No. 1 2
IEEE Communications Magazine

would
make
the
throughput
performance
of GBN
ARQ
inadequate. For example,considerasatellitecommunications system with a data rate
of 1 M b l s andaround-trip
delay of 700 ms. If we choose n = 10000 bits, then N = 70.
For E = lb4,we have PC = 0.886 and (1 - Pc)N 8. This gives
a thro,ughput of less than 10% of the code rate k / n .
Figure 4 shows how vGBNvaries with bit error rate
E for
various values of code block length n. Throughput values are
computed for two values of round-trip delay, namely 30 ms,
such as might be the case for a long terrestrial line, and 700
ms, which is typical for a satellite channel. In bothcases, the
bit rate is 64 kb/s. Each code block is assumed to contain 32
bits ofoverhead, including parity and control bits.
We see
that, for such a low data rate, the
GBNARQ system does
provide
satisfactory
throughput
performance
when the
round-tripdelayisnot
too large,suchas
inaterrestrial
system. For asatellitesystem,however,thethroughput
becomes very low for a bit error rate of t >
Now consideraselective-repeat
(SR) ARQ systemfor
which the receiver has an infinite buffer
to store the errorfreecodewords when a received word is detected in error.
We will call such a system an ideal
SR ARQ system. For a
codeword to be successfully accepted bythereceiver,the
average number of transmissions needed is

r,,

1 . PC

+ 2 . P,(1

- PC)+ 3 . Pc(l - Pc)2 f . . .

+ P . Pc(l - Pc)Q-' + . .
- -1
PC

ms. Wesee that SR ARQ significantly outperforms GBNARQ,

and provides acceptable throughput even at a bit error rate
of = 10-4.
The highthroughputperformance
of ideal SR ARQ is
achieved at the expense of extensive buffering (theoretically
infinite buffering) and more complex logic at both transmitter
and receiver. If a finite buffer is used at the receiver (as is
thecase inpracticalsystems),bufferoverflowmayoccur
which reduces thethroughputperformance of the system.
However,ifasufficientlylongbufferis
usedand if buffer
overflowisproperlyhandled,
even withareductionin
throughput, SR ARQ still significantly outperforms the other
two ARQ schemes, especiallyforsystemswherethedata
rate is high and the round-trip delay is large.
There are two methods for handling buffer overflow in an
SR ARQ system with a finite receiver buffer: one is to devise
retransmissionstrategies so thatbufferoverflowcan
be
prevented, andtheotheris
to deviseamechanismforthe
transmitter to detect theoccurrence of areceiverbuffer
overflow event so that the lost codewords can be properly
retransmitted. The first method is usually simpler, but
the
second provides better throughput performance.
Finite receiver buffer SR ARQ schemes which do not allow
buffer overflow are reported in
Metzner [23], Miller and Lin
[24], and Weldon [25]. These schemes employmixed-mode
retransmission strategies. One such scheme is the selectiverepeat plus go-back-N (SR+GBN) ARQ scheme [24]. When the
transmitter first receives a NAK for a given codeword (say
codeword i ) , it retransmits that codeword and then continues
transmitting other new codewords, as in the basic SR mode
(see Fig. 6). If another NAK isreceivedforcodeword
i,
indicating that its second transmission attempt was unsuccessful, the transmitter switches to the
GBN retransmission
mode. That is, it sends no more new codewords but backs up

'

Hence, the throughput of an ideal SR ARQ system is

We see that the throughput does not depend on the roundtrip delay. As a result, SR ARQ offers significant benefits for
satelliteandlongterrestrialchannels.Figure
5 presentsa
comparison of ideal SR and GBN ARQ's for a satellite channel
with a data rate of 1.5 M b / s and a round-trip delay of 700

December 1984-VOl. 22, No. 12

IEEE Communications Magazine

to codeword i and resends thatcodeword andthe N - 1

succeeding codewords
that
were transmitted
after
the
previous transmission attempt of codeword i (see Fig. 6). The
transmitterstaysinthe
GBN mode untilcodeword
i is
positivelyacknowledged. At the receiver, whenthesecond
transmission attempt of codeword i is detected in error, the
subsequent N - 1 received words are discarded, regardless
of whether they were received error-free or not.
This scheme achievessuperiorthroughputperformance
comparedwith GBNARQ, because of thebenefitsgained
fromthe use of the SR mode forthefirstretransmission
attempt. The use of thesecondary mode (GBN) guarantees
that buffer overflows cannot occur at the receiveras long as
a buffer is provided for storing
N codewords. The scheme
can have an even higher throughput if more buffer storage is
provided at the receiver, and the transmitter is designed to
permitmorethan one retransmissionattemptforagiven
NAKed codewordinthe
SR mode beforeswitching to the
GBN mode. If v retransmissions in the SR mode are allowed
beforethetransmitterswitchestothe
GBN mode, the
receiver buffer must be able to store Y (N - 1) 1 codewords
to prevent buffer overflow. The throughput for Y retransmissions in the SR mode is given by

transmit other codewords waiting in the transmitter buffer in

sequence from where it left off. The number 91 can be chosen
to provide maximum throughput for a given error rate and
delay.Typically, 91 = 3 provides,goodresults.
If all q1
retransmissions of a codeword are received with detectable
errors,thenthetransmitterreverts
to the GBN mode. For
Q I = 1, Weldons scheme becomes SR+GBN ARQ with Y = 1.
Actually, Weldonsscheme isaclevercombination
of the
SR+GBN and SR+ST ARQ schemes. It can be generalized to
have multilevel repetitions of a NAKed codeword before the
transmitterswitches to the GBN mode. As thenumber of
levels increases, the throughput performance approaches the
ideal case, and of course the size of the receiver buffer also
increases. Weldons scheme provides higher throughput than
the SR+GBNARQ
scheme forveryhighbiterrorrates.
However, it is also more complex.
A selective-repeat ARQ scheme with a finite receiver buffer
which allows buffer overflow has recently been reported by

Figure 7 showshowthethroughput
of the SR+GBNARQ
scheme varies with bit error rate for several valuesof Y . As v
increases,
the
throughput
performance
of the SR+GBN
approaches the ideal case.
Another mixed-mode scheme is called the selective-repeat
plus stutter (SR-tST) ARQ scheme [24]. This is the same as
the SR+GBN scheme except that, instead of using the GBN
mode after v retransmissionattempts of agiven NAKed
codeword, the transmitter switches to the ST mode in which
it repeatedly retransmits that codeword until it receives an
ACK.TheSR+STARQ
scheme issimplerbut less efficient
than the SR+GBNARQ scheme.
Avariation of theabovemixed-mode
ARQ scheme was
suggested by Weldon [25]. When the transmitter is in the SR
mode followingthereceipt
of a NAK, it retransmits the
NAKed codeword 91 times (stuttering). Then it proceeds to
December 1 9 8 4 - V O I . 22, NO. 12
IEEE Communications Magazine

10

Hybrid ARQ Error-Control Schemes

Yu and Lin [26]. In this scheme, a mechanism is devised for

the transmitter to detect the occurrence of a receiver buffer
overflow event so that the lost wordscan
be properly
retransmitted. This scheme provides better throughput performancethanthemixed-mode
schemes for high bit error
rates; however, it is more complicated to implement.

Drawbacks of the ARQ and FEC schemes can be overcome

if the two basicerror-control schemes areproperlycombined. Such acombination of thetwobasicerror-control
schemes is referred to as hybrid ARQ [3, 19, 28,291. A hybrid
ARQ system consists of an FEC subsystem contained in an
ARQ system. The function of the FEC system is to reduce the
frequency of retransmission by correcting the error patterns
whichoccurmostfrequently.
Thisincreasesthe
system
throughput
performance.
However,
when a less-frequent
error pattern occurs and is detected, the receiver requests a
retransmissionratherthanpassing
the unreliably decoded
message to the user. This increases the system reliability. As
aresult,apropercombination
of FEC and ARQ provides
higherreliabilitythanan
FEC system aloneand
higher
throughput than a system with ARQ alone.
Hybrid ARQ schemes can be classified into two categories,
namely type-l and type-I1 schemes [3, 291. A straightforward
type-l hybrid ARQ scheme uses a code which is designed for
simultaneouserrordetectionandcorrection
[l-51. When a
received word is detected in error, the receiver first attempts
to correct the errors. If the number of errors (or the length of
an error
burst)
is
within
the
designed
error-correcting
capability of the code, the errors will be corrected and the
decoded message will be delivered to the user or saved in
thebufferuntil it isready to be passed to the user. If an
uncorrectable error pattern is detected,the receiver rejects
the received
word
and
requests
retransmission.
a
The
retransmissionisthe
same codeword. When the retransmitted codeword is received, the receiver again attempts to
correct the errors (if any). If the decoding is not successful,
the receiveragainrejectsthe
received word andrequests
another retransmission. This continues until the codeword is
eithersuccessfullyreceivedorsuccessfully
decoded. Error
correction may be included in any type of ARQ scheme. Since
a code is used for both error correction and detection in a
type-l hybrid ARQ system, it requires more parity-check bits
thanacode
used onlyforerrordetectioninapure
ARQ
system. As a result, the overhead for each transmission is
increased. When the channel error rate is low, a type-l hybrid
ARQ systemhaslowerthroughputthanitscorresponding
ARQ system. However, when the channel error rate is high, a
type-l hybrid ARQ system provides higher throughput than its
corresponding ARQ system, because itserror-correction
capability reduces theretransmissionfrequency,
as illustrated in Fig. 8.
Type-l hybrid ARQ schemes are best suited for communications systems in which a fairly constant level
of noise and
interferenceisanticipatedonthechannel.Inthis
case,
enough error correction can be designed into the system to
correct the vast majority of received words, thereby greatly
reducing the number of retransmissions and enhancing the
system performance. However, for a nonstationary channel
where the bit error rate changes, a type-l hybridARQ scheme
has some drawbacks. When the channel bit error rate is low
(forexample,asatellitechannelingoodweather),the
transmission is smooth andno (or little) error correction is
needed. As aresult, the extraparity-checkbitsforerror
correction included in each transmission represent a waste.
When the
channel
very
is noisy,
the
designed errorcorrectingcapabilitymay become inadequate. As aresult,
the frequency of retransmission increases and hence reduces

Linear Block Codesfor Error Detection

The reliability of an A R Q system depends on the choice of
thecodeused
forerrordetection.
If the code forerror
detection is properly chosen, the probability that the receiver
commits a decoding error can be very small.
Consider errordetectionwithlinearblock
codes ona
random error channel with bit error rate Korzhik
[6] proved
that there exist (n,k) linear codes with probability Pe of an
undetected error satisfying the bound
Pe 52-("-k'
(1

(1 - t ) k )

(8)

for all n and k and all t , 0 I

t 5 1/2. He proved this result by
averaging Pe over all the systematic (n,k) linear block codes.
It is an existence proof and
no method has been found for
constructingcodes
to satisfytheboundgivenby
(8).
However,afewsmall
classes of known codeshave been
proved to satisfy a weaker bound,
p, 5 2-Wi

(9)

for 0 5 t 5 1/2. These are the linear perfect codes (such as

Hamming codes and the (23,12) Golay code), theirdual
codes,and thedistance4primitive
BCH codes [8, 91. If a
code satisfying the bound of (9) is used for error detection in
an ARQ system,the P(E) of thesystemcan be made very
small by using a moderate number of parity bits, say 32.
Recently, Kasami,Klove,andLin
[13, 141 consideredthe
ensemble of alleven-weight (n,k) linear codes andproved
that there exist codes with Pe satisfying the following bound,

P, 52-("-k' { 1

+ (1 - 24" - 2(1 y )
-

(10)

for 0 i e 5 1/2. This bound is tighter than.the bounds given

by (8) and (9). They also established sufficient conditio,ns for
codes to satisfy
their
bound.
Based on the
sufficient
conditions,they
wereable
to provethat
the following
classes of codes satisfy the bound given by (10):
1) distance-8 (24, 12) Golay code;
2) distance-4 Hamming codes of lengths 2" - 1 and 2m;
3) distance-6 primitive BCH codesof length 2m - 1 with
m L 5 ( X 1 is a factor of the generator polynomial);
4) distance-6 extended primitive BCH codes of length 2";
5) distance-8 primitive BCH codes of length 2" - 1 with m
odd and m L 5;
6) distance-8 extended primitive BCH codes of length 2m
with m odd and m 1 5 .

Of course, these classes of codes alsosatisfythebounds

given by (8) and (9), and they are good for error detection.
For example,the CCITT recommendation X.25 forpacketswitched data networks [27] adoptsadistance-4Hamming
code with 16 paritybitsforerrordetection.
The natural
length of this code is 32767 bits long. In practice, the length
of a data packet is no more than a few thousand bits long,
which is much shorter than the natural length
of the code.
Consequently, a shortened version of the code is used.

11

December 1 9 8 4 - V O 1 . 2 2 , No. 12
IEEE Communications Magazine

correction and error detection [l-51, for instance, Correcting t

or fewer errors and simultaneously detecting
d (d > t) or
fewer errors. A (2k,k) code is said to be invertible if, knowing
only the k parity-checkbits
of acodeword,thecorresponding k information bits can be uniquely determined by
aninversionoperation
[3, 291. That istosay,theparitycheck section contains the same amount of information as
the message section.
When a message D of k informationbitsisreadyfor
transmission, it is encoded into a codeword (D,Q) of n bits
basedonthe error-detecting code CO,where Q denotes the
n-k parity-check bits. The codeword (D,Q) is then transmitted.
Atthe same time,thetransmittercomputesthe
k paritycheck bits, denoted P(D), based onthe message D andthe
halfrateinvertible
(2k,k)
code
C1. Thus, (D,P(D)) isa
codeword in CI.The k-bit parity block P(D) is not transmitted
but stored in the retransmission buffer of the transmitter for
later use.
Let (b.0) denote thereceivedwordcorresponding
to
(D,Q). When
isreceived,thereceivercomputesthe
syndrome of (0.4) basedon CO. If thesyndromeiszero,
then b is assumed to be error free and will be accepted by
thereceiver. If thesyndromeisnonzero,the
presenceof
errors in (b,d)is detected. The erroneous message b is then
saved in thereceiverbuffer,anda
NAK is sent to the
transmitter.Uponreceivingthis
NAK, thetransmitter encodes the k-bit parity block P(D) into a codeword (P(D),Q('))
of n bitsbasedontheerror-detecting
code CO, where Q(')
denotes the n-k parity-check digits for P(D). Then the parity
word (P(D),Q(')) istransmitted. Let ( P ( D ) , @ l ) ) denotethe
received word correspondingto ( P ( D ) , Q ( l ) )When
,
( P ( D ) , @ l ) ) is
received,itssyndromeiscomputedbasedon
CO. If the
syndrome is zero, then P(D) is assumed to be error free and
themessage D isrecoveredfrom P(D) byinversion. If the
syndrome is nonzero, then P(D) and the erroneous message
b (stored in the receiver buffer) together are used for error
correctionbasedonthehalf-ratecode
CI.If the errors in
(b,p(D)) formacorrectableerrorpattern,theywill
be
corrected. The decoded message D is then accepted by the
receiver and an ACK is sent to the transmitter. If the errors in
(b,P(D)) form a detectable but noncorrectable error pattern,
then is discarded, the erroneous parity block
P(D) is stored
in the receiver buffer, and a NAK is sent to the transmitter.
Upon receivingthe second NAK forthe message D, the
transmitterresendsthecodeword
(D,Q). When (b,a) is
received, its syndrome is again computed based on CO.If the
syndromeiszero,
b isassumed to be errorfree and_ is
accepted by the receiver, and the erroneous parity blockP(D)
is then discarded. If the s ndrome is nonzero, then D and the
(0) (stored in the receiverbuffer)
erroneous parity block
together are used for error correctio_n based on CI.If elror
P(D) isdiscarded, D is
correctionisnotsuccessful,then
storedinthereceiverbuffer,anda
NAK is sent to the
transmitter. The next retransmission will be the parity word
(P(D).Qfl)). Therefore, the
retransmissions
are
alternate
repetitions of the parity word (P(D),Q")) and the information_
codeword (D,Q). The receiver stgres the received message D
and the received parity block P(D) alternately. The retransmissions continue until themessage D is finally recovered
either by inversion or by decoding. The throughput behavior
of the above type-ll hybridARQ scheme in the selective-repeat
mode is illustrated in Fig. 8.
The alternateparity-dataretransmissionstrategycan
be
incorporatedwithany
of thethreebasictypes
of ARQ
schemes and their variations. It is particularly effective when

@.a)

thethroughput.Severaltype-lhybrid
ARQ schemes using
either block or convolutional codes have been proposed and
analyzed [28, 30-361.
For achannelwithanonstationarybiterrorrate,
one
would like to design an adaptive hybrid ARQ system. When
the channel is quiet, the system behaves just like a pure ARQ
system, with only parity-check bits for error detection being
included in each transmission. Therefore, thethroughput
performanceisthe
sameas that of apure ARQ system.
However,whenthechannel
becomes noisy,extraparitycheck bits are needed. This concept forms the basis
of the
type-ll hybrid ARQ schemes. A message in its first transmission is coded with parity-check bits for error detection only,
asinapure
ARQ scheme. When thereceiverdetectsthe
presence of errors in a received word, it saves the erroneous
word in a buffer, and at the
same time requests a retransmission. The retransmission is not the original codeword but
ablock of parity-check bits which is formed
based onthe
original message and an error-correcting 'code. When this
block of parity-check bits is received, it is used to correct the
errors in the erroneous word stored in the receiver buffer. If
errorcorrectionisnotsuccessful,thereceiverrequestsa
second retransmission of the NAK'ed word. The second
retransmissionmay be eitherarepetition
of theoriginal
codeword or another block of parity-check bits. This depends
ontheretransmissionstrategyandthetype
of errorcorrecting code to be used.
The concept of parity retransmission for error correction
wasfirstintroducedbyMandelbaum
[37]. The first type-ll
hybrid ARQ using
parity-retransmission
a
strategywas
proposedbyMetzner [38, 391. Metzner's scheme waslater
extended andmodifiedbymanyothers
[29, 40-491. Among
all the type-ll hybrid ARQ schemes that have been reported,
the scheme proposed by Lin and Yu [29] is the most analyzed
and forms the basis for the schemes reported in [41-491. The
Lin-Yu scheme provides both high system reliability and high
throughput performance.
WithLin-Yu'stype-llhybrid
ARQ scheme, two codes are
used; one is a high rate (n,k) code Co which is designed for
errordetectiononly, and the other is a half-rate invertible
( 2 k , k ) code C1 whichisdesignedforsimultaneouserror
December 1984-Vol. 22, No. 1 2
IEEE Communications Magazine

12

it is used in conjunction with SR ARQ. Type-ll SR hybrid ARQ

schemes using the parity-data transmission strategy and a
finite receiver buffer have
been proposedandanalyzedby
Lin and Yu [29] and Wang and Lin [43]. Lin and Yu showed
that, even with a receiver buffer
of size N , their type-ll SR
hybrid ARQ scheme
can
achieve
the
same
throughput
performance as the ideal SR ARQ with an infinite receiver
buffer,byusingahalf-rateinvertiblecode
C1 whichis
designed for correcting only a few errors, say t = 4 or 5. If
C1 is designed to correct more than 5 errors,theirscheme
can provide much higher throughput than the ideal SR ARQ
with an infinite receiver buffer,
as shown in Fig. 9. We see
that there is a substantial trade-off between a small amount
of error correction and a large amount of buffer storage. For
largervalues of t, the throughputcurveswillfollow
the
general characteristic for the type-ll hybrid ARQ illustrated in
Fig. 8. Linand Yu alsoshowedthattheirhybridscheme
provides the same order of reliability as a pure ARQ scheme.
The decoding complexity for the type-ll hybrid ARQ scheme
usingalternateparity-dataretransmissionandahalf-rate
invertiblecodeisonlyslightlygreaterthanthat
of a
correspondingtype-lhybrid
ARQ scheme with .thesame
designed error-correcting
capability.
The extra
circuits
needed are
an
inversioncircuit
based
on
the
half-rate
invertible code C1, which is simply a linear sequential circuit,
andanerror-detectioncircuitbased
on the error-detecting
code CO.

Type-ll Hybrid ARO Schemes Using Convolutional Codes

The alternateparity-dataretransmissiontype-llhybrid
ARQ schemecan be incorporated with a rate-112 convolutional codeusingeitherViterbiormajority-logic
decoding
[44, 45,47-49].The
error-detectingcode CO is still an (n,k)
block code. However, the error-correcting code C1 is a halfrate (2,l,m) convolutional code with memory order m [3]. In
the following, we willdescribeaschemeusingViterbi
decoding.
Let G1(X) and G2(X) be the two generator polynomials of
the half-rate convolutional code C1. When a data sequence of
k bits is ready for transmission,
it is first encodedintoa
codeword /(X) in Co. The information sequence /(X) is then
transformed into two sequences, P1(X) = I(X)G1(X) and Pz(X)
= /(X)G2(X), each n+m bits long. Note that the2.(n+m)-bit
sequence obtained by interleaving PI (X) and &(X) is a code
sequence for /(X) based on the half-rate convolutional code
C1.The sequence Pl(X) = I(%)Gl(X) is then transmitted to the
receiver and the sequence P2(%) is stored in the transmitter
buffer for possible retransmission at a later time.
Let Pl(X)
denote the received sequence corresponding to Pl(X). When
/?(X) is received, it is divided byGI(%). Let ~ L ( X and
) fi$t) be
the quotient and remainder, respectively. If R1(X) = 0, /1(X) is
checked
based
on
the
error-detecting
code
CO. If its
syndrome S l ( X ) is zero, r l ( X ) is assumed to be error-free and
identical to the transmitted information sequence /(X). The
receiver then accepts r1(X) (with n-k parity bits deleted).If
&(X) # 0 or S1(X) # 0, errors are detected in Pt(X). Pl(X) is
then saved in the receiver buffer for reprocessing at a later
time.
A t thesametime,
the receiversendsa
NAK to the
transmitter. Upon receiving this NAK, the transmitter sends
the
sequence
PZ(X) = /(%)G2(X) to the receiver
(first
retransmission for /(X)). Let &(X) be the received sequence

corresponding to P2(X). When A(%) is received, it is divided

by G2(X). Let T2(X) and &(10 be the quotient and remainder,
respectively. If /%(X) = 0, /z(X) is then checked based on the
error-detecting code Co. If its syndrome &(X) is zero, then
rz(X) is assumed to be e u o r freeandidentical
to the
transmitted sequence /(X). In this case, the receiver accepts
h ( X ) and discards the sequence A(%). If /%(X) # 0 or SdX) #
0, then &(X) togetherwith Pl(X) (whichisstoredin
the
receiverbuffer)arethendecodedbased
on thehalf-rate
convolutional code CI using a Viterbi decoder. Let T*(X) be
thedecodedsequence. p(X) isthencheckedbased
on the
error-detecting code CO. Ifthe syndrome Sf%) is zero,then
the receiver accepts p(X).If its syndrome S(X) is not zero,
then A ( X ) is discarded, &(X) is stored in the receiver buffer,
and the receiver sends another
NAK to the transmitter. The
nextretransmission.will
be PI(%). The alternateretransmissionsof &(X) and P2(X) continueuntil /(X) isfinally
recovered.
For receiver buffer size N, the throughput efficiencies of
the above hybrid ARQ scheme for block length n = 1024 and
various memory orders m are shown in Fig. 10. We see that
theschemeofferssignificantlybetterthroughputperformance than pure SR ARQ with infinite receiver buffers when
the channel bit error rate is high.
One disadvantage of
the
above
scheme
is
that
the
throughput efficiency drops rapidly to 0.5 when the channel
is noisy enough to require retransmissions. A refinement of
the above scheme, first introduced by Lugand and
Costello
[45], uses higher-rateconvolutionalcodes
to achievea
higher throughput when the channel is noisy, at a cost of
some increased receiver complexity.

13

December 1984-Vol. 22, No. 12

IEEE Communications Magazine

error-detecting code CO. If bothsyndromesare

zero, the
receiveraccepts I*(%) and J*(%). If bothsyndromesare
nonzero, &(X) is discarded, &(X) and &(X) are stored, and
the receiver sends a NAK3 message to the transmitter. This
instructs the transmitter to resend PI(%). Retransmissions of
Pl(X), &(X), and P3(X) continue until both /(X) and ,/(X) are
finallyrecovered.
If only one syndromeis zero, several
options are available. These include subtracting the effect of
the decoded sequence from A(%), and then trying to decode
the other sequence based on one of the half-rate codes CI or
CE. A full discussion and analysis
ofthese options can be
found in [49].
Although the above scheme requiresamorecomplex
retransmissionprotocol,amorecomplex
decoder (for the
same undetectederrorprobability),andalongerreceiver
bufferthanthehalf-rate
scheme, itsthroughputefficiency
drops to only 0.66 when the channel becomes noisy enough
to requireretransmissions.Asimilar
scheme usingthreefourths-rateconvolutional
codes maintainsathroughput
efficiency of at least 0.75 [49]. The throughput efficiencies of
the three schemes discussed,allusingamemoryorder3
code, are compared in Fig. 11.
Type-l Hybrid ARO SchemesUsingConvolutional

In the Lugand-Costello scheme, the error-detecting code CO

isstillan
(n,k) block code. However,theerror-correcting
code isa (3,2,rn) convolutional code [3], denoted C3 with
generator matrix
G(X) =

pr

On channels
where
fairly
a constant
noise
level
is
anticipated, type-l hybrid ARQ schemes can offer a throughput advantage over type-ll schemes (see Fig. 8).as well as a
simpler protocol. Type-l schemes using convolutional codes
have been proposedbyseveralauthors
[33, 34,50-521. In
thissection, we will review two recent type-l
schemes for
use inpacket-switchingnetworks
[34, 521. Both of these
make use of convolutional codes withsequentialdecoding
[2, 3,51.
In
conventional
sequential
decoding
of convolutional
codes,decodingproceedsuntilthereceived
message is
completely decoded or an erasure is declared. Erasures are
normally declared when decoding time
becomes excessive.

631 ( 8

GE( x ) 632 (X)

After a data sequence of k bits is encoded into a codeword

/(X) in Co,/(X) is transformed into two
sequences PI(%) =
I(X)Gl(X) and P31(X) = /(%)G31(%). Note thatthe sequence
obtainedbyinterleaving
Pl(X) and
isa code sequence
for /(X) based onthehalf-rateconvolutional
code CI with
generator polynomials G1(X) and G31 (X). The sequence PI (X)
is then transmitted to the receiver, while P31(X) is stored in
the transmitter buffer for possible use at a later time. When
?I(%) is received, the same procedure is followed as in the
half-ratecase. If errorsare detected in h ( X ) , then A ( X ) is
saved in the receiver buffer, and the receiver sends a NAKl
message to the transmitter. Upon receiving a NAKl message,
the transmitter switches to transforming codewords J(X) in
CO intothetwo
sequences &(X) = J(X)Gz(X) and P32 =
J(X)G32(X). These sequences, when interleaved, form a code
sequence for J(X) based on the half-rate convolutional code
C2 withgeneratorpolynomials
G2(X) and &(X). The sequence P2(X) istransmitted to thereceiver,and
&(X) is
stored in the transmitter buffer. When &(X) is received, the
same procedure is again followed.
If errors are detected in
h ( X ) , a NAK2 message is sent to the transmitter and &(X) is
stored. Upon receivinga NAK2, thetransmitter sends the
sequence P d X ) =. P31(X) P3E(X) = /(%)G31(%) J(X)G32(X) to
the receiver (the first retransmission for both /(X) and J(X)).
Note that the sequence obtained by interleaving &(X), Pz(X),
and &(X) is a code sequence for /(X) and J(X) based on the
two-thirds-rateconvolutional code C3. When &(X) isreceived,then &(X) togetherwith &(X) and &(X) (whichare
stored in the receiver buffer) are decoded based on the code
C3 using a Viterbi decoder. Let T*(X) and p(X)be the decoded
sequences. 'Theyarethenbothchecked
based onthe

December 1984-Vol.

22,
No. 12
IEEE Communications Magazine

Codes

14

In type-Ihybrid
ARQ sequentialdecoding,thistime-out
condition can be used as a signal to request a retransmission. Assume that a data sequence /(X), ready for transmission,
is
encoded into
codeword
a
V(X) in
an
(n,k,m)
convolutional code CI.V(X) isthentransmittedoverthe
channel,andthereceived
sequence P(X) is decoded bya
sequential decoder. If decoding is completed within the timeout limit,the decoded sequence P(X) is accepted by the
receiver.Otherwise,aretransmissionisrequested.Thisis
called t h e time-out algorithm (TOA) [52].The time required to
decode providesanaturalerror-detectingmechanismwith
sequential decoding. When the received sequence is not very
noisy,is
it
decoded quickly, and no
retransmission
is
necessary. When thereceived sequence isnoisy,however,
decoding takes a longer time due to the tree-searching rules
of
the
decoder.
If the
time-out
limit
is
exceeded, a
retransmission is requested.
Since each decoded branch in the code results in k data
bits being delivered to the user, the throughput efficiency of
the TOA assuming an ideal SR protocol is defined as

where CA is the average number of computations the decoder

performs per decoded branch, including retransmissions. In
thenoiselesscase, Ca = 1 and qToA= k / n , thecode rate.
Note that, since the number of computations performed by a
sequential decoder is a random variable which
depends on
the noisiness of the received sequence, CA must be computed
as a statistical average. The existence of the optimum timeout limit which minimizes CA and hence maximizes TOA has
been shownanalytically, and hasalso
been verifiedby
computer simulations [34].When the optimum time-out limit
is used, CA increasesonlyslightlywithincreasing
code
memory order m. Since theundetectederrorprobability
Pe
isanexponentiallydecreasingfunction
of m [34], large
memory orders can be used to achieve extremely small undetected error probabilities without reducing the throughput.
A more sophisticated approach to detecting errors can be
used to further improve the throughput efficiency. The metric
of the best path in a sequential decoder is monitored. When
theslope of this metric becomes too negative, that is, the
metric of the best path is decreasing
too rapidly, decoding
stops and a retransmission is requested. As in the TOA, the
metric of thebestpathprovidesanaturalerror-detecting
capability.If the received sequence isnotverynoisy,the
metric along the best path will tend to increase at a fairly
uniformrate,withonlyoccasionaldips.
The slope of this
metric,averagedoveranappropriatenumber
of branches,
will then remain positive. However, if the received sequence
isnoisy,the decoder may follow an incorrect path whose
metricdeclinesoverseveralbranches.
The slope of the
metric will then turn negative, and may exceed a threshold,
thereby triggering a retransmission request.
This is called the slope control algorithm (SCA) [34].The
advantageofthe
SCA isthatitcanrecognizeanoisy
received sequence as soon as erroneous bits are
processed
.by the decoder, rather than waiting for the time-out limit
to
be exceeded. This reduces C A , and hence increases throughput efficiency,compared to the TOA. The existence of an
optimum
threshold
on
the
slope
of
the
metric,
which
minimizes CA and hence maximizes the throughput efficiency
SCA of the SCA, has been shown analytically and verified by

computer simulation [34].Figure 12 compares the throughput

efficiency
of
the
TOA and SCA, both
operating
under
optimumconditions,overarangeofbit-errorratescorrespondingtoaverynoisychannel.
The code used in the
comparison was a (2,1,11) convolutional code with optimum
distance properties for sequential decoding. Clearly, the SCA
hasasmaller Ca, and hence a larger throughput, than the
TOA. Therefore, the SCA provides a very efficient means of
obtainingahighthroughput
and alow undetectederror
probability on noisy channels with relatively constant error
statistics.

References
[l]
E. R. Berklekamp, Algebraic Coding Theory, New York: McGrawHill, 1968.
[2] G. C. Clark, Jr., and J. B. Cain, Coding for Error Control, New
Jersey: Plenum, 1981.
[3] S. Linand 0. J. Costello, Jr.. Error ControlCoding:Fundamentals and Applications, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1983.
[4] F. J. MacWilliams,and
N. J. A. Sloane, Theoryof
ErrorCorrecting Codes, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1977.
[5] W.W. Petersonand E. J. Weldon, Jr.,.rror-Correcting Codes,
2nded., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1972.
on undetectederrorprobabilityand
[6] V. I. Korzhik,"Bounds
optimumgroup codes in achannelwithfeedback,"
Radiotecknika, no. 20, vol. 1, pp. 27-33,1965. (Englishtranslation:
Telecommun. and Radio ng., vol. 2, pp. 87-92, Jan. 1965.)
of undetected
[7] V. I. Levenshtein,"Boundsontheprobability
error," Problemy Perdachi Informatsii, vol. 13, no. 1 , pp. 3-18,
1977. (Englishtranslation: ProblemofInformationTransmission, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 1978.)
E. Hellman, "Concerning a
[8] S. K. Leung-Yan-Cheong andM.
boundonundetectederrorprobability."
I Trans.Inform.
Theory, IT-22, no. 2, pp. 235-237, March 1976.
[9] S. K. Leung-Yan-Cheong, E. R. Barnes, and 0. U. Friedman, "Some
properties of undetected error probability of linear codes," /E
Trans. lnform. Theory. IT-25, no. 1, pp. 110-112, Jan. 1979.

15

December 1 9 8 4 - V O l . 22, No. 12

WEE Communications Magazine

[IO]J. Massey, Coding techniques for digital data networks, Proc.

Conf. Inform.Theory and Syst., vol. 65, Berlin, Germany:
NTG-Fachberichte, Sept. 18-20,1978.
[ I l l J. K. Wolf, A. M.Michelson,and
A. H. Levesque, On
the
probability of undetectederrorforlinearblock
codes, I
Trans. Commun.. COM-30, no. 2, pp. 317-324,Feb.1982.
[I21 R. Padovaniand J. K. Wolf, Data transmissionusingerror
detectioncodes, GLOBECOM 82 Conf. Rec., C6.2, Miami, FL,
Nov. 29-Dec.2,1982.
S. Lin, On the
probability
of
[I31 T. Kasami, T. Klove,
and
undetectederror of linearblock codes, GLOBECOM 82, Conf.
Rec., E7.4, Miami, FL, Nov. 29-Dec. 2, 1982.
withlinear
[I41 T. Kasami, T. Klove,and S. Lin,Errordetection
blockcodes,
/E Trans.Inform.Theory,
IT-29, no. 1, pp.
131-136, Jan. 1983.
[I51 T. Fujiwara, A. Kitai, S. Yamamura, T. Kasami, and S. Lin, On
the
probability
of undetected
error
for
shortened
cyclic
Hammingcodes,
Proc. Fifth Conf. Inform.Theory
and Its
Application, Hachimantal, Japan, Oct. 1982.
[I61 J. J. Metznerand K. C. Morgan, Coded feedback communication systems, Proc. Nat. Nectron. Conf., Chicago, 11, 1960.
[17] B.Reiffen, W. G. Schmidt, and H.L. Yudkin, The design of an
error-freedatatransmissionsystemfortelephonecircuits,
AI Trans. Commun. Nectron., vol. 80, pp. 224-231,1961.
[18] W. R. Cowell and H. 0. Burton, Computer simulation of the use
of a group code with retransmission on a Gilbert burst channel,
A/ Trans. Commun. Nectron., pt. 1. pp. 577-580, Jan. 1962.
[I91 R. J. Benice and A.H. Frey, Jr., An analysis of retransmission
systems,. I Trans. Commun. Syst., CS-12, pp. 135-144, 1964.
[20] J. J. Metzner and K. C. Morgan, Word Selection Procedures for
Error-Free Communication Systems, New York University, New
York, 2nd Sci. Rep., Contract AF 19 (628)-4321, June 19651
H. 0. Burton and D. D. Sullivan, Errors and error control, Proc.
I, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 1293-1310, Nov. 1972.
General Information: Binary Synchronous Communication, IBM
Publication GA27-3004, White Plains, NY: IBM Corp., 1969.
J. J. Metzner, A study
of an efficient retransmission strategy
for data links. NTC77 Conf. Rec., pp. 3B:1-1-36:1-5.
M. J. Miller and S. Lin, The analysis of some selective-repeat
ARQ schemes with finite receiver buffer, /E Trans. Commun.,
COM-29, pp. 1307-1315, Sept. 1981.
E. J. Weldon, Jr., An improved selective-repeat ARQ strategy,
I Trans. Commun. COM-30. no. 3, pp. 480-486, March 1982.
P. S. Yu and S. Lin, An efficient selective-repeat ARQ scheme
for satellite channels and its throughput analysis, /E Trans.
Commun., COM-29, pp. 353-363, March 1981.
CCITT: Recommendation X.25, Interface between data terminal
equipment (DTE) and data circuit-terminating equipment (DCE)
forterminalsoperatinginthepacketmodeonpublicdata
networks, with Plenary Assembly, Doc. No. 7, Geneva, 1980.
L.
An
analysis
of the
E. Y. Rocher and R. Pickholtz,
effectiveness of hybridtransmission schemes, IBM J. Res.
Dev., pp. 426-433, July 1970.
[29] S. Linand
P. S. Yu, A hybrid ARQ scheme withparity
/E
retransmissionforerrorcontrolofsatellitechannels,
Trans. Commun.. COM-30, no. 7, pp. 1701-1719, July 1982.
[30] K. Brayer, Error control techniques using binary symbol burst
codes, /E Trans. Commun., COM-16. pp. 199-214, April 1968.
[31] A. R. K. Sastry,Performance of hybrid error control schemes
on
satellite
channels,
/E Trans.
Commun.,
COM-23, pp.
689-694, July 1975.
[32] A. R. K. Sastryand L.N. Kanal,Hybriderrorcontrolusing
retransmissionandgeneralizedburst-trappingcodes,
I
Trans. Commun., COM-24, pp. 385-393, April 1976.
[33] H. Yamamotoand
K. Itoh,Viterbidecodingalgorithmfor
/E Trans. Inform.
convolutional codes with repeat requests,
Theory, IT-26, pp. 540-547, Sept. 1980.
[34] A. Drukarev and D. J. Costello, Jr., Hybrid ARQ error control

December 1984-Vol. 22, No. 1 2

IEEE Communications Magazine

[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]

[45]

[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]

[50]
[51]

[52]

usingsequentialdecoding, ITrans.Inform.Theory,
IT-29,
Pp. 521-535, July 1983.
A. Drukarev and D. J. Costello, Jr., A comparison of block and
convolutional codes in ARQ error control schemes, I Trans.
Commun., COM-30, no. 11, pp. 2449-2455, Nov. 1982.
C. S. K. Leungand A. Lam,Forwarderrorcorrectionforan
ARQ scheme, /E Trans.
Commun.,
COM-29, no. IO, pp.
1514-1519, OCt. 1981.
D. M.Mandelbaum,Adaptive-feedbackcoding
scheme using
incremental redundancy, I Trans. Inform. Theory, IT-20, pp.
388-389, May 1974.
J. J. Metzner, Improvements in Block-Retransmission Schemes,
presentedat IEEE Int.Symp.Inform.Theory,Ithaca,
NY, Oct.
10-14,1977.
J. J. Metzner, Improvements in block-retransmission schemes,
/E Trans. Commun., COM-27, pp. 525-532,Feb.1979.
T.C. Ancheta,ConvolutionalParity
Check Automatic Repeat
Request,presentedat
1979 IEEE Int.Symp.Inform.Theory,
Grignano, Italy, June 25-29, 1979.
S. Linand
J. S. Ma, A Hybrid ARQ SystemwithParity
Retransmission for Error Correction, IBM Res. Rep. 7478(32232),
Jan. 11,1979.
S. Lin and P. S. Yu,SPEC-An
Effective Hybrid-ARQ Scheme,
IBM Res.Rep. 7591(32852), April 4, 1979.
Y.-M. Wangand S. Lin,Amodifiedselective-repeattype-ll
hybrid ARQ system and its performance analysis, /E Trans.
Commun., COM-31, no. 5, pp. 593-608, May 1983.
Y.-M. Wangand S. Lin, A parity-retransmissionhybrid ARQ
usingaconvolutionalcodeandViterbidecodingforerror
control, GiOBECOM 82, Conf.Rec., E7.1, Miami, FL, Nov.
29-Dec.2,1982.
L. R. Lugandand D. J. Costello, Jr., A comparisonofthree
hybrid ARQ schemesusingconvolutionalcodesonanonstationary channel, GLOBECOM 82 Conf. Rec., C8.4, Miami, FL,
Nov. 29-Dec.2,1982.
R. A. Comroeand D. J.Costello,Jr., ARQ schemes for data
transmission in mobile radio systems,
I Trans. Commun.,
COM-32, June 1984.
S. Lin.Parityretransmission
ARQ using
M.J.Millerand
convolutional codes, submitted to I Trans. Inform. Theory,
1982.
M.J.Miller,
ARQ Systems, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Electrical
EngineeringDepartment,University
of Hawaii,Honolulu,
HI,
1982.
L. R. Lugand, ARQ Schemes UsingConvolutional Codes and
ViterbiDecodingoverNon-StationaryChannels,
Elec. Engr.
Dept. Tech. Rept. EE8212-32-02, 111. Inst. of Tech., Chicago, IL,
1982.
K. E. Perry and J. M. Wozencraft, SECO: a self-regulating error
correctingcoder-decoder, IRE Trans. Inform. Theory, IT-8, pp.
128-135, Sept. 1962.
R. J. Fang,Lowerboundsonreliabilityfunctions
of variable
lengthnonsystematicconvolutionalcodesforchannelswith
noiselessfeedback,
/ETrans.Inform.Theory,
IT-17, pp.
161-171, March 1971.
R. E. Kahn, S. A. Gronemeyer, J. Burchfiel, and R. C. Kunzelman,
Advances in packet radio technology, Proc. I, vol. 66, pp.
1468-1496, NOV.1978.

Shu Lin was born in Nanking, China, on May 20,1937.He received

the B.S.E.E. degree from National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan,
China, in 1959, and
the
M S . and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical
Engineering from Rice University,Houston, TX, in 1964 and 1965,
respectively.
From 1965 to 1981, he waswiththeDepartment
of Electrical
Engineering,University of Hawaii,Honolulu.In 1982 he joinedthe

16

Department of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College

Station. In 1983, he rejoined the University of Hawaii where he is a
professor. He spentthe
1978-1979 academicyearasavisiting
scientist at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown
Heights, NY, where he workedonerror-controlprotocolsfordata
communications systems. From 1976 to 1978 he served as associate
editorfor AlgebraicCodingTheory.
He haspublishednumerous
technicalpapers in IEEE Transactionsandotherrefereedjournals.
Anlntroductiontofrror-Correcting
Codes
He istheauthorof
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970). He also coauthored (with
D. J. Costello)thebook,
Error ControlCoding:fundamentalsand
Applications (EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982). Hiscurrent
researchinterestsincludechannelcoding,error-controlprotocols,
and satellite communications.
Dr. Linisamember
of theBoardofGovernors
of the IEEE
Information Theory Group, is a member of Sigma Xi, and is a Fellow
of the IEEE.
Daniel J. Costello, Jr.. was born in Seattle, WA, on August 9,1942.
He received the B.S.E.E. degree from Seattle University, Seattle, WA,
in 1964, andthe M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in ElectricalEngineering
from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, in 1966 and 1969,
respectively.
Inthesummerof
1966, he servedasanassociateresearch
engineer at the Boeing Aerospace Division, Seattle,
WA. In 1969,he
joined the faculty of the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL,
as an assistant professor of Electrical Engineering. He was promoted
to associate professor in 1973, and to full professor in 1980. He spent
the summer of 1971 as a research associate at Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, and was a visiting professor at the University
of Notre
Dame during the 1983-84 academic year. In addition, he has served
as a professional consultant for Western Electric, Illinois Institute of
Technology Research Institute,
Motorola
Communications,
and
Digital Transmission Systems.
Dr. Costello has been a Member of the IEEE since 1969, and was
electedaSeniorMember
in 1978. He belongstotheInformation
Theory Group and the Communications Society.
Since 1983, he has
been a member of the Information Theory Group Board of Governors,
BOG. He has
and in 1984 was elected second vice-president of the
served as an associate editor of Communication Theory for the /E
TransactionsonCommunications,
andsince
1983 has been an
associate editor for Coding Techniques for the /E Transactions on
Information Theory.
Dr. Costello's
research
interests
are
in the
area
of digital
communications, with special emphasis on coding theory, informationtheory,multiusersystems,communicationsnetworks,error
control,andspread-spectrumcommunications.
He hasauthored
over 50 technical publications in his field, and in
1983 coauthored
(with Shu Lin)atextbookentitled
Error ControlCoding:fundamentals and Applications. He has served as principal investigator on
twelveresearchgrants,andasanassociateinvestigatorontwo
others. He has also supervised ten Ph.D. dissertations at the Illinois
Institute of Technology.

At TRW, where our systems

engineering capabilities are world
renown, we are particularly committed
to the design and delivery of major C3
hardware systems. Because of this
commitment, we have experienced
phenomenal growth, and the demand
for highly motivated professionals
continues. To meet these demands, we
are seeking individuals who have the
necessary qualifications and the desire
to work in an environment dedicated to
reaching the limits of excellence.
Our current needs include the
following:
H HF Design Engineers
(Spread Spectrum Techniques)
HIW Integration and Test Engineers
Communications Systems
Engineers
Design Engineers
(Mobile or Transportable Equipment)
ILS EngineerslAnalysts
Production Control/
Manufacturing Engineers
Commit your expertise to a company
committed to the quality of the future.
Tommorow is taking shape at a
company called TRW.

Michael J. Miller received the B.E. honors and the graduate Dip.Ed.
degrees from the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia in
1961, and the M.Sc.(Eng.) degree from Queen's University, Kingston,
Ont., Canada in 1973. He received the Ph.D. degree from the University
of Hawaii, Honolulu, in 1981.
He was with the Australian Postmaster General's Department from
1956-1966, initially as a cadet engineer and subsequently as a radio
engineer
responsible
for
radio
relay
system
development
and
operations.Since 1966, he has been onthefaculty
of theSouth
Australian Institute of Technology, Adelaide, Australia, where he is
currently an associate professor. In
1980 he spent six months as a
visiting research colleague at the University
of Hawaii. His current
research interests are in the fields of error control coding and digital
radio transmission.
e ofFellowa Dr.is Miller
IEE.

For immediate consideration and more

information, send your resume, in
confidence to: R. Cunningham, TRW
Defense Systems Group, Skyline
Four/Suite 444, 5113 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041. Equal
opportunity employer. U.S. Citizenship
required.
Background
investigation
may be required.
,

A Company Called TRW

17