Reveals improved transmission rates in flying ad hoc networks, suggesting better MAC protocol design.
Aiming at the problems of the traditional Statistical Priority-Based Multiple Access (SPMA) protocol in multi-hop Flying Ad Hoc Networks (FANETs), such as single-dimensional queueing only according to priority, unreasonable First-In-First-Out (FIFO) scheduling, high timeout dropping probability of multi-hop forwarding packets, and insufficient utilization of channel opportunities, this paper proposes a multi-hop adaptive SPMA protocol (MA-SPMA) suitable for dynamic multi-hop scenarios. The protocol adopts the Neighbor-Priority Two-Dimensional Queueing (NPTQ) mechanism to store packets jointly according to the next-hop neighbor and priority. A Priority-Utility Dual-round Decision (PUDD) mechanism is designed: in the first round, candidate queues that meet channel load conditions are selected in parallel; in the second round, a utility function constructed by normalized delay, priority, and the end-to-end transmission success rate is used to select the optimal packet for transmission. Theoretical analysis shows that the time and space complexity of MA-SPMA are linearly related to the number of neighbor nodes, with controllable overhead, which is suitable for resource-constrained Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) platforms. In the MATLAB simulation environment, the Reference Point Group Mobility (RPGM) model is used to construct a multi-hop topology, and comparisons are conducted with two typical improved protocols for multi-hop networks: DCLS-SPMA and BiLSTM-SPMA. The results show that the proposed protocol can significantly improve the end-to-end transmission success rate and network throughput, with more obvious advantages in scenarios with a high proportion of multi-hop services. This paper provides an effective solution for Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol design in FANETs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: