A Study of Spatial Packet Loss Correlation in
802.11 Wireless Networks
Zhe Wang, Mahbub Hassan
School of Computer Science and Engineering
University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
Email: {zhewang, mahbub}@cse.unsw.edu.au
Abstract—This paper examines the spatial correlation of
packet loss events in IEEE 802.11 wireless networks for broad-
cast communications. We discuss limitations of previously used
metrics to measure spatial loss correlation and show that the
entropy correlation coefficient, which is based on the mutual
information concept of Information Theory, can overcome these
limitations. In our experiments, we find that the packet losses
among closely located receivers are highly correlated when signal
strength is high, but the correlation decreases with decreasing
signal strength. The losses become totally independent once the
signal strength falls below a threshold. As a first step to model the
relationship between spatial loss correlation and signal strength,
we find that the relationship can be approximated as a Gaussian
cumulative distribution function.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Packet loss is an important issue for IEEE 802.11 wireless
networks. A great amount of research has been done to study
the average packet loss rate, or the packet loss probability.
However, a more fine-grained study of the issue of packet loss
correlation also attracts the interest of the many researchers
[1]–[3].
There are two kinds of packet loss correlation, namely
temporal correlation and spatial correlation. The temporal
loss correlation measures the packet loss pattern over time.
It is often related to the issue of consecutive packet losses or
the burstiness of packet loss by a single receiver. However, for
multicast/broadcast communication, in which a single packet
has multiple receivers, it is also useful to measure the correla-
tion of losses by different receivers. We focus on such spatial
loss correlation between receivers of a single transmission.
The spatial correlation between receivers is important for
its effect on the performance of error recovery protocols. If
there is low correlation in loss between receivers that are near
each other, then when one receiver loses a packet, it may
be able to recover the lost packet from a nearby receiver.
Thus, local retransmission is more effective when losses are
less spatially correlated. The extent to which losses among
multiple receivers are disjoint also influences error recovery
when network coding is used to combine (e.g., XOR) multiple
lost packets into a single retransmission [4], [5].
Despite the importance of spatial loss correlation in wireless
networks, not much is known about this issue. In open
literature, the 802.11 spatial loss correlation has been reported
in [2] and [3]. Reis et al [2] stated qualitatively that the
Tim Moors
School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications
University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
Email: t.moors@unsw.edu.au
loss between receivers is “roughly independent” but did not
present quantitative data about the loss correlation. Salyers
et al [3] presented the results of a small range (distances of
3m∼12m and packet loss rate of 2%∼10%) experiment, and
found, using conditional loss probability as a measure of loss
correlation, that the loss correlation increases with distance.
However, as we will demonstrate later in this paper, condi-
tional loss probability alone cannot truly capture the statistical
dependence among the losses observed at different receivers,
hence may invalidate some of the conclusions reported in [3].
Clearly, further studies are needed to explore the issue of
spatial packet loss correlation in wireless networks. Given
that in many applications, e.g., 802.11-based vehicular safety
communication, the packet loss rate is up to 40% due to
distance between the packet sender and receivers can be
hundreds of meters ( [6], [7]), it is important to characterise
spatial loss correlation for a wider range of distances than
reported in [3]. In this paper, we study the effect of distance
on packet loss correlation1 through a series of experiments.
We make the following key contributions:
• We discuss the limitations of the metrics used to measure
loss correlation in previous works and propose a new
metric to overcome these limitations.
• We conduct a series of experiments representing a wide
range of distances between the transmitter and the re-
ceivers.
• Applying the proposed metric, we find that the spatial
packet loss correlation in our 802.11 network experiments
decreases with the distance between sender and receivers.
• We take a first step to analytically model the loss corre-
lation. We find that with signal strength as the indepen-
dent variable, the proposed loss correlation metric can
be approximated as a Gaussian cumulative distribution
function.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: We review the
related work in Section II. The limitation of previously used
metrics to measure spatial loss correlation are discussed and
the proposed metric is presented in Section III. We describe
our experiments and discuss the findings in Section IV. We
conclude in Section V.
1 In the rest of this paper, the term loss correlation specifically refers to the
spatial packet loss correlation
 II. R ELATED W ORK
Miu et al. [1] have investigated whether separate 802.11
transmitters have correlated packet losses when observed at
a single receiver. The metric used in [1] to measure the
correlation is based on the conditional and unconditional loss
probability. If A is the event of the receiver losing a packet
from transmitter 1 and B is the event of the receiver losing
a packet from transmitter 2, then the level of correlation
can be measured by comparing the probability P (A) and
P (A|B). If P (A) equals P (A|B), then the packet loss of is
totally uncorrelated (probabilistic independent). At the other
extreme, if P (A|B) equals one, then the packet loss is totally
correlated. The metric used to measure the loss correlation
is the difference between P (A|B) and P (A). The level of
correlation is decided by the position of P (A|B) in the range
[P (A), 1]. The further P (A|B) is from P (A) and closer to
1, the higher the correlation is. Although the loss correlation
issue we are investigating is different from [1], the metric
used in this work can also be applied to the case of one
transmitter and two receivers. In our case, for any packet from
the transmitter, A is the event of receiver 1 losing the packet
and B is the event of receiver 2 losing the packet.
Reis et al [2] observed that the spatial loss correlation
of 802.11 network in a office building is low. However,
neither the metric used to measure the correlation nor the loss
correlation data is shown in the paper.
The most related work to our study is [3], in which
the authors study the loss correlation for different 802.11
wireless cards at different distances between the sender and
receivers. They measure the correlation using the conditional
loss probability alone, instead of using the difference between
the conditional and unconditional loss probabilities as in [1].
Using this metric, the authors report that the loss correlation
increases when distance increased from 3m to 12m.
In summary, previous works have measured the 802.11
packet loss correlation using different metrics. Before we start
our study on how the loss correlation changes with the distance
between sender and receivers, it is necessary to choose an
appropriate metric to numerically measure the loss correlation.
III. METRIC FOR SPATIAL LOSS CORRELATION
In this section, we propose a metric to measure the loss
correlation. We start by discussing the properties that the
metric should have.
The first property that the loss correlation metric should
have is that it should indicate the statistical dependence of
the packet loss between two receivers. In probability theory,
the definition of two events A and B being independent
is: P (AB)=P (A)P (B) [8]. Using the conditional proba-
bility P (A|B) alone to measure the loss correlation as in
[3] is problematic because only when P (A|B)=P (A), i.e.,
P (AB)
P (B) =P (A), can we get P (AB)=P (A)P (B). The con-
ditional probability P (A|B) does not indicate whether the
packet losses of the two receivers are independent without con-
sidering its relationship with unconditional probability P (A).
The metric used in [1], which is the relationship between
conditional loss probability P (A|B) and unconditional loss
probability P (A), satisfies this property. On one hand, if
the ratio PP(A|B)
(A) = 1, we can get P (AB)=P (A)P (B),
which means the packet loss is independent (uncorrelated).
On the other hand, if the ratio PP(A|B) 1
(A) = P (A) , we can get
P (A|B) = 1, which means A ⊆ B, i.e., the packet loss
is 100% correlated. The ratio of the conditional probability
to the unconditional probability, PP(A|B)
(A) , which is bounded
1
by [1, P (A) ], could be used to measure the loss correlation.
The higher this ratio, the higher the packet loss is correlated
between the two receivers.
Instead of using the conditional loss probability, [9] uses
the Pearson correlation coefficient to measure the spatial loss
correlation in wired multicast networks. The Pearson corre-
lation coefficient is a measure of linear dependence between
two random variables [8], which ranges from -1 to 1. If the
coefficient is 1 or -1, the two random variables have perfect
linear positive or negative relationship (100% correlated).
If the coefficient is 0, the two random variables have no
linear dependence. The coefficient being 0, i.e., no linear
dependence, does not guarantee the statistical independence.
In some cases, the two random variables (X and Y ) are
dependent, e.g., Y = X 2 while the coefficient is 0. Therefore,
the Pearson correlation coefficient is inadequate to measure the
statistical dependence of the packet loss between two receivers.
The second property that the loss correlation metric should
have is that given the packet loss events (A and B) of two
receivers, the metric (ρ) should have a unique value no matter
which receiver is chosen as A or B, i.e., ρAB =ρBA . The ratio
of conditional loss probability over unconditional loss proba-
bility does not satisfy this property when PP(A|B) P (B|A)
(A) = P (B) .
By using conditional/unconditional loss probability ratio as
the metric, we might have two possible measures for the loss
correlation between the same pair of receivers.
The third property the loss correlation metric should have
is that the metric should have fixed upper and lower bounds.
Without this property, it is hard to compare the level of
loss correlation between two different pairs of receivers. For
example, assume that we have two pairs of receivers (R1,
R2), and (R1 , R2 ). For (R1, R2), the packet loss events
are A and B respectively, and for (R1 , R2 ), the packet
loss events are A and B  respectively. By using the ratio of
unconditional/conditional loss probabilities as the metric, we
cannot compare the level of loss correlation of these two pairs
P (A |B  )
if P (A) = P (A ) because the ratios: PP(A|B)
(A) and P (A )
1 1
have different upper bounds ( P (A) and P (A ) ). Suppose that
the packet loss of both these two pairs are 100% correlated
(they have the same correlation level), comparing PP(A|B) (A)
 
1
(equals P (A) in this case) and P P(A(A|B
)
) 1
(equals P (A  ) in this
case) will lead to the wrong conclusion that the loss correlation
of these two pairs are different.
The metrics used in previous works do not have all the three
properties discussed above. In the following, we propose a new
metric that exhibits all these three properties.
The entropy correlation coefficient [10] is a metric to
Fig. 1: The experiment setup (to observe a large range of packet loss rates, the external antenna of sender node is not mounted).

measure the dependency of two random variables, which is

based on the entropy concept of information theory. If we
25
have two random variables X and Y , the entropy correlation
coefficient (ρXY ) is defined as:

2IXY 20
ρXY = (1)
HX + H Y

RSSI
where HX and HY are the entropies of X and Y respectively,
15
and IXY is the mutual information of X and Y . If we define
the random variables X and Y as: X = 0 if a packet is
received by receiver R1 , X = 1 if the packet is lost by R1 ;
Y = 0 if the packet is received by receiver R2 , Y = 1 if the 10
Receiver 1
Receiver 2
packet is lost by R2 , then we have:
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
 Transmission power (dBm)
HX = − P (X = x) log2 P (X = x)
x=0,1 Fig. 2: The average RSSI of the two receivers


HY = − P (Y = y) log2 P (Y = y)
y=0,1
1 
 1
P (X = x, Y = y)
IXY = P (X = x, Y = y) log2
x=0 y=0
P (X = x)P (Y = y)
The entropy correlation coefficient (ρXY ) in (1) is the measure
of dependency of the packet loss of R1 and R2 and it has the
following properties:
• ρXY =ρY X , it has the same value no matter which re-
ceiver is chosen as X and which is chosen as Y .
• 0 ≤ ρXY ≤ 1, the upper and lower bounds are constants.
• ρXY =1 if and only if X and Y are completely dependent,
i.e., if we know the value of X, we can predict the value
of Y with certainty.
• ρXY =0 if and only if X and Y are independent, i.e.,
knowing the value of X does not help at all to predict
the value of Y .
In the following section, we conduct a series of experiments
to study the loss correlation between two closely located
receivers. By measuring the loss correlation using different
metrics, we show that the entropy correlation coefficient is a
better metric than the ones used in previous works.
IV. E XPERIMENT
A. Experiment Setup
Our experiment setup consists of 3 Yawarra ALIX 3 [11]
single board computers. Each computer is equipped with a
wireless card with the Atheros AR5112 chipset. The wireless
cards are driven by the Madwifi driver [12] with ath hal
version 0.9.18.0 and ath pci version 0.9.4.5. Because in the
experiment environment there are WLAN networks operating
in 802.11 b/g mode in 2.4GHz band, the wireless cards are
set to 802.11a mode in 5.18GHz to avoid interference from
the existing systems.
Placement of the three computers are shown in Fig. 1.
The transmitting node is placed 4 meters away from the two
receivers, which are themselves separated by 5cm 2 . There is
a clear line of sight between the transmitter and receivers.
We set the packet length to 100 bytes and the bit rate to
6Mbps, which is same as a typical vehicular safety application
of 802.11 broadcast [13]. In our experiments, we do not change
the placements of the nodes. To study the effect of transmitter-
receiver distance, which affects the received signal strength at
2 In [3], the two receivers are separated by less than the wavelength of the
radio signal. To compare with their results, we follow similar setup, where the
inter-receiver distance of 5cm is less than the wavelength of 5.18GHz radio,
which is 5.8cm.
 1 1

0.1 0.1
Packet loss probability

Packet loss probability

0.01 0.01

P(A) P(B)
P(A|B) P(B|A)
0.001 0.001
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Transmission power (dBm) Transmission power (dBm)

(a) Packet loss probability of receiver 1 (in log-scale) (b) Packet loss probability of receiver 2 (in log-scale)

Fig. 3: The conditional and unconditional loss probabilities of the two receivers. P (A) and P (B) are the unconditional loss
probabilities of receiver 1 and 2 respectively. P (A|B) and P (B|A) are the conditional probabilities of a receiver losing
a packet given that the other receiver loses the packet.

1000
the receivers, we repeat the experiment with different trans- P(A|B)/P(A)
P(B|A)/P(B)
mission power levels. Starting from the maximum transmission
power (17 dBm) allowed by the wireless card, the transmission
Conditional/unconditional loss probability ratio

power is reduced by 1dBm for each experiment until 5 dBm.

For each transmission power, the transmitting node broadcasts 100

20,000 packets with 20 ms gap between two consecutive

packets. In order to observe a large range of packet loss rates,
the external antenna is not mounted on the transmitting node
(as shown in Fig. 1). The receiving nodes are set to work in
monitor mode so that the Receiving Signal Strength Indicator
(RSSI) is included in the captured packet traces.
Although the two receivers are very close to each other,
which makes the path loss and channel fading have the same
effect on them, they have different loss rates. By analyzing the
RSSI of received packets as shown in Fig. 2, we find that the
two receivers have slightly different signal to noise ratios (In
Madwifi, the reported RSSI for each packet is equivalent to
the signal to noise ratio [14]). The average RSSI of receiver 1
is always lower than that of receiver 2. The difference remains
the same even when we swap the locations and the external
antennas. This might be caused by the variation of analog part
of the hardware.
B. Conditional/Unconditional Loss Probability
The conditional and unconditional packet loss probabilities
at different transmission powers are shown in Fig. 3. Note that,
the transmission power range we applied increased uncondi-
tional loss probability by about 1000 folds from 0.001 at 17
dBm to 0.997 at 5 dBm. This would reflect a large variation in
the transmitter-receiver distance for a fixed transmission power
(In [3], the unconditional probability changes from 0.02 to
0.10, an increase of about 5 fold, when the distance increases
from 3m to 12m).
While the unconditional loss probabilities monotonically
decrease with transmission power, the conditional loss prob-
10
1
6 8 10 12 14 16
Transmission power (dBm)
Fig. 4: The ratio of conditional/unconditional loss probability
(in log-scale).
abilities are “V” shape curves. When the transmission power
is low, the conditional loss probability is close to one and
decreases with the transmission power until it reaches the
lowest point of the “V” shape and starts increasing with
the transmission power until it reaches one. Fig. 3 clearly
shows that the conditional loss probability alone cannot
capture the statistical dependence among the losses of the
two receivers. For example, when the transmission power is
8dBm, P (A)=0.93 and P (A|B)=0.93; when the transmission
power is 14dBm, P (A)=0.009 and P (A|B)=0.93. Although
the conditional loss probabilities are the same, the statistical
dependence of packet loss of these two cases is fairly different.
For 8dBm, we have P (A|B)=P (A), suggesting that there is
little dependency, whereas for the case of 14dBm, P (A|B) is
much larger than P (A), suggesting that the packet losses at
two receivers are highly dependent.
 0.6 0.6
txpower=14dBm
txpower=16dBm
txpower=10dBm
txpower=12dBm μ0=21.2 txpower=10dBm txpower=12dBm txpower=16dBm
μ0=17.4 μ0=22.5 μ0=18.4 μ0=20.9 μ0=24.4
μ0=19.2 σ=0.68
0.5 σ=0.77 σ=0.70 0.5 σ=0.82 σ=0.79 σ=0.79
σ=0.79 txpower=14dBm
μ0=23.0
σ=0.90
Probability density function

Probability density function

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
16 18 20 22 24 26 16 18 20 22 24 26
RSSI RSSI

(a) Receiver 1 (b) Receiver 2

Fig. 6: The probability density of RSSI

1 reception probabilities at the receivers). We can see that
0.8
Reception Probability (R2)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4 6
Fig. 5: The entropy correlation coefficient and packet recep-
tion probabilities (1-P (A) and 1-P (B))
Fig. 3 also shows that the difference between the con-
ditional loss probability and unconditional loss probabil-
ity increases with transmission power. The ratio of condi-
tional/unconditional loss probability is plotted in Fig. 4. Using
the ratio as the loss correlation metric, we can see from
Fig. 4 that the loss correlation monotonically increases with
transmission power. Fig. 4 also shows that the two ratios:
P (A|B) P (B|A)
P (A) and P (B) are not always equal. For example, when
the transmission power is 15dBm,
P (A|B)
P (A) . Using the conditional/unconditional loss probability
ratio as a metric to measure dependency, there would be two
different measures for the loss correlation between the same
pair of receivers.
C. Entropy Correlation Coefficient
From the packet trace collected by the two receivers, we
derive the joint distribution of X and Y defined in Section
III and calculate the entropy correlation coefficient using
(1). The results are shown in Fig. 5 (along with the packet
the loss correlation decreases monotonically with decreasing
transmission power. When the transmission power is high, i.e.,
above 16dBm, the entropy correlation coefficient is one, which
Reception Probability (R1)
means that the two receivers lose the same set of packets and
if one receiver loses (or receives) a packet, we know the other
also loses (or receives) it. Loss correlation starts to decrease as
transmission power is reduced. When the transmission power
Entropy Correlation Coefficient
is less than 8dBm, the entropy correlation coefficient is almost
zero, which means that the two receivers independently lose
packets and the knowledge of one receiver losing (receiving) a
packet is not useful to predict the loss (reception) at the other
8 10 12 14 16 18 receiver.
Transmission power (dBm)
Another interesting observation we make from Fig. 5 is
that the curves of both the entropy correlation coefficient and
the packet reception probabilities have the “S” shape, albeit
the centre points and steepness are different. This observation
suggests that we may be able to model loss correlation in a
similar fashion the packet reception probability is modelled.
We first discuss the possible reasons for the packet reception
probabilities to exhibit the “S” shape.
It is known that, if the signal strength attenuates according
to log-normal shadowing model, then the “S” shaped Gaussian
cumulative distribution function (CDF) can be used to deter-
mine the probability that the received signal strength (RSS) is
greater than a threshold R (Rth ) [15]. If our experimental radio
P (B|A)
P (B) is 1.5 times of environment is characterised by log-normal shadowing model,
and if we assume that packets are received correctly only when
the RSS exceeds a threshold (this assumption is used widely
in the literature and simulation tools [16]), the packet recep-
tion probability can be approximated by Gaussian CDF. To
investigated the radio model of our experimental environment,
we plot the RSSI distribution for different transmission power
in Fig. 6. Log-normal shadowing implies that RSS at specific
transmitter-receiver separation is Gaussian (normal) distributed
with the distance dependent mean and a constant standard
 1
deviation [15]. In Fig. 6, we find that the probability density μ=0, σ=0.5
μ=0, σ=1
of RSSI is indeed Gaussian shaped, the mean is changing μ=0, σ=2
μ=-2, σ=1
with transmission power (distance) and the standard deviation 0.8
remains relatively stable. Such results indicate that the log-
normal shadowing model is a good approximation of the
received signal strength in our experiments (note that the unit 0.6

Φμ,σ(X)
of μ0 and σ in Fig. 6 is not dBm since RSSI is defined as
an arbitrary integer value the 802.11 standard [17], and the
0.4
precision of the integer is vendor dependent [18]).
According to the log-normal shadowing model [15], the
received signal strength (R) can be expressed as: 0.2

R =T −L+N (2)
0
where T is the transmission signal strength, L is the path loss -4 -2 0 2 4
X
and N is a Gaussian random variable with zero mean and
standard deviation σ (R, T and σ are measured in dBm). Given Fig. 7: The Φμ,σ (X) function with different parameters
that T and L are static variables, R is Gaussian distributed
with mean μ0 = T − L and standard deviation σ.
Based on (2), if we assume that there is a threshold of the curve of entropy correlation coefficient. Again using the
R(Rth ) above which the packet will be successfully received, curve fitting tool [19], we fit the entropy correlation coefficient
the packet reception probability (r) can be derived as: to function Φμ,σ (X). Fig. 9 shows that, like the packet
reception probability, the entropy correlation coefficient also
r = P (R > Rth )
has a good fit to Gaussian CDF except the fact that the values
= P (N > Rth − T + L) of both its parameters, μ and σ, are larger than those of the
= P (N < T − Rth − L) packet reception probability. How to derive the parameters μ
and σ of the Gaussian CDF that approximates spatial loss
Since N is Gaussian distributed with mean 0 and standard correlation remains a topic of ongoing research.
deviation σ, we get:
V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORKS
1 T −μ
r= (1 + erf ( √ )) (3) Using indoor experiments, we have studied the spatial cor-
2 2σ 2
relation of packet loss in IEEE 802.11 wireless networks when
where a packet transmitted by a single transmitter is to be received
μ = Rth + L by multiple receivers. We have found that the metric used
 z to measure the spatial loss correlation is an important factor.
2
erf (z) = √ exp(−x2 ) dx. Specifically, we have shown that simply using conditional loss
π 0
probabilities to measure loss correlation can lead to misleading
Equation (3) has the same form as the CDF (Φ-function) of a conclusions. We have proposed and demonstrated that the
Gaussian random variable with mean μ and standard deviation entropy correlation coefficient, which is based on the mutual
σ: information concept of Information Theory, is a good metric
1 X −μ
Φμ,σ (X) = (1 + erf ( √ )) (4) to measure spatial packet loss correlation in wireless networks.
2 2σ 2 Using this metric, we have discovered that the received signal
The Φμ,σ (X) function with different parameters values are strength (distance between the transmitter and the receivers)
plotted in Fig. 7. It can be seen that parameter μ controls the is a key factor that affects the spatial loss correlation. In our
position of the center point of the curve (increasing μ will experiments, the packet losses among closely located receivers
shift the center point rightwards). Parameter σ controls the are highly correlated when the signal is strong, but the corre-
steepness of the curve (increasing σ will make the curve less lation falls with decreasing signal strength. The losses become
steep). totally independent once the signal strength falls below a
Using the curve fitting tool [19], we fit the packet reception threshold. Our finding suggests that the decay of entropy
probability from the experiment to the function Φμ,σ (X) with correlation coefficient can be approximated as a Gaussian
unknown parameters μ and σ. The curve fitting results in Fig. CDF, the same function that models the packet reception
8 shows that the packet loss rate at different transmission probability at the receivers in a log-normal shadowing radio
powers can be accurately modeled by Φμ,σ (X) function with propagation environment. This finding serves as a first step to
parameters μ and σ being slightly different for different analytically model the spatial packet loss correlation.
receivers. In future work, it will be useful to conduct more experiments
Now that we have reasonable clues why packet reception to investigate the impact of 802.11 mode (a/b/g), data rate,
probability follows a Gaussian CDF, we proceed to examine packet size, and the distance between the two receivers, on the
 1 Experiment data 1
Experiment Data
0.9 Φμ,σ(X) 0.9 Φμ,σ(X)

0.8 0.8
Packet Reception Probability

Packet Reception Probability

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0

6 8 10 12 14 16 6 8 10 12 14 16
Transmission Power (dBm) Transmission Power (dBm)

(a) Receiver 1: (b) Receiver 2:

μ= 9.65 ( 95% confidence interval: (9.526, 9.777)) μ= 8.94 ( 95% confidence interval: (8.812, 9.067))
σ=1.15 ( 95% confidence interval: (0.973, 1.328)) σ=0.957 ( 95% confidence interval: (0.776, 1.138))
SSE: 0.0088 SSE: 0.0109
R-square: 0.9963 R-square: 0.9953
RMSE: 0.02825 RMSE: 0.03149

Fig. 8: Φμ,σ (X) approximation of packet reception probability.

R EFERENCES
1
Experiment data
[1] A. Miu, G. Tan, H. Balakrishnan, and J. Apostolopoulos, “Divert: fine-
0.9 Φμ,σ(X)
grained path selection for wireless lans,” in Proceedings of the 2nd
0.8 international conference on Mobile systems, applications, and services.
Entrophy Correlation Coefficient

Boston, MA, USA: ACM, 2004.

0.7
[2] C. Reis, R. Mahajan, M. Rodrig, D. Wetherall, and J. Zahorjan,
0.6 “Measurement-based models of delivery and interference in static wire-
less networks,” in Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications,
0.5
technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications.
0.4 Pisa, Italy: ACM, 2006.
0.3
[3] D. Salyers, A. Striegel, and C. Poellabauer, “Wireless reliability: Re-
thinking 802.11 packet loss,” in International Symposium on a World
0.2 of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, WoWMoM 2008., June
0.1
2008, pp. 1–4.
[4] D. Nguyen, T. Tuan, N. Thinh, and B. Bose, “Wireless broadcast using
0 network coding,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 58,
6 8 10 12 14 16 no. 2, pp. 914–925, 2009.
Transmission Power (dBm) [5] Z. Wang, M. Hassan, and T. Moors, “Efficient loss recovery using
network coding in vehicular safety communication,” in IEEE Wireless
Fig. 9: Φμ,σ (X) curve fitting of entropy correlation coefficient Communications and Networking Conference, WCNC 2010, Sydney,
μ=13.75 ( 95% confidence interval: [13.48, 14.02]) Australia, 2010.
[6] D. Jiang, T. Vikas, M. Andreas, H. Wieland, and H. Ralf, “Design of
σ=1.629, ( 95% confidence interval: [1.25, 2.01]) 5.9Ghz DSRC-based vehicular safety communication,” IEEE Wireless
SSE: 0.028 Communications, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 36–43, 2006.
R-square: 0.985 [7] B. Fan and H. Krishnan, “Reliability Analysis of DSRC Wireless
Communication for Vehicle Safety Applications,” in Intelligent Trans-
RMSE: 0.0504 portation Systems Conference, 2006. ITSC ’06. IEEE, 2006, pp. 355–
362.
[8] J. L. Devore, Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences,
7th ed. Belmont, 2008.
[9] M. Yajnik, J. Kurose, and D. Towsley, “Packet loss correlation in the
MBone multicast network,” in Global Telecommunications Conference,
spatial packet loss correlation. These experiments may provide 1996. GLOBECOM ’96., 1996, pp. 94–99.
useful insight into the factors that affect the key features of [10] I. Virtanen and J. Astola, “On entropy-based dependence measures
the Gaussian CDF, i.e., the centre point and the steepness of for two and three dimensional categorical variable distributions,” in
Proceedings of The First World Congress of Bernoulli Society for
the curve. In addition to studying the loss correlation in the Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Tashkent, USSR, 1986.
“interference free” scenario, it may be worth considering the [11] Yawarra ALIX 3. [Online]. Available: http://www.yawarra.com.au/hw-
case when packet losses are also caused by collisions, which alix3.php
[12] The MadWifi project. [Online]. Available: http://madwifi-project.org/
is common for applications where every node is a potential [13] T. ElBatt, K. G. Siddhartha, H. Gavin, K. Hariharan, and P. Jayendra,
broadcaster (such as vehicular safety communication). “Cooperative collision warning using dedicated short range wireless
 communications,” in Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on [17] Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
Vehicular ad hoc networks, VANET06. ACM Press, 2006. Layer (PHY) Specifications, IEEE Std. 802.11, 1999.
[14] RSSI in Madwifi. [Online]. Available: http://madwifi- [18] The truth about 802.11 signal and noise metrics. [Online]. Available:
project.org/wiki/UserDocs/RSSI http://www.connect802.com/download/techpubs/2004/you believe D100201.pdf
[15] T. Rappaport, Wireless communications : principles and practice, [19] Curve fitting toolbox 2.2. The MathWorks, Inc. [Online]. Available:
2nd ed. Prentice Hall, 2002. http://www.mathworks.com/products/curvefitting/
[16] The official NS-2 webpage. [Online]. Available:
http://nsnam.isi.edu/nsnam/index.php/Main Page