# From the City to the Clouds: An Experimental Performance Evaluation of LR-FHSS

Marcos Rojas Mardones, Juan A. Fraire, Oana Iova, Florent Dobler, Olivier Alphand, Didier Donsez, Martin Heusse

## ► To cite this version:

Marcos Rojas Mardones, Juan A. Fraire, Oana Iova, Florent Dobler, Olivier Alphand, et al. From the City to the Clouds: An Experimental Performance Evaluation of LR-FHSS. International Conference on Distributed Computing in Smart Systems and the Internet of Things (DCOSS-IoT), Jun 2025, Lucca, Italy. hal-05118362

HAL Id: hal-05118362

https://hal.science/hal-05118362v1

Submitted on 18 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# From the City to the Clouds: An Experimental Performance Evaluation of LR-FHSS

Marcos Rojas Mardones*†, Juan A. Fraire*, Oana Iova*, Florent Dobler‡, Olivier Alphand‡,
Didier Donsez‡, Martin Heusse‡

*INSA Lyon, Inria, CITI, UR3720, 69621 Villeurbanne, France

† Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Chile

‡Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG, 38000 Grenoble, France

**Abstract**—This paper comprehensively evaluates Long-Range Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (LR-FHSS) modulation for urban and aerial IoT scenarios, comparing it with the established Long Range (LoRa) modulation in LoRaWAN networks. LR-FHSS offers a promising alternative to LoRa by efficiently utilizing the available spectrum, enhancing device capacity, and minimizing collisions in dense deployments. Using a range of performance metrics, including Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) and Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), we experimentally assess LR-FHSS's performance across varied data rates, payload lengths, and coding rates. Our urban and elevated balloon-based measurements provide the first real-world insights into LR-FHSS's potential for dense urban networks and sparse aerial applications. Our results reveal conditions where LR-FHSS outperforms LoRa, offering deployment guidelines for Internet of Things (IoT) networks that require high reliability and scalability. We make the resulting dataset publicly available to the community, marking the first dataset for advancing LR-FHSS research and applications.

**Index Terms**—LoRa, LR-FHSS, LoRaWAN, urban experiments, elevated ballon experiments

## I. INTRODUCTION

LoRa is the standard modulation in LoRaWAN networks, valued for its versatility, low cost, and energy efficiency. It has become one of the most widely used Low-Power Wide-Area Network (LPWAN) protocols in the Internet of Things (IoT). However, its main limitation is its capacity to handle simultaneous device transmissions without collisions.

As the need for larger, denser networks grows in smart cities and satellite IoT, a solution to LoRa's collision limitations becomes critical. The Long-Range Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (LR-FHSS) modulation has been introduced in the LoRaWAN standard as an alternative to LoRa, providing a more efficient use of frequency channels within the same spectrum. By enhancing channel capacity, LR-FHSS enables more simultaneous transmissions, addressing the scalability challenge in dense IoT deployments [1]. Yet, its real-world performance remains mostly untested, making LR-FHSS a significant focus of research, as explored in this article.

The main objective of this article is to offer the first performance evaluation of the LR-FHSS technology in real urban

and aerial scenarios, which are the targeted environments for this technology. Moreover, we provide a direct performance comparison with LoRa, showcasing in which conditions each of these technologies should be deployed. Our study includes two distinct experimental setups: one in an urban environment with obstructed line-of-sight conditions and another in an aerial scenario using balloon platforms, providing clear line-of-sight. This dual approach allows us to assess LR-FHSS performance under varied signal propagation conditions and identify optimal deployment conditions. It offers insights into its robustness and reliability across complex, interference-prone urban landscapes and unobstructed aerial paths. All data collected is compiled into a comprehensive dataset, which we analyze and make publicly available for community use, supporting further research and development<fnref n="1" />.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II provides background information on LoRa and LR-FHSS. Section III focuses on the performance evaluation results of LR-FHSS in an urban environment, while Section IV explores the aerial balloon experiments in clear line-of-sight scenarios. Finally, we discuss our findings and compare LR-FHSS and LoRa under varying conditions in Section V.

## II. BACKGROUND

### A. Overview of LoRa and LR-FHSS

In LoRaWAN, data rates (DR) represent specific configurations of that balance transmission range, data throughput, and power consumption to meet varying communication needs across different environments, as shown in Table I.

a) *LoRa*: LoRaWAN DR 0-6 use the LoRa chirp spread spectrum (CSS) modulation. In each CSS symbol, the signal frequency sweeps across the subchannel bandwidth BW over a period $T_s = 2^{SF}/BW$, where SF is the spreading factor and the initial frequency of the frequency ramp encodes the information. Higher SF values extend the transmission range by lengthening the time needed to transmit a symbol, thereby improving the modulation robustness. On top of LoRa, a forward error correction mechanism with code of rate (CR) (ranging from 4/5 to 4/8) introduces redundancy between the payload bits, allowing the receiver to reconstruct the original message even in the presence of errors.

This project has received funding from the next French National Research Agency (ANR) projects: STEREO under contract ANR-22-CE25-0014-01, PERSYVAL-Lab under contract ANR-11-LABX-0025-01, and DiNS under contract ANR-19-CE25-0009-01.

<footnote n="1">¹The experimental datasets are available here: https://doi.org/10.18709/perscido.2025.04 ds421</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE I: Data rate values for LoRaWAN in the European region [2].</caption><thead><tr><th>Data rate</th><th>0</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>11</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Modulation</th><td>LoRa</td><td>LoRa</td><td>LoRa</td><td>LoRa</td><td>LoRa</td><td>LoRa</td><td>LoRa</td><td>FSK</td><td>LR-FHSS</td><td>LR-FHSS</td><td>LR-FHSS</td><td>LR-FHSS</td></tr><tr><th>SF</th><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><th>CR</th><td>4/5</td><td>4/5</td><td>4/5</td><td>4/5</td><td>4/5</td><td>4/5</td><td>4/5</td><td>-</td><td>1/3</td><td>2/3</td><td>1/3</td><td>2/3</td></tr><tr><th>BW (kHz)</th><td>125</td><td>125</td><td>125</td><td>125</td><td>125</td><td>125</td><td>250</td><td>-</td><td>137</td><td>137</td><td>336</td><td>336</td></tr><tr><th>Physical bit rate (bit/s)</th><td>250</td><td>440</td><td>980</td><td>1760</td><td>3125</td><td>5470</td><td>11000</td><td>50000</td><td>162</td><td>325</td><td>162</td><td>325</td></tr></tbody></table>

b) LR-FHSS: LR-FHSS utilizes fast frequency hopping across the occupied bandwidth (137 kHz or 336 kHz) to address dense IoT deployments. LR-FHSS divides each data packet into a series of two to three 114-bit replicated header frames and a number of 50-bit payload fragments. The modulation is Gaussian Minimum-Shift Keying (GMSK) with 488 Hz bandwidth; a pseudo-random sequence in the header frame defines the fragment's carrier frequencies. The fast frequency hopping approach obviates interference and collisions in the presence of many senders. The gateway listens to all sub-channels simultaneously. Once it gets one of the header replicas, it reassembles the original packet by tracking the individual fragments. To enhance robustness, LR-FHSS employs coding rates (CR) of 1/2 for headers and 1/3 or 2/3 for the payload, enabling the recovery of headers or packets even in the presence of errors or interference.

## B. State-of-the-Art of LR-FHSS Research

Current research in LR-FHSS spans various domains, addressing challenges in performance and scalability through comprehensive analysis. Still, performance analysis studies focus on evaluating LR-FHSS reliability and efficiency via simulations [3], [4]. Research into outage probabilities [5] quantifies the likelihood of connectivity loss, guiding the design of robust communication protocols. Additionally, tools like simulators [6], network coding frameworks [7], and content resolution techniques [8] support scalability and enable extensive testing of LR-FHSS protocols. Recent studies have also developed techniques to optimize Wide-Gap Frequency Hopping Sequences (WGFHS) to reduce frame overlap and collisions, with approaches such as dynamic frequency hopping based on sub-channel SNRs and segment-level coding in Galois fields [9], [10]. Headerless frame recovery remains a primary research focus, as header collisions can cause significant frame loss in congested LR-FHSS channels. Techniques proposed include combining header replicas from multiple transmissions [3], [7] and employing optimization-based solutions to allocate frequency hopping sequences to payload fragments in headerless scenarios [11].

Despite growing interest from the research community, most LR-FHSS studies rely on analytical or simulation models, likely due to limited access to LR-FHSS technology, especially gateways. The work in [1] briefly mentions a real-world field trial made by the technology manufacturer. Bukhari et al, used a homemade LR-FHSS packet decoder to collect packet traces from line-of-sight devices close to the receiver [12].

This paper fills a critical gap by providing the first comprehensive experimental evaluation and dataset availability from

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Map of the urban fixed deployment in the Campus LyonTech - La Doua, France. Blue pins represent the locations of the end devices, and the red circle represents the gateway.</figcaption></figure>

real urban and aerial experiments using official LR-FHSS code, delivering practical insights into its performance.

## III. URBAN EXPERIMENTS

In this section, we make an in-depth performance evaluation of the LR-FHSS modulation and compare it with the legacy LoRa modulation in a typical urban scenario.

### A. Experimental Setup

We used the Wirnet iBTS Compact gateway from Kerlink, which supports both LoRa and LR-FHSS modulations. The gateway was atop a four-story building on the Campus Lyon-Tech - La Doua in France. The end devices were a Semtech development kit composed of a Nucleo-L476RG board, connected to an LR1110 shield<fnref n="2" /> that can also use both LoRa and LR-FHSS modulations. The end devices were deployed indoors and connected to power sources to withstand long deployment periods. Figure 1 depicts the positions of the end devices used during this experiment. It is important to notice here the particularity of the building at 400 m: the windows are fitted with outdoor metal shutters that automatically close at 1 pm to protect from heat and are reopened manually at different times of the day by the persons who use these rooms.

The gateway was flashed with a custom firmware provided by Semtech, which supports both LoRa and LR-FHSS modulations. End-devices were also flushed with the firmware

<footnote n="2">²https://www.semtech.com/products/wireless-rf/lora-edge/lr1110dvk1tbks</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Packet Delivery Ratio for all LoRaWAN data rates. LoRa corresponds to DR0-6, and LR-FHSS to DR8-11. End devices were set up with a transmission power of 14 dBm.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3: Comparison of Packet Delivery Ratio for different channel loads at 770 m.</figcaption></figure>

provided by Semtech<fnref n="3" />. Since the experiments use the 868 MHz band, interference from other wireless technologies deployed in the same band could be an issue. To minimize interference, we used two strategies: DR random hopping and channel random hopping. Before transmitting a packet, a random DR and frequency channel are selected from the pool of available values for each experiment. The fact that several LoRa deployments already exist would give an unfair advantage to LR-FHSS. To minimize the potential for packet collisions from other LoRa packets, we experimented to identify and avoid the most frequently used frequency channels. Based on this outcome, for LoRa, we used the four most unloaded channels: 865.7 MHz, 865.9 MHz, 866.1 MHz, and 866.3 MHz.

## B. Overall Evaluation: Packet Delivery Ratio

We first exhaustively compare the performance evaluation between LR-FHSS and LoRa in an urban scenario. The end devices were deployed for 38 days in July and August 2024.

We examine the reliability of communication between end devices and the gateway by computing the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) as the total number of frames correctly received by the gateway divided by the total number of frames sent by an end device. Figure 2 presents the box whisker plots for the PDR computed for each end-device. The first thing we notice is that at 400 m, both LR-FHSS and LoRa have surprisingly bad reliability, with none reaching 100% of PDR. Considering the close distance to the gateway, this result is counterintuitive but easily explained by outdoor metal shutters at this location. When looking at the received data over time, we saw a sudden increase in packet loss starting at 1 pm each day (when the shutters automatically close). Still, when comparing the two LoRaWAN modulations, it seems that LR-FHSS has considerably better reliability than LoRa, especially at DR8 and DR10, which are the more robust LR-FHSS configurations having a CR of 1/3, enabling a better recovery of headers and packets in the presence of errors and interference.

For the remaining locations, we see a PDR of 100% for almost all configurations at 600 m and an increasing packet loss with the increase of distance to the gateway for both

modulations. Overall, LR-FHSS and LoRa seem to have comparable performance for their most robust configurations: DR0 for LoRa and DR8 and DR10 for LR-FHSS. The less robust configuration of LR-FHSS (DR9 and DR11) is more comparable with LoRa's DR4, regardless of the transmission power used by the end devices.

## C. Impact of Physical Layer Parameters on the PDR

During this experiment, we deeply dive into the impact of the CR, channel usage, and payload length on the performance of LR-FHSS. Even though LoRaWAN only uses a subset of CR values, the physical layer is much more configurable, so we test them all: 1/3, 4/8, 4/6, and 5/6. We also evaluated different payload sizes: 20 bytes (the usual payload size in LPWAN networks), 51 bytes (the maximum payload allowed for DR0), and 100 bytes. Moreover, until now, we only evaluated LR-FHSS against LoRa in unloaded channel conditions, which might be suitable for comparative purposes. However, it is unrealistic since multiple LoRaWAN networks are already deployed today. Consequently, we evaluate the performance of LR-FHSS and LoRa also in the most loaded channels, 867.9 MHz and 868.5 MHz.

Considering the limitation in space, we present in Figure 3 only the results for the end-device situated at 770 m for a transmission power of 8 dBm<fnref n="4" />. First, we can notice that the CR value is significant for the performance of LR-FHSS, as the PDR decreases with the decrease of redundancy used. The number of replica headers that change with the CR also ensures better chances of reception at the gateway. This behavior is contrary to what we can see in LoRa, where the CR barely affects the PDR, the SF being the principal parameter that can improve the performance of LoRa. Also, the CR has no relation with the number of headers in LoRa: only 1 header will be sent, regardless of the CR.

Considering the length of the payload, both modulations have a similar behavior: the bigger the payload, the lower the PDR, as it increases the chances of collision and interference. This effect manifests as an offset, following (almost) the same tendency in both modulations. It is important to mention that LR-FHSS can send larger payloads than LoRa for equivalent

<footnote n="3">³https://github.com/Lora-net/radio_firmware_images/tree/master/lr1110/transceiver</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴The other locations hold similar trends, check the published dataset.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4: Received packets during the balloon's flights</figcaption></figure>

DR configurations, which is extremely important for some applications. Finally, it is worth noting that in all experiments, the PDR on LR-FHSS with an OCW of 336 KHz performs worse than an OCW of 137 KHz. We explain this by the fact that the 336 KHz channel is colliding with one of the more used channels in the whole spectrum.

A possible explanation might be related to interference since the bike routes were done at different times of the day. However, without more investigations that could give us, for example, the SNR values at the gateway, it is not possible to definitely explain the behavior that we see.

## IV. BALLOON EXPERIMENTS

This section evaluates the performance of LR-FHSS in a long distance, line of sight scenario, using balloon platforms. This experiment should give us important insights into the performance of LR-FHSS in lower space. We first go over the experimental setup and then present the results.

### A. *Experimental Setup*

Like in the urban experiment, we used the Wirnet iBTS Compact gateway from Kerlink. Also, four LR1120 development kits, from Semtech<fnref n="5" /> were leveraged. The gateway was set up at the launch site in Aire-sur-l'Adour, France. The four end devices were installed on three balloon baskets (gondolas) and powered by a thermally insulated battery pack. Note that because there were other LoRa end devices on the same gondola, the LR1120 end devices were not isolated. The balloons were launched by the *Centre National d'Études Spaciales* (CNES), France, and flew from Aire-sur-l'Adour for up to 80 km towards the east. Figure 4 shows the evolution of the altitude of the balloon over time. It also shows some gaps, indicating that some packets have not been received.

Regarding the software, the devices were running a modified version of the LR-FHSS application sample code found in the LoRa Basic Modem<fnref n="6" />. The modifications include sweeping

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5: Attenuation relative to the distance of the end devices to the gateway. Values where the distance from the end devices to the gateway was less than 100 meters were removed, and some bogus GPS positions were filtered out as well. The free space path loss is $FSPL = (\frac{\lambda}{4\pi d})^2$ with $\lambda$ the wavelength, and d the distance between the gateway and the end device.</figcaption></figure>

over the frequencies and data rates and sending LoRaWAN unconfirmed data upframes.

The gateway ran the same firmware as the urban experiments: a custom one provided by Semtech, supporting both LoRa and LR-FHSS. We used a Chirpstack V4.7 network server configured for the EU868 region. The experiment lasted for about 2 hours. The frames were sent with a LR-FHSS payload of 33 bytes (and therefore a LoRaWAN FRMpayload of 20 bytes, given that LoRaWAN frames have a 13-byte header in our case). The FRMpayload contains the Tx power and padding bytes.

The dataset was built from the raw gateway logs. By cross referencing the time of packet arrival on the gateway and the balloon GPS probe data provided by the CNES, we were able to associate each frame to an estimated balloon position. During the two hours of the experiment, the gateway collected over 2000 LoRaWAN frames. However we had to filter out the frames before and after the launch (when the balloons are on the ground) and the frames with unusable associated GPS data; we are left with 1377 frames.

### B. *Attenuation over Distance*

Figure 5 shows the attenuation as a distance function. Given that the balloons are at altitude, most of the packets are received in direct line of sight. As such, free space propagation applies. We can observe the 20 dB loss every time the distance is multiplied by 10. The figure also shows that at a maximum distance (around 80 km), the minimum attenuation is around -120 dB. Given that the gateway sensitivity is around -140 dB, we expect to receive packets sent from at least 500 km.

We compare the measured attenuation to the free space path loss, i.e., the only expected source of attenuation in our experimental setup. We observe that the measured attenuation

<footnote n="5">⁵https://www.semtech.com/products/wireless-rf/lora-edge/lr1120dvk1tbks</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶https://github.com/Lora-net/SWSD003/tree/master/lr11xx/apps/lrfhss</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6: Packet delivery ratio relative to the tx power</figcaption></figure>

is spread over a range of 20 db at any distance. This order of magnitude matches the expected variability in the presence of multipath fading, which comes as a surprise as there are no obstacles between the balloons and the gateway, which remain in line of sight of each other. On closer inspection, we have noted that the gateway antenna was installed at the top of a building with metallic railing in the vicinity of the antenna, which are most likely good radio wave diffusers and could explain the unexpected presence of fast fading.

### C. Observations with all LR-FHSS Data Rates and Tx Power

Frames were sent with varying DR and varying Tx power. The full configuration of BW and payload CR for a given DR is shown in Table I. Note that DR 8 and 10 have 3 headers, and DR 9 and 11 have 2. However, due to a mistake in our end-device configuration, the frames were always sent with 4 headers, decreasing the difference in observed PDR between the different data rates.

Figure 6 shows how the PDR improves as the Tx power increases. There is less than a 5% difference between Tx power 10, 12, 14 dBm, because the distance between the end device on the balloons and the gateway was never large enough to make full use of the high Tx. This can also be seen in Figure 5, where the packet received from the furthest points has a maximum attenuation of 120 dB. Meaning that for a gateway sensitivity of -140 dBm, we can expect some packets to be received at roughly 10 times the distance.

Regarding the impact of the DR on the PDR: DR8, DR9, DR10 and DR11 have a PDR of respectively 61.9%, 59.2%, 64.6% and 61.7%. As expected, DR8 and DR10 have higher PDR due to the smaller CR (See Table I), a smaller CR having more redundancy than a larger one. Because of the larger bandwidth, DR10 should have a higher PDR than DR8, and it is what we observe. However, we received around 350 frames per data rate during the entire flight, which is not enough to draw meaningful conclusions.

## V. CONCLUSION

This paper provides the first comprehensive experimental evaluation of LR-FHSS modulation, showing its versatility in both urban and aerial environments. We highlight its performance under real-world conditions, offering a direct comparison with LoRa, and making our dataset publicly available for future research. Results show LR-FHSS's promise in dense IoT deployments, with improved resilience over LoRa in scenarios with high interference and range demands. The aerial experiments showed the feasibility of using LR-FHSS in satellite-IoT scenarios, being able to easily communicate with receivers embedded on low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites.

Future work will focus on expanding testing to LEO conditions using cubesats<fnref n="7" />, as well as comparative studies with Mioty technology [13]. Large-scale testbeds with multiple end devices and gateways are also planned to rigorously assess LR-FHSS scalability and its operational limits in dense network environments and over large periods.

## REFERENCES

[1] Semtech Corporation, Application Note: LR-FHSS System Performance, rev 1.3 ed., October 2022. Available at https://www.semtech.com/products/wireless-rf/lora-connect/sx1261 (last visited on 31/10/2024).

[2] LoRa Alliance, RP002-1.0.2 LoRaWAN® Regional Parameters. LoRa Alliance, October 2020. Available at https://lora-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/RP_2-1.0.2.pdf.

[3] M. A. Ullah, K. Mikhaylov, and H. Alves, "Analysis and simulation of LoRaWAN LR-FHSS for direct-to-satellite scenario," *IEEE Wireless Communications Letters*, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 548-552, 2021.

[4] G. Boquet, P. Tuset-Peiró, F. Adelantado, T. Watteyne, and X. Vila-josana, "LR-FHSS: Overview and Performance Analysis," *IEEE Communications Magazine*, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 30-36, 2021.

[5] A. Maleki, H. H. Nguyen, E. Bedeer, and R. Barton, "Outage Probability Analysis of LR-FHSS and D2D-Aided LR-FHSS Protocols in Shadowed-Rice Fading Direct-to-Satellite IoT Networks," *IEEE Internet of Things Journal*, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 11101-11116, 2024.

[6] J. M. de Souza Sant'Ana, A. Hoeller, H. Alves, and R. D. Souza, "LR-FHSS-Sim: A discrete-event simulator for lr-fhss networks," in *2024 Joint European Conference on Networks and Communications & 6G Summit (EuCNC/6G Summit)*, pp. 700-705, IEEE, 2024.

[7] D. N. Knop, J. L. Rebelatto, and R. D. Souza, "LR-FHSS with Network-Coded Header Replication," *IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology*, 2024.

[8] J. M. de Souza Sant'Ana, O. da Silva Neto, A. Hoeller, J. L. Rebelatto, R. D. Souza, and H. Alves, "Asynchronous contention resolution-aided aloha in LR-FHSS networks," *IEEE Internet of Things Journal*, 2024.

[9] D. Maldonado, M. Kaneko, J. A. Fraire, A. Guitton, O. Iova, and H. Rivano, "Enhancing LR-FHSS Scalability Through Advanced Sequence Design and Demodulator Allocation," *arXiv preprint arXiv:5709290*, 2024.

[10] F. Zhang, F. Yu, X. Zheng, L. Liu, and H. Ma, "DFH: Improving the reliability of LR-FHSS via dynamic frequency hopping," in *IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP)*, pp. 1-12, 2023.

[11] J. A. Fraire, A. Guitton, and O. Iova, "Recovering Headerless Frames in LR-FHSS," in *International Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks*, p. 170-180, 2023.

[12] J. Bukhari and Z. Zhang, "Understanding Long Range-Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (LR-FHSS) with Real-World Packet Traces," *ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks*, vol. 20, pp. 1-30, Nov. 2024.

[13] P. D.-I. J. Robert, "LoRa-FHSS study report," tech. rep., Technische Universität Ilmenau, 2024. Available at https://mioty-alliance.com/mioty-vs-lora-fhss-study-%20report/ (last visited on 8/11/2024).

<footnote n="7">⁷https://gricad-gitlab.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/thingsat/public/-/tree/master/cubesat_mission_2?ref_type=heads</footnote>