For MUIP, to depict the best performance of this algorithm, we adopt the following assumptions.
Although the algorithms which are SABA, AQS, SBA and MUIP can be applied in an error-prone environment, for simplicity, we still assume the communication channel between the reader and tags is perfect.
4(a) shows the identification rate of SABA, AQS, SBA and MUIP at different values of [r.sub.a].
Because each staying tag only replies a short data to the reader in MUIP, the data amount transmitted by tags of MUIP is similar to the SABA with e=-0.2.
Especially, when [r.sub.s] >0.7, since each staying tag in SABA only replies a short data to the reader and does not collide with arriving tags, so the identification rate of SABA is much larger than SBA, AQS and MUIP. When the number of arriving tags is overestimated, the number of idle slots will be increased but the number of collision slots will be decreased.
As the short reply mechanism in MUIP, the number of bits transmitted by tags in MUIP is similar to SABA's.
There will be many collision slots in MUIP when both [r.sub.s] and [r.sub.a] are 1, so the identification rate of MUIP is less than SBA when the tag ID length is shorter than 120.
The number of bits transmitted by tags of MUIP is still similar to SABA's.
When the tag size N is less than 200, the identification rate of MUIP is faster than SBA.