Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 31, Issue 10, pp 6079–6090 | Cite as

Selfish node detection in ad hoc networks based on fuzzy logic

  • Homa Hasani
  • Shahram BabaieEmail author
Original Article


Generally, the ad hoc networks work correctly only if all nodes cooperate in the routing and forwarding of the packets. However, in some cases, selfish nodes are hesitated to share the resources with their neighbors and attempt to preserve their own assets, since splitting nodes into two distinct groups including absolute cooperator and absolute selfish and avoiding the selfish nodes group in network activities will be degraded network quality of service. In this paper, we propose a novel fuzzy-based selfish node detection approach for ad hoc networks that operates based on the social network principles. In the social-based proposed approach, the nodes’ status will be determined by three variables, i.e., hop count (H.C.), residual energy (Re-En.), and cooperation history (Co-h.), through fuzzy interface process to prevent the isolating of the likely selfish nodes from the network and maintain more active node in the network as possible. The MobEmu tool is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in terms of the hit rate, delivery latency, delivery cost, and average hop count. The simulation results reveal that the proposed approach has a significant improvement in contrast to counterparts using UPB 2011 and UPB 2012 traces.


Ad hoc networks Selfish nodes Fuzzy logic Fuzzy interface process Cooperation 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Younis MF, Ozer SZ (2006) Wireless ad hoc networks: technologies and challenges. Wirel Commun Mob Comput 6:889–892. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haas ZJ, Deng J, Liang B et al (2003) Wireless ad hoc networks. Wiley Encycl Telecommun. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gandhi C, Arya V (2014) A survey of energy-aware routing protocols and mechanisms for mobile ad hoc networks. Springer, New Delhi, pp 111–117Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vatankhah Ayda, Babaie Shahram (2018) An optimized bidding-based coverage improvement algorithm for hybrid wireless sensor networks. Comput Electr Eng 65:1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nikoletseas S, Yang Y, Georgiadis A (eds) (2016) Wireless power transfer algorithms, technologies and applications in ad hoc communication networks. Springer, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Babaie S, Khosrohosseini A, Khadem-Zadeh A (2013) A new self-diagnosing approach based on petri nets and correlation graphs for fault management in wireless sensor networks. J Syst Archit 59:582–600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woungang I, Dhurandher SK, Anpalagan A, Vasilakos AV (eds) (2013) Routing in opportunistic networks. Springer, New York. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kumar S, Dutta K, Sharma G (2016) A detailed survey on selfish node detection techniques for mobile ad hoc networks. In: 2016 Fourth international conference on parallel, distributed and grid computing. IEEE, pp 122–127Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lei T, Wang S, Li J et al (2016) Detecting and preventing selfish behaviour in mobile ad hoc network. J Supercomput 72:3156–3168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin H, Hu J, Tian Y et al (2017) Toward better data veracity in mobile cloud computing: a context-aware and incentive-based reputation mechanism. Inf Sci (Ny) 387:238–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dhurandher SK, Kumar A, Obaidat MS (2017) Cryptography-based misbehavior detection and trust control mechanism for opportunistic network systems. IEEE Syst J PP:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ram Prabha V, Latha P (2017) Fuzzy trust protocol for malicious node detection in wireless sensor networks. Wirel Pers Commun 94:2549–2559. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jedari B, Liu L, Qiu T et al (2017) A game-theoretic incentive scheme for social-aware routing in selfish mobile social networks. Future Gener Comput Syst 70:178–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gopal DG, Saravanan R (2016) Selfish node detection based on evidence by trust authority and selfish replica allocation in DANET. Int J Inf Commun Technol 9:473–491. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bounouni M, Bouallouche-Medjkoune L (2016) A hybrid stimulation approach for coping against the malevolence and selfishness in mobile ad hoc network. Wirel Pers Commun 88:255–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yasmin S, Qayyum A, Bin Rais RN (2017) Cooperation in opportunistic networks: an overlay approach for destination-dependent utility-based schemes. Arab J Sci Eng 42:467–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaushik R, Singhai J (2015) Enhanced node cooperation technique for outwitting selfish nodes in an ad hoc network. IET Netw 4:148–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samian N, Seah WKG, Zukarnain ZA et al (2016) Recharge-as-Reward mechanism to incentivize cooperative nodes in mobile ad hoc networks. In: 2016 IEEE 41st conference on local computer networks. IEEE, pp 535–538Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Subramaniyan S, Johnson W, Subramaniyan K (2014) A distributed framework for detecting selfish nodes in MANET using Record- and Trust-Based Detection (RTBD) technique. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 2014:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bigwood G, Henderson T (2011) IRONMAN: using social networks to add incentives and reputation to opportunistic networks. In: 2011 IEEE third international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust (PASSAT) and 2011 IEEE third international conference on social computing (SocialCom). IEEE, pp 65–72Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Javidi MM, Baseri MV (2017) Fuzzy selfish detection ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing protocol (FSDAODV). J Comput Sci Comput Math 7:7–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciobanu R-I, Dobre C, Dascălu M et al (2014) SENSE: a collaborative selfish node detection and incentive mechanism for opportunistic networks. J Netw Comput Appl 41:240–249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seising R, Trillas E, Kacprzyk J (eds) (2015) Towards the future of fuzzy logic. Springer, New York. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meier A, Portmann E, Stoffel K, Terán L (2017) The application of fuzzy logic for managerial decision making processes. Springer, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jung K, Lee J-Y, Jeong H-Y (2017) Improving adaptive cluster head selection of teen protocol using fuzzy logic for WMSN. Multimed Tools Appl 76:18175–18190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sahaaya Arul Mary SA, Gnanadurai JB (2017) Enhanced zone stable election protocol based on fuzzy logic for cluster head election in wireless sensor networks. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19:799–812. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Das Adhikary DR, Mallick DK (2017) A congestion aware, energy efficient, on demand fuzzy logic based clustering protocol for multi-hop wireless sensor networks. Wirel Pers Commun. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tabatabaei S, Hosseini F (2016) A fuzzy logic-based fault tolerance new routing protocol in mobile ad hoc networks. Int J Fuzzy Syst 18:883–893. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abualhaj MM, Abu-Shareha AA, Al-Tahrawi MM (2016) FLRED: an efficient fuzzy logic based network congestion control method. Neural Comput Appl. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ramakrishnan S, Devaraju S (2017) Attack’s feature selection-based network intrusion detection system using fuzzy control language. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19:316–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feeney LM, Marie L (2001) An energy consumption model for performance analysis of routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. Mob Netw Appl 6:239–249. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Broekhoven E, De Baets B (2006) Fast and accurate center of gravity defuzzification of fuzzy system outputs defined on trapezoidal fuzzy partitions. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157:904–918. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ciobanu RI, Dobre C, Cristea V, Al-Jumeily D (2012) Social aspects for opportunistic communication. In: 2012 11th International symposium on parallel and distributed computing. IEEE, pp 251–258Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Firdose S, Lopes L, Moreira W et al (2017) CRAWDAD dataset copelabs/usense (v. 2017-01-27).
  35. 35.
    Ciobanu RI, Dobre C (2012) CRAWDAD dataset upb/mobility2011 (v. 2012-06-18). CRAWDAD Wirel Netw data Arch. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cabero JM, Molina V, Urteaga I et al (2012) CRAWDAD dataset tecnalia/humanet (v. 2012-06-12). CRAWDAD Wirel Netw Data Arch. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering, Tabriz BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations