Wireless Networks

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 279–287 | Cite as

Heterogeneous network bandwidth management scheme based on the principal-agent game model

Article
First Online:
  • 190 Downloads

Abstract

In order to provide more comprehensive network services, a concept of integrated heterogeneous network system was introduced. Until now, lots of researchers have focused on how to efficiently integrate different types of wireless and mobile networks. To exploit the heterogeneous network system operation, an important issue is how to properly manage the network bandwidth. In this study, a new bandwidth management scheme has been proposed by employing the principal-agent game model. Among heterogeneous networks, we have analyzed the asymmetric information situation and developed an effective bandwidth allocation algorithm. Under diverse network condition changes, our principal-agent game approach is essential to provide a suitable tradeoff between conflicting requirements. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed scheme can obtain a better network performance and bandwidth efficiency than other existing schemes.

Keywords

Dynamic bandwidth allocation Principal-agent model Game theory Heterogeneous networks Learning algorithm 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the MSIP (Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP-2015-H8501-15-1018) supervised by the IITP (Institute for Information & Communications Technology Promotion).

References

  1. 1.
    Shen, W., & Zeng, Q.-A. (2008). Resource management schemes for multiple traffic in integrated heterogeneous wireless and mobile networks. In IEEE ICCCN’08, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xue, P., Gong, P., Park, J. H., Park, D., & Kim, D. K. (2012). Radio resource management with proportional rate constraint in the heterogeneous networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 11(3), 1066–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim, Kwang Sik, Uno, Shintaro, & Kim, Moo Wan. (2010). Adaptive QoS mechanism for wireless mobile network. JCSE, 4(2), 153–172.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., Kondratova, I., D’Ulizia, A., & Caschera, M. C. (2010). Preface for the special issue on mobile and networking technologies for modelling social applications and services. JCSE, 4(1), 52.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim, S. (2014). Game theory applications in network design. Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kathleen, M. (1989). Eisenhardt, “Agency theory: An assessment and review”. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57–74.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haptonstahl, S. Competing solutions to the principal-agent model. Working paper. Saint Louis: Washington University, http://www.polmeth.wustl.edu/media/Paper/Haptonstahl2009_PrincipalAgentStatisticalModel.pdf.
  8. 8.
    Lopez-Benitez, M., & Gozalvez, J. (2011). Common radio resource management algorithms for multimedia heterogeneous wireless networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 10(9), 1201–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xue, P., Gong, P., Park, J. H., Park, D., & Kim, D. K. (2012). Radio resource management with proportional rate constraint in the heterogeneous networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 11(3), 1066–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, L., Li, S., & Zhao, S. (2014). QoS-aware scheduling of services-oriented internet of things. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 10(2), 1497–1505.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, H., Jiang, C., Beaulieu, N. C., Chu, X., Wen, X., & Tao, M. (2014). Resource allocation in spectrum-sharing OFDMA femtocells with heterogeneous services. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 62(7), 2366–2377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, H., Jiang, C., Beaulieu, N., Chu, X., Wang, X., & Quek, T. (2015). Resource allocation for cognitive small cell networks: A cooperative bargaining game theoretic approach. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 14(6), 3481–3493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin, X., Chun, S., Jung, J., & Lee, K.-H. (2014). IoT service selection based on physical service model and absolute dominance relationship. In IEEE SOCA’2014, pp. 65–72.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lohi, M., Weerakoon, D., & Aghvami, A. H. (1999). Trends in multi-layer cellular system design and handover design. In IEEE wireless communications and networking conference, pp. 898–902.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ning, G., Zhu, G., Li, Q., & Wu, R. (2006). Dynamic load balancing based on sojourn time in multitier cellular systems. In IEEE vehicular technology conference, pp. 111–116.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yuan-xiang, J., & Hong-lian, G. (2013). The principal-agent game analysis among accounting firm, enterprise customer and government. In IEEE ICSSSM’2013, pp. 623–627.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu, Y. (2010). The game model of logistics finance based on the principal-agent theory. In IEEE ICEEE’2010, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alnwaimi, G., Vahid, S., & Moessner, K. (2015). Dynamic heterogeneous learning games for opportunistic access in lte-based macro/femtocell deployments. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 14(4), 2294–2308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceSogang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations