Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Swarm Based Hybrid ACO-PSO Meta-Heuristic (HAPM) for QoS Multicast Routing Optimization in MANETs

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For large and dynamic networks, traditional MANETs multicast routing protocols are not appropriate for searching the optimal paths considering QoS constraints as the problem leads to NP-complete in nature. Biologically inspired algorithms like Ant colony optimization (ACO), Particle swarm optimization (PSO) and Artificial Bee Colony have attracted great attention from researchers to solve the combinatorial problem. ACO and PSO provide more reliable routes as compared to traditional methods. In this paper, we have proposed 'Hybrid ACO-PSO Meta-Heuristic (HAPM)', a combination of ACO, PSO, and a dynamic queue mechanism to improve QoS constraints and minimize QoS the data dropping. Simulation is performed in NS2 and the results revealed that the presented HAPM algorithm provides better efficiency in terms of Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), Ent-to-End Delay, Hop Count (Hc), Routing Overhead) and Throughput as compared to ACO, PSO, hybrid ACO-PSO, Enhanced-Ant-AODV and Cuckoo Search Optimization AODV (CSO-AODV). The PDR in HAPM is improved by 20%, 11%, 8%, 2% and 0.6%; delay of HAPM is reduced by 54%, 47%, 40%, 49%, and 30%; routing overhead of HAPM is reduced by 49%, 41%, 23%, 10% and 17%; throughput of HAPM is improved by 40%, 28%, 11%, 8% and 36% as compared to ACO, PSO, hybrid ACO-PSO, Enhanced-Ant-AODV and Cuckoo Search Optimization AODV (CSO-AODV) respectively. The Hop count of HAPM has also been reduced by 90%, 87%, and 83% compared to ACO, PSO, and Enhanced-Ant-AODV respectively. The proposed HAPM does not overburden the time complexity in our implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sahasrabuddhe, L. H., & Mukherjee, B. (2000). Multicast routing algorithms and protocols: A tutorial. IEEE Network, 14(1), 90–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Perkins, C., Elizabeth B.-R., & Samir D. (2003). RFC3561: Ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) routing.

  3. Perkins, C. E., & Bhagwat, P. (1994). Highly dynamic destination-sequenced distance-vector routing (DSDV) for mobile computers. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 24(4), 234–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson, D. B., Maltz, D. A., & Broch, J. (2001). DSR: The dynamic source routing protocol for multi-hop wireless ad hoc networks. Ad Hoc Networking, 5(1), 139–172.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jacquet, P., Paul M., Thomas C., Anis L., Amir Q., & Laurent V. (2001). Optimized link state routing protocol for ad hoc networks. In: Proceedings. IEEE International Multi Topic Conference, 2001. IEEE INMIC 2001. Technology for the 21st Century, IEEE, pp. 62–68.

  6. Lundberg, J. (2000) Routing security in ad hoc networks. Helsinki University of Technology, http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/400961.html.

  7. Kumari, P., & Sahana, S. K. (2019). Comprehensive survey and comparative experimental performance gain of AODV, DSR and OLSR in MANETs. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 8(5), 1036–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gupta, M., & Sachin K. (2015). Performance evaluation of DSR, AODV and DSDV routing protocol for wireless Adhoc network. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Technology, IEEE, pp. 416–421.

  9. Sahana, S. K. (2019). Hybrid optimizer for the travelling salesman problem. Evolutionary Intelligence, 12(2), 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Radha, S., & Shanmugavel, S. (2004). Performance evaluation of routing algorithms for mobility models in ad hoc network. IETE Technical Review, 21(3), 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kumari, P., & Sahana, S.K. (2021). QoS-based ACO routing protocols in MANETs: A review. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Microelectronics Computing and Communication Systems, Springer, Singapore, pp. 329–340

  12. Kumari, P., & Sahana, S.K. (2019). An efficient swarm-based multicast routing technique: Review. In Computational Intelligence in Data Mining, pp. 123–134

  13. Memon, S., Pardeep, K., Umair, A. K., & Tanesh, K. (2015). Performance evaluation of mobile ad hoc routing mechanisms. Wireless Personal Communications, 85(2), 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dorigo, M. (1992). Optimization, learning and natural algorithms. PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Milano.

  15. Eberhart, R., James K. (1995). A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: MHS'95. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, IEEE, pp. 39–43.

  16. Dorigo, M., & Gianni D.C. (1999) Ant colony optimization: A new meta-heuristic. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406), IEEE, vol. 2, pp. 1470–1477.

  17. Gunes, M., Udo S., & Imed B. (2002) ARA-the ant-colony based routing algorithm for MANETs. In Proceedings. International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshop, IEEE, pp. 79–85.

  18. Hussein, O., & Saadawi, T. (2003). Ant routing algorithm for mobile ad-hoc networks (ARAMA). In: Conference Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference, 2003, IEEE, pp. 281–290.

  19. Di Caro, G., Frederick, D., & Luca, M. G. (2005). AntHocNet: An adaptive nature-inspired algorithm for routing in mobile ad hoc networks. European Transactions on Telecommunications, 16(5), 443–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Asokan, R., Natarajan, A. M., & Venkatesh, C. (2008). Ant based dynamic source routing protocol to support multiple quality of service (QoS) metrics in mobile ad hoc networks. International Journal of Computer Science and Security, 2(3), 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Osagie, E., Parimala T., & Ruppa K.T. (2008). PACONET: imProved ant colony optimization routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc networks. In 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (aina 2008), IEEE, pp. 204–211.

  22. Wang, J., Osagie, E., Thulasiraman, P., & Thulasiram, R. K. (2009). HOPNET: A hybrid ant colony optimization routing algorithm for mobile ad hoc network. Ad Hoc Networks, 7(4), 690–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Deepalakshmi, P., & Shanmugasundaram, R. (2011). An ant colony-based multi objective quality of service routing for mobile ad hoc networks. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 153, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Krishna, P. V., Vankadara, S., Vedha, G., Akhil, B., & Amardeep, S. C. (2012). Quality-of-service-enabled ant colony-based multipath routing for mobile ad hoc networks. IET Communications, 6(1), 76–83.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Al-Ani, A. D., & Jochen, S. (2015). QoS-aware routing in multi-rate ad hoc networks based on ant colony optimization. Network Protocols and Algorithms, 7(4), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang, Z., Xia S., & Dexian Z. (2007). A PSO-based multicast routing algorithm. In: Third International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC 2007), IEEE, vol. 4, pp. 664–667.

  27. Patel, M. K., Manas, R. K., & Chita, R. T. (2014). A hybrid ACO/PSO based algorithm for QoS multicast routing problem. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 5(1), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Girgis, M. R., Mahmoud, T. M., & Hanna, G. W. (2016). Tree growth based ACO algorithm for solving the bandwidth-delay-constrained least-cost multicast routing problem. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, 5(6), 516–523.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Harrag, N., & Abdelghani H. (2019). Bio-inspired OLSR routing protocol." In: 2019 6th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT), IEEE, pp. 1763–1767.

  30. Mandhare, V. V., Thool, V. R., & Manthalkar, R. R. (2016). QoS routing enhancement using metaheuristic approach in mobile ad-hoc network. Computer Networks, 110, 180–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sarkar, D., Swagata C., & Abhishek M. (2018). Enhanced-ant-AODV for optimal route selection in mobile ad-hoc network. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi, India

    Priyanka Kumari & Sudip Kumar Sahana

Authors
  1. Priyanka Kumari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sudip Kumar Sahana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priyanka Kumari.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumari, P., Sahana, S.K. Swarm Based Hybrid ACO-PSO Meta-Heuristic (HAPM) for QoS Multicast Routing Optimization in MANETs. Wireless Pers Commun 123, 1145–1167 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-09174-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-09174-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation