Skip to main content
Log in

Bandwidth Resource Competition in Cooperative Cognitive Wireless Communications

  • Published:
International Journal of Wireless Information Networks Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the behavior of Cooperative Cognitive Wireless nodes for the bandwidth resource competition using the ecological models of mutualism. We transform our cooperative cognitive wireless communication (CCWC) system as mutually interacting species. The two types of species are primary and secondary users. The Primary users have under-utilized licensed bandwidth to be shared with the secondary users. On the other hand, secondary users are willing to behave as possible relays for cognitive primary users, in exchange of shared licensed bandwidth. So, instead of pricing model, the proposed system is analyzed with the traditional barter system (exchange of commodities). We analyzed our proposed system based on three ecological models. Our first model is based on the coalitional form of Lotka–Volterra equations, where predator-prey role of mobile nodes are replaced with cooperation as in symbiosis. The second model deals with the population dynamism of strategically interacting partner for conflicting bandwidth resource. The third model adds the dynamism for the varying amount of bandwidth to be shared among the individual mobile users. For each type, a mathematical model is derived and then simulated for the equilibrium position analysis. The obtained results show that sharing of bandwidth resource is essential for the existence of CCWC systems.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H. Wang, L. Kondi, A. Luthra, and S. Ci, 4G Wireless Video Communications. Wiley Publishing, USA, 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Y. Ding, L. Gao, and D. Ruan, Communication mechanisms in ecological network-based grid middleware for service emergence, Inf. Sci, Vol. 177, pp. 722–733, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2006.08.005.

  3. D. Niyato, and E. Hossain, A cooperative game framework for bandwidth allocation in 4g heterogeneous wireless networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications ICC ’06, Vol. 9, pp. 4357–4362, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2006.255766.

  4. S. Valentin, H. S. Lichte, H. Karl, G. Vivier, S. Simoens, J. Vidal, and A. A. de Dios, Chapter 8: Cognitive Wireless Networks, Concepts, Methodologies and Visions inspiring the age of enlightment of wireless communications. In: Implementing Cooperative Wireless Networks. Towards Feasibility and deployment. Springer, USA, 2007.

  5. D. Niyato, E. Hossain, and Z. Han, Dynamics of multiple-seller and multiple-buyer spectrum trading in cognitive radio networks: a game-theoretic modeling approach. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 1009–1022, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. M. A. Nowak, and K. Sigmund, Evolutionary dynamics of biological games. Science, Vol. 303, No. 5659, pp. 793–799, 2004. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1093411.

  7. S. A. West, A. S. Griffin, and A. Gardner, Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 415–432, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01258.x.

  8. T. Rasheed, E. Hart, J. Bown, and R. Falconer, Symbiotic cognitive networks: a proposal. In: ICARIS, pp. 326–328, 2010.

  9. J. N. Thompson, Ecology: mutualistic webs of species. Science, Vol. 312, No. 5772, pp. 372–373, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1126904.

  10. U. Bastolla, M. A. Fortuna, A. Pascual-Garcia, A. Ferrera, B. Luque, and J. Bascompte, The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature, Vol. 458, No. 7241, pp. 1018–1020, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07950.

  11. Q. Zhang, Stackelberg game for utility-based cooperative cognitiveradio networks. In: MobiHoc ’09: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Symposium on Mobile ad hoc Networking and Computing. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 23–32, 2009.

  12. T. Ueda, H. Yomo, A. Hasegawa, and S. Obana, Public-private cooperative cognitive radio access networks. IEICE Technical Report, SR2009-90, Vol. 109, No. 383, pp. 101–105, 2010.

  13. M. Doebeli, and N. Knowlton, The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 95, No. 15, pp. 8676–8680, 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.pnas.org/content/95/15/8676.abstract.

  14. W. J. Bond, Do mutualisms matter? Assessing the impact of pollinator and disperser disruption on plant extinction. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 344, No. 1307, pp. 83–90, 1994. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/56158.

  15. A. Sykes, Comparative advantage and the normative economics of international trade policy. Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 49–82, 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oup/jielaw/.

  16. M. Nazir, and N. Rajatheva, Cooperative cognitive wireless communication based on biological mutualism. In: Communication Systems, Networks and Applications (ICCSNA), 2010 Second International Conference on, Vol. 1, pp. 115–118, 2010.

  17. J. Hofbauer, and K. Sigmund, Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, UK, 1998.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Y. Ozden, Law of the minimum in learning moderator and sumamrizer. Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 5–8, 2004.

  19. Q. Paris, The return of von liebig’s “law of the minimum”. Agronomy Journal, Vol. 84, pp. 1040–1046, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. J. von Liebig, Die chemie in irher anwendung auf agricultur und physiologie, f. Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschwieg.

  21. D. Tilman, Resources: a graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. The American Naturalist, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 362–393, 1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. B. R. L. Frank, and M. Stewart, Partitioning of resources and the outcome of interspecific competition: a model and some general considerations. The American Naturalist Vol. 107, pp. 171–198, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the HEC-Govt. of Pakistan, AIT Thailand, and CWC University of Oulu for supporting this work, and special thanks to Dr. Winai Wongsurawat, Dr. Poompat Saengudomlert, Prof. Dr. Farhat Saleemi, and Prof. Luiz A. DaSilva for contributions and suggestions in the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsin Nazir.

Appendix Proof for the Convergence of Cooperative Cognitive Wireless Systems

Appendix Proof for the Convergence of Cooperative Cognitive Wireless Systems

Theorem 1

(Cooperative Cognitive System Convergence): The orbits of cooperative cognitive system go to infinity or converge to some rest point.

proof

According to the theory of dynamical systems, let us denote the quadrants of ℜ2 with

$$ \begin{aligned} D_{1}&= \Re_{+}^{2}, \\ D_{2}&=\left \lbrace {\left ({p,s} \right ):p\,\leqslant\,0,s\,\geqslant\,0} \right \rbrace,\\ D_{3}&= -\Re_{+}^{2}, \end{aligned} $$

and,

$$ \begin{aligned} &D_{4}= {-D}_{2}.\\ &\hbox{If},\;p(t_{0}),\;s(t_{0}) \subset D_{1},\;\exists t_{0} \subset R\\ &\hbox{Then}, \;p(t) \subset D_{1} \forall \geqslant t_{0} \end{aligned} $$

If, for example,

$$ \begin{aligned} p(t) &= 0 \hbox{\;but\;} s(t) \geqslant 0, \,\hbox{then}\\ \ddot p &= \frac{\partial f_{p}}{\partial p}\dot{p}+\frac{\partial f_{p}}{\partial s}\dot{s} \end{aligned} $$

and hence

$$ (\dot{p} \geq 0) $$

With a similar type of reasoning, we can show that,

$$ \dot{p}(t_{0}),\;\dot{s}(t_{0}) \Rightarrow \dot{p}(t),\;\dot{s}(t) \subset D_{3}, \;\forall t \geq t_{0}. $$

If,

$$ p(t_{0}),\;s(t_{0})\subset D_{2}, $$

Then either, \(\dot{p}(t),\;\dot{s}(t)\) enters D 1 or D 3 for further duration, or stays in D 2, ∀ t ≥ t 0; Same is the case for \(\dot{p}(t),\;s(t)\subset D_{4}. \) So, in all the situations, the population variables p(t) and s(t) are always monotonic variables, with convergence point to some particular limit or toward infinity. Hence, the convergence of given cooperative cognitive communication system.

About this article

Cite this article

Nazir, M., Rajatheva, N. & Latva-aho, M. Bandwidth Resource Competition in Cooperative Cognitive Wireless Communications. Int J Wireless Inf Networks 18, 243–256 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10776-011-0141-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10776-011-0141-5

Keywords

Navigation