2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
A Call Admission Control Scheme using Genetic
Algorithms
Dilek Karabudak Chih-Cheng Hung
School of Computing & School of Computing &
Software Engineering Software Engineering
Southern Polytechnic State Southern Polytechnic State
University University
Marietta, GA 30060 Marietta, GA 30060
dkarabud@spsu.edu chung@spsu.edu
ABSTRACT
Next Generation Wireless Systems (NGWS) will provide
a variety of services to mobile users including high speed
data, real-time applications and real-time multimedia sup-
port with a certain quality of service (QoS) level. An effi-
cient handoff management is one of the key issues in order to
support global roaming of the mobile users among different
network architectures of the NGWS.
In this paper, a new call admission control scheme, Genetic-
based call admission control (GAC), is proposed for NGWS.
The GAC scheme uses genetic algorithms to achieve high
network utilization, minimum cost, minimum handoff la-
tency and mobile terminal’s (MT) QoS requirements. Per-
formance analysis is provided to assess the efficiency of the
proposed GAC scheme. Simulation results show a signif-
icant improvement in handoff latencies and costs over the
heuristic approach and other CAC schemes.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
C.2.1 [Computer-Communication Networks]: Wireless
Communication; G.3 [Probability and Statistics]: Markov
Processes; G.4 [Mathematical Software]: Algorithm de-
sign and analysis; I.2 [Artificial Intelligence]: Miscella-
neous
General Terms
Genetic Algorithms, Experimentation, Performance
Keywords
Next Generation Wireless Systems (NGWS), Call Admis-
sion Control (CAC), handoff management, Genetic Algo-
rithms, Markov Decision Model
1. INTRODUCTION
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee.
SAC ’04, March 14-17, 2004, Nicosia, Cyprus
Copyright 2004 ACM 1-58113-812-1/03/04 ...$5.00.
1151
Benny Bing
School of Electrical &
Computer Engineering
Georgia Institute of
Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
bennybing@ieee.org
The evolution of wireless network technologies has leaded
different generations of wireless systems named as nG (1G,
2G, 2.5G, 3G ...). Current existing wireless systems only
provide limited services. The Next Generation Wireless Sys-
tems (NGWS) is expected to possess wireless access, wire-
less mobile, wireless LAN and packet-division-multiplexed
(PDM) networks and provide a wide range of services in-
cluding high-speed data and real-time multimedia to mobile
users. The mobile user is expected to be able to communi-
cate through different wireless networking architectures and
to roam within these architectures [1]. To realize this expec-
tation, a diverse set of challenges, which are posed by het-
erogeneous wireless networking environments within NGWS
and the according management requirements, need to be ad-
dressed.
One of the key challenges, which needs to be addressed, is
call admission control (CAC) for NGWS. CAC algorithms
proposed in the literature are related to specific admission
criteria. In [6], the concept of effective bandwidth is defined
to measure the resource availability. Besides the effective
bandwidth, other criterions such as handoff latency or mini-
mum network cost have crucial roles in order to measure the
resource availability. In [14], the equivalent number of users
is used as the admission criterion. Although a CAC scheme
has to define an efficient admission policy, the variety of
parameters has to be considered in defining this admission
policy. Hence, to fulfil all the requirements of NGWS, to
achieve QoS and maximum network utilization, and min-
imize cost and handoff latency, an efficient call admission
control (CAC) must be deployed. Thus, there is a need for
a unified call admission control scheme for handoff manage-
ment, which can address the architectural heterogeneities
for roaming mobile users and achieve the best performance
in a fast and accurate manner with low handoff latency for
NGWS. Intelligent algorithms are an efficient way of solving
this problem.
Among a variety of artificial techniques, genetic algorithms
(GAs) have been used in a wide variety of optimization
tasks, including numerical optimization and combinatorial
optimization problems as well as call admission control in
wireless systems. Its ability for parallel searching and fast
evaluation distinguish itself from other decision and opti-
mization algorithms. In order to solve the call admission
problem, several GAs based approaches have been proposed
for some specific wireless network architectures [13, 15]. Al-
though these schemes are promising, they consider only lim-
ited number of wireless network architectures (i.e. UMTS,
Wireless LAN, Wireless ATM) and do not specifically con-
sider admission control policies as means to provide a unified
scheme for maximum network utilization, minimum handoff
latency and QoS.
In this paper, a new CAC scheme, which addresses this
heterogeneity problem and exploits GAs, is proposed. The
objective of the scheme is to achieve the maximum wireless
network utilization, mobile terminal’s QoS requirements and
significantly reduced handoff latency. In order to fulfill this
objective, the whole capacities of the channel, the power
consumption, the signalling and the switching parameters
of the wireless architecture and various coverage area archi-
tectures in place are captured via this sophisticated handoff
algorithm. These parameters are fed into a cost function
that is developed based on the Markov Decision Process,
which is then optimized using GAs. As a result, the al-
gorithm determines which network architecture the mobile
terminal (MT) would complete handoff with respect to the
minimum cost value. For the performance evaluation, dif-
ferent simulation environments have been developed. The
performance analysis shows that the GAC scheme achieves
the minimum handoff latency and the maximum wireless
network utilization for a variety of wireless network envi-
ronments compared to other algorithms.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: The
modelling and analysis of the GAC is presented in Section 2.
The GAC algorithm is described in Section 3. The valida-
tion of the model, its performance evaluation results along
with the effects of the GAC algorithm on the network perfor-
mance and latency are then discussed in Section 4. Finally,
the paper is concluded in Section 5.
2. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS
In the modelling of the problem, all the parameters of the
wireless network architecture that affect the handoff process
such as signalling, switching, bandwidth and power con-
sumption are considered in the cost function that have to
be optimized. The cost function is formulated using the
Markov Decision Process. Then a final optimality equation
is derived for the optimization and handoff decision process
which is implemented by genetic algorithms.
For effective network usage, continuously changing fac-
tors should be considered in handoff decisions. There are
different constraints such as bandwidth, latency, network
load, power consumption and capacity of the network. Let
each state defined to determine the final action in Markov
Decision Process [11] represent a different wireless network
architecture. The collection of these states consists different
wireless architectures.
Cost f unction ⇒ (Real Cost)N = F(SigN , SwN , P wN , BwN ) (1)
where
Sig is the signaling to set-up handoff
Sw is the switching, rerouting of the traffic during handoff for the proposed solution [11]. The cost functions for the
P w is the power consumption of the network
Bw is bandwidth of the network
N is the index, N = 1...n where n is the number of dif-
ferent wireless architectures
The set of actions is basically the call admission decisions
for the corresponding mobile terminal which can be 1 for
”accept” or 0 for ”reject”. The set of action can be defined
as
”Set of action → T he decision of the handof f
by the binary action variable, a ∈ A = 0, 1.” (2)
where
a is the binary decision variable
A is the set of values that the decision can take (0 for
”reject”, 1 for ”accept”)
Each parameters in the cost function depends on the wire-
less network architecture in the system. Power consumption
cost, ΨP w is fixed with coefficient such as
ΨP w (N ) = ψP w = cP w (3)
It is assumed that the bandwidth cost rate ψBw depends
linearly on all the capacity of the network architecture and
inversely with the available capacity as follows
CN
ψBw (N ) = cBw · (4)
C(t)
where CN is the total capacity of the channel of the network
and C(t) is the available capacity of the channel at time t.
t is the time of the handoff (i.e. if available capacity of the
resource is CN then the cost will be only the bandwidth co-
efficient). cBw is the bandwidth cost coefficient per capacity
unit.
Both signalling and rerouting cost coefficients change with
respect to the next network architecture that the handoff
occurs. Hence, the network decision function can be defined
as
½
0 , Nc = Nx
fN (Nc , Nx ) =
1 , Nc 6= Nx
where Nc is the current network and Nx is the next net-
work of the cell, which the mobile terminal would probably
roams. fN (Nc , Nx ) determines whether the next cell, which
the mobile terminal roams, is at the same network or not.
ΨSig (N ) = csig [1 + fN (Nc , Nx )] (5)
δ
X
ψSw (N ) = cSw [1 + fN (Nc , Nx )] (6)
1
where cSig and cSw are the signalling and switching cost
coefficients respectively, and δ is the number of connections.
The optimization problem is formulated as a Continuous
Time Markov Decision Process (CTMDP). The states in the
theory would represent each different network architectures
Markov Decision Process (MDP) theory have been defined
above. The optimization objective is to find a policy π ∗ such
that
∗
ν π (N ) = inf ν π (N ) (7)
π∈Π
1152
 The optimal decision policy can be found by solving the The state transition probability defined in equation (10),
related optimality equations for each network architecture which is related to our model can then be given by
in the system [11]. We assume that the handoff requests
arrived according to a Poisson process with rate λ and the  µ
 µ+λ
,j=0
request durations are exponentially distributed with rate µ. λ
pij = , j =i+1 (12)
With the assumptions of a discounted infinite-horizon Con-  µ+λ
tinuous Time Markov Decision Process(CTMDP), the opti- 0 , otherwise
mality equations can be written as For the last part of the modelling, the final optimality
equation is to be derived. It is optimized using GAs to de-
( µ ¶X )
λ+µ termine the call admission control policy of the correspond-
ν(N ) = min r(N, a) + p(j|N, a)ν(j) ing MT. As all the required parts are derived as described in
a∈A λ+µ+α j∈N the previous subsections, the cost expectation, r(N, a) in (9)
(8) and the state transition probability in (12) are evaluated in
where r(N, a) is the cost expectation between two decision order to obtain the final optimality equation in Equation (8)
instants and p(j|N, a) is the state transition probability that for j = 0 and j = i + 1 respectively as follows
the system occupies (state) network j at the subsequent de-
cision instant, given that the system is in (state) network N n £ ¤
at the earlier decision instant and action a is chosen. ν(N ) = min cSig 1 + fN (Nc , Ni ) + cP w +
With the Poisson arrival assumption, the time between P £ ¤
h cBw .CN + δ cSw 1 + fN (Nc , Ni ) i
C(t) 1
any two successive events (arrival of requests or departure + ¡ ¢ +
of a request) is exponentially distributed with rate (λ + µ). α+λ+µ
Recall that between two successive events the state of the ¡ λ + µ ¢¡ µ ¢o
system does not change. Hence, r(N, a) can be expressed + f orj = 0, (13)
α+λ+µ µ+λ
by
n £ ¤
h i ν(N ) = min cSig 1 + fN (Nc , Ni ) + cP w +
ψBw (N ) + ψSw (N ) P £ ¤
r(N, a) = ΨSig (N ) + ΨP w (N ) + (9) h cBw .CN + δ cSw 1 + fN (Nc , Ni ) i
C(t) 1
(α + λ + µ) + ¡ ¢ +
α+λ+µ
Since the set of possible actions A which is defined in (2) ¡ λ + µ ¢¡ λ ¢o
is finite and r(N, a) is bounded, it can be proved that the + f orj = i + 1, (14)
optimal policy π ∗ is stationary and deterministic [11]. α+λ+µ µ+λ
The optimality equation consists of two parts. The first The values of ν ∗ (N ) can be found by using either GAs and
part r(N, a) is already derived. In order to conclude the final any heuristic approaches, value iteration or policy iteration
optimality equation, p(j|N, a), state transition probability algorithm which are numerical procedures. The numerical
also needs to be derived. analysis is demonstrated in Section 4.
Let the residency time and call duration time can be rep-
resented as tr and tc , respectively, for any wireless network
architecture. These residency time and call duration time 3. GAC : GENETIC-BASED ADMISSION CON-
are assumed to be independent and identically distributed TROL
random variables. Furthermore, tc is also assumed that it is
exponentially distributed with rate µ and probability den- 3.1 Genetic Algorithms
sity function of tr is fr (t) with mean 1/λ. Genetic Algorithms are directed random search techniques
As the handoff process is modeled as Markov chain, the used to look for parameters that provide the optimal solution
state i in the Markov chain denotes the number of handoffs to a problem. They are based on the principles of evolution
since the last connection is established [10]. When the MT and natural genetics [7]. As an optimization method, GAs
is at a particular state i, a transition to initial state 0 occurs have major differences and advantages over the other opti-
when the ongoing connection is terminated. Hence, the state mization algorithms [7]. The notion of genetic algorithms is
transition probability, pij [10] from state i to state j is given the survival of the fittest of the nature. This implies that
as the ‘fitter’ individuals are more likely to survive and have a
chance of passing their features to the next generation.

 pi0 ,j=0 In our scheme, GAs is used to solve the final optimality
pij = 1 − pi0 , j =i+1 (10) function. The next section describes the system and algo-
 rithm used in detail.
0 , otherwise

where, pi0 is the probability of the terminated connection
after ith handoff. Since the equilibrium state probability of
state i is expressed as pi , then
pi = (1 − pi0 )i p0
P∞
0 0
where p0 is the state probability of 0 state. As
we have p0 = pi0 [10].
3.2 System and Algorithm for Call Admission
Control
Different wide area type of wireless networks (i.e. 3G-
pico, 3G-micro, 3G-macro, Satellite-LEO, Satellite-GEO)
exist in a typical urban scenario deployed by several service
(11)
providers. Besides, large number of WLANs exist in pub-
0 pi = 1 lic and private domain. Both wireless network architectures
(3G-pico, 3G-micro, 3G-macro, Satellite-LEO, Satellite-GEO,

1153
 NMG Network Mobility Gateway
Wireless Access Point
NG Wireless Terminal
RNC:Radio Network Controller
BSC:Base Station Controller
IP BACKBONE AR:Access Router
Satellite
NMG

WLAN
FES AR
Satellite
Cell RNC BSC AP AP
AP

2G Cell
3G Cell

Figure 1: Next Generation Wireless System Architecture

Get Minimum Handoff Give Handoff End

Cost for Each Cell Decision

False

Iter 1 < # of Cells Perform Perform Recombine

GAC Evaluate Fitness
Start Init Population Iter < Generations Xover & Mutat Elitism Population
2 True

Figure 2: GA Operation Flowchart

WLAN) must be networked to each other in order to realize
the inter-system handoff between any of the wide area wire-
less systems and WLAN or vice versa in the NGWS. This
can be done in a way that, these wireless systems, hetero-
geneous architectures are connected to one another through
a third party interconnection gateway system such as pro-
posed in [3, 5, 8]. Since these proposed systems have similar
gateway architecture, we take Network Mobility Gateway
(NMG) proposed in [3] as an example architectural element
of the NGWS in our paper. NMG gateway sits in the Inter-
net as shown in Fig. 1.
NMG is capable of managing the handoffs among these
different wireless network systems. The proposed GAC scheme
takes its place in this step of the system. It is deployed in
NMG to manage all handoff management issues. The mobil-
ity management of the mobile terminal in a wireless network
is typically handled by the corresponding base transceiver
station (BTS), access point (AP), radio network controller
(RNC) or fixed earth station (FES) depending on the wire-
less system that the mobile terminal is in. For the inter-
system mobility management, all of BTS, AP, RNC and
FES are involved. These controllers propagate their sys-
tem control and signalling messages through NMG. NMG
propagates the messages needed for the functioning of the
algorithm to GAC itself.
These messages consist of all the information of the wire-
less system related to the mobility management. This infor-
mation is used by GAC to evaluate the minimum total cost
for each available wireless system at the same area of the cor-
responding mobile terminal. All the network resources such
as cost coefficients, channel capacities, the number of rerout-
ing connections in the cell, call durations and handoff rates
constitute the total cost for a specific cell. Then, the scheme
determines which cell and which network architecture has
the minimum total cost via implementing GAs. GAC incor-
porates genetic algorithms to achieve a new, fast, accurate
call admission control scheme in order to address the archi-
tectural heterogeneities of the NGWS. The objective of using
GAs is to find the minimum cost for the wireless network
system to provide maximum network utilization and mini-
mum handoff latency and to fulfill QoS requirements. The
complete GAs flowchart showing the detailed operation of
the GAC scheme are presented in Fig. 2. After determining
which network architecture that the mobile terminal should
handoff, the GAC informs NMG which wireless network ar-
chitecture will serve the mobile terminal after all. Accept or
reject action is then deployed after the propagation of the
decision to NMG.
The following sub-sections describe the detailed design
and the operations of the GA-based solution for call ad-
mission control which includes encoding scheme, fitness cal-
culation, elitism and crossover and mutation operations.
3.2.1 Encoding Scheme
A set of parameters is sought that will give the best solu-
tion in optimization. In order to implement GAs, these set of
parameters must be encoded into a string so that crossover
and mutation operations can be applied [7].
Every wireless network architecture that is in the coverage
area of the mobile terminal represents different search areas

1154
for the genetic algorithms. The encoding is not binary, for
the simplicity of the solution and to provide more accurate
values in a fast manner, the genes have their actual real
values.
The size of the solution space includes total value ranges
of the cost coefficients and the other parameters which con-
stitute the final optimality function which is derived in this
paper in Section 2.
3.2.2 Fitness Function Evaluation
The fitness function is used to evaluate the quality of the
chromosome [7]. In our scheme, the fitness evaluation func-
tion is defined with respect to the cost function and the QoS
requirements of mobile terminal. As our objective is to find
the minimum cost for every wireless network architecture,
the fitness function is defined as the inverse of the proposed
final cost function. The fitness is calculated depending on
the mobile terminal’s QoS (i.e. video, multimedia traffic
needs more bandwidth than audio traffic, the mobile termi-
nal may not want to consider power loss during handoff).
3.2.3 Elitism
Elitism is the process of selecting the better individuals,
and selecting individuals with a bias towards the better ones.
Elitism ensures the survival of the best individual so far by
preserving it and copying the best member of the previous
generation to the new members of the population in the new
generation. Elitism is important since it allows the solutions
to improve over time and helps to speed up convergence of
the population.
3.2.4 Crossover and Mutation
Crossover is one of the most important operators in ge-
netic algorithms, which creates new candidate solutions for
the problem. Another genetic operator is mutation. It in-
troduces new genetic material into a population based on a
mutation probability [7].
In our algorithm, the implementations and simulations
are performed by the crossover rate, Xover = 0.7. This
rate is the percent the individual of the new population will
be selected randomly and mated in pairs. The algorithm
deploys uniform crossover during the operation. This allows
the parent chromosomes to be mixed at the gene level rather
than the segment level (as with one and two point crossover).
Random uniform mutation is used for the proposed scheme.
This is achieved by the mutation of the gene to a value cho-
sen from a uniform random variable scaled to the lower and
upper bounds of gene range. In our implementations and
simulations the mutation rate is set to 0.001 by default. Be-
sides, different simulation environments were experimented
for different crossover and mutation probabilities to find the
best solution for call admission control problem in NGWS
(Section 4).
4. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
This section demonstrates the performance of GAC scheme
with extensive simulations and comparison with other algo-
rithms. The performance is compared with the heuristic
algorithm and other previously proposed CAC schemes.
In order to investigate the performance, GAC is deployed
for various handoff scenarios. These scenarios are shown in
Table 1. The GAC simulation experiments are performed
with crossover probability, Xover = 0.7 and mutation prob-
1155
10
GAC
Heuristic
GAC-Worst
GAC-Best
8
CAC Latency (s)
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Handoff Events
Figure 3: The CAC latency experienced with GAC
scheme and heuristic algorithm for varying handoff
scenarios.
ability, M ut = 0.001 unless otherwise specified. The other
parameter values related to the final optimality function
which determine the final cost coefficient values are also
shown in Table 2, which are also deployed in experimen-
tal simulations for previously proposed wireless schemes [4,
12, 16]. The simulation environments for GAC, heuristic
and the other algorithms are developed using Java, version
j2sdk-1-4-1.
The following subsections describe the detailed perfor-
mance analysis of GAC with respect to handoff latency, cost
and QoS.
4.1 Handoff Latency Performance
GAC simulation experiments are performed for varying
handoff scenarios as shown in Table 1. A heuristic algorithm
is also implemented using the value iteration algorithm and
linear searching for CAC in heterogenous wireless systems.
The values 1.0 and 2.0 are used for average handoff rate, λ
and call duration rate, µ respectively.
As shown in Fig. 3, GAC outperforms the heuristic al-
gorithm for each wireless network handoff scenario with re-
spect to the handoff latencies. The results are taken from
the average of the multiple runs for both algorithms. As
shown in the plot, the best and the worst values are given
after extensive GAC runs.
The GAC behavior with varying crossover and mutation
probabilities are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. The muta-
tion rates are 0.0005 and 0.002 respectively. The crossover
rates are 0.65 and 0.8 respectively. The plots reveal some
characteristics of the GAs. As expected, the modified mu-
tation or crossover rate yields some changes for the handoff
latency. When the mutation or crossover rates are increased,
for the nature of the GAs, convergence is better but the de-
lay slightly increases. It is just the opposite when these rates
are decreased.
4.2 Cost Performance
These simulations are designed to show how GAC uses
network resources efficiently and finds the minimum hand-
off cost over other previously proposed CAC schemes. The
experiments are performed for varying handoff scenarios as
shown in Table 1. For this case, GAC is compared with dif-
ferent wireless network CAC algorithms based on available
 10 10
Heuristic Heuristic
GAC(XOver=0.65) GAC(XOver=0.8)
GAC-Worst(XOver=0.65) GAC-Worst(XOver=0.8)
GAC-Best(XOver=0.65) GAC-Best(XOver=0.8)

8 8
CAC Latency (s)

CAC Latency (s)

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Handoff Events Handoff Events

(a) (b)

Figure 4: The CAC latency experienced with GAC scheme and heuristic algorithm for varying handoff
scenarios and for different crossover probability

10 10
Heuristic Heuristic
GAC(Mut=0.0005) GAC(Mut=0.002)
GAC-Worst(Mut=0.0005) GAC-Worst(Mut=0.002)
GAC-Best(Mut=0.0005) GAC-Best(Mut=0.002)

8 8
CAC Latency (s)

CAC Latency (s)

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Handoff Events Handoff Events

(a) (b)

Figure 5: The CAC latency experienced with GAC scheme and heuristic algorithm for varying handoff
scenarios and for different mutation probability

Table 1: Simulation Experiments Handoff Scenarios for Roaming Between Heterogeneous Wireless Architec-
tures
Scenario # (N1 , N2 , N3 , N4 ) (AvBW1 , AvBW2 , AvBW3 , AvBW4 )
1 (SatG , SatL , 3Gµ ) (75%,50%,25%)
2 (3Gp , 3Gµ , SatL , −) (50%,50%,80%,-)
3 (SatL , 3Gp , W LAN, −) (100%,50%,10%,-)
4 (3Gp , 3Gm , 3Gµ , −) (50%,50%,50%,-)
5 (W LAN, SatL , SatG , −) (10%,100%,100%,-)
6 (3Gp , 3Gµ , W LAN, −) (50%,80%,10%,-)
7 (SatG , SatL , SatL , −) (100%,50%,25%,-)
8 (3Gm , 3Gµ , SatL , W LAN ) (50%,10%,80%,5%)
9 (W LAN, W LAN, 3Gp , 3Gm ) (25%,30%,50%,75%)
10 (SatL , SatG , 3Gm , 3Gm ) (100%,50%,50%,80%)

Table 2: Cost coefficient parameters deployed for the final optimality equation
Coeff. SatL SatG 3Gp 3Gµ 3Gm WLAN
csig (1,5) (1,5) (1,5) (1,5) (1,5) (1,5)
cpw (W) (2,10) (2,10) (0.01,0.05) (0.01,0.05) (0.01,0.05) (0.04,0.25)
1
cbw ( bw ) (1.5,45) (7.5,45) (0.6,4.3) (4.3,7.5) (7.5,45) (0.01,0.5)
csw (1,5) (1,5) (1,5) (1,5) (1,5) (1,5)

bandwidth and power consumption threshold values [2, 6, 9]. the MT should do handoff.
The handoff cost also demonstrates the network resource us- As shown in Fig. 6, for the majority of the handoff sce-
age while determining which wireless network architecture narios, the total handoff cost experimented using GAC is

1156
 6 100
GAC GAC
Bandwidth-Based Bandwidth-Based
Power-Based Power-Based
GAC-Worst
5 GAC-Best
80

Admission Percentage(%)
4

60
Handoff Cost

40

20
1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Handoff Events Handoff Scenarios

Figure 6: Handoff cost experienced with GAC, Figure 9: Call admission percentage experi-
bandwidth-based and power-based schemes for vary- enced with GAC, bandwidth-based and power-based
ing handoff scenarios. schemes for varying handoff scenarios.

much less than both CAC algorithms. In one or two cases, roam among heterogeneous wireless architectures.
the results are similar with the other schemes. This happens
when there are similar wireless network systems around the 5. CONCLUSION
corresponding MT. Therefore, both algorithms conclude the
Different call admission control (CAC) schemes have been
similar handoff cost results for these cases. For other cases,
developed for different wireless systems in the literature.
GAC performs more efficiently than the other schemes re-
However, these schemes do not provide a single solution to
garding to wireless network utilization and low handoff cost.
address the heterogenous architectures which are revealed
The same experiments are also demonstrated for varying
by the Next Generation Wireless System (NGWS). A new
crossover and mutation rates. It is observed in Fig. 7 and
scheme is needed that can address these heterogeneities.
Fig. 8 that the results depending on these varying probabil-
In this paper, a new unified CAC which is based on genetic
ities. The results are similar for every handoff scenario. The
algorithms (GAs) is presented to realize the NGWS objec-
total handoff cost values are slightly improved when GAC is
tive. GAC incorporates a fast, reliable, accurate artificial
used with increased mutation or crossover rates. When the
intelligence algorithm to provide high network utilization,
mutation and crossover rates are at their highest, the exper-
minimum cost, minimum handoff latency and required QoS
imental results show a greatly improved cost. These settings
level in NGWS. A Markov Decision model is deployed to
are found to give the best performance in our experiments.
derive the necessary equations for the best network perfor-
This makes perfect sense since the GAs has more chance
mance with minimum cost. Genetic algorithms are used to
to determine the better solutions with higher crossover or
optimize this model and determine the final handoff decision
mutation probabilities. Therefore, when the higher the mu-
and accept-reject action for call admission control.
tation or crossover rates are selected, the higher performance
The experimental results also showed that GAC scheme
is observed with respect to the handoff cost. However, the
achieves very efficient resource utilization of very low hand-
higher rates cause higher algorithm delays which affect the
off latencies and costs in different heterogeneous wireless
handoff latency.
architectures. GAC is shown to significantly improve the re-
4.3 QoS Performance source utilization with very low handoff latency over heuris-
tic approaches and very low cost over different previously
Another critical requirement for NGWS is providing a cer-
proposed CAC schemes [4, 6, 14] for a particular wireless ar-
tain QoS level for the MT. This includes a successful call ad-
chitecture. Hence, instead of using CAC schemes developed
mission percentage for a large number of mobile terminals.
for specific architectures, GAC achieves low handoff latency,
These experiments are designed to illustrate how GAC pro-
low cost and certain QoS levels for all of different wireless
vides required QoS level for different types of wireless net-
architectures by adapting its algorithm. As a result, GAC
work architectures and for increasing number of MTs.
scheme addresses the challenges posed by the NGWS and
In order to achieve this, a simulation experiment is per-
significantly improves the performance for reliable, accurate
formed to evaluate the successful number of MTs admitted
and fast handoff management in NGWS.
by the wireless network by implementing GAC and several
other proposed algorithms. In this simulation experiment,
admission percentage is compared with the previously pro- 6. REFERENCES
posed algorithms for varying handoff scenarios. These sce- [1] I. Akyildiz, J. McNair, H. U. J. Ho, and W. Wang.
narios are shown in Table 1. The simulation is tested for Mobility management in next generation wireless
different wireless environments and generated three sets of systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE, volume 87, pages
data. As shown in Fig. 9, GAC maintains its high admission 1347–1384. IEEE, August 1999.
percentage regardless of which different wireless architecture [2] O. Baldo, L. Thong, and A. Aghvami. Performance of
used in the experiments. Therefore, GAC can provide cer- distributed call admission control for multimedia high
tain QoS with high network utilization while mobile users speed wireless/mobile atm networks. IEEE

1157
 6 6
GAC(XOver=0.65) GAC(XOver=0.8)
GAC-Worst(XOver=0.65) GAC-Worst(XOver=0.8)
GAC-Best(XOver=0.65) GAC-Best(XOver=0.8)
Bandwidth-Based Bandwidth-Based
5 Power-Based 5 Power-Based

4 4
Handoff Cost

Handoff Cost
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Handoff Events Handoff Events

(a) (b)

Figure 7: Handoff cost experienced with GAC, bandwidth-based and power-based schemes for varying handoff
scenarios and for different crossover probability

6 6
GACMut=0.0005 GAC(Mut=0.002)
GAC-WorstMut=0.0005 GAC-Worst(Mut=0.002)
GAC-BestMut=0.0005 GAC-Best(Mut=0.002)
Bandwidth-Based Bandwidth-Based
5 Power-Based 5 Power-Based

4 4
Handoff Cost

Handoff Cost
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Handoff Events Handoff Events

(a) (b)

Figure 8: Handoff cost experienced with GAC, bandwidth-based and power-based schemes for varying handoff
scenarios and for different mutation probability

International Conf. on Comm., 3:1982–1986, June Vehic. Tech. Conf., 2:1453–1457, May 1998.
1999]. [10] J. McNair. Handoff techniques for next generation
[3] Brain architecture specifications and models, brain wireless multimedia systems. PhD Thesis, 2000.
functionality and protocol specification. [11] M.L.Puterman. Markov Decision Processes: Discrete
D2.2(IST-1999-100050), 1999. Stochastic Dynamic Programming. Wiley, New York,
[4] S. K. H. Chen and C. Kuo. Dynamic call admission 1994.
control scheme for qos priority handoff in multimedia [12] M. L. V.W.S. Wong and V. Leung. Stochastic control
cellular systems. Wireless Comm. Net. Conf., of path optimization for inter-switch handoffs in
1:114–118, March 2002. wireless atm networks. IEEE/ACM Trans.on
[5] L. Dell’Uomo and E. Scarrone. An all-ip solution for Networking, 9(3):336–350, June 2001.
qos mobility management and aaa in the 4g mobile [13] C. C. Y. Xiao and Y. Wang. A near optimal call
networks. Wireless Per. Mult. Comm., 2:591–595, admission control with genetic algorithm for
October 2002. multimedia services in wireless/mobile networks. IEEE
[6] J. Evans and D. Everitt. Effective bandwidth-based Nat. Aero. Elec. Conf., pages 787–792, October 2000.
admission control for multiservice cdma cellular [14] J. D. A. Zhu and J. Hu. Adaptive call admission
networks. IEEE Trans. Vehic. Tech., 48(1):36–46, control for multi-class cdma cellular systems. Fifth
January 1998. Asia-Pacific Conf. Comm. Fourth Optoelect. Comm.
[7] D. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Conf., 1:533–536, 1999.
Optimization, and Machine Learning. Number ISBN [15] A. Zomaya and M. Wright. Observations on using
0-262-13316-4(HB). Seventh printing, 2001. genetic-algorithms for channel allocation in mobile
[8] W. Kellerer and H. Vogel. A communication gateway computing. IEEE Trans. Parall. Dist. Sys.,
for infrastructure-independent 4g wireless access. 13(9):948–962, September 2002.
IEEE Comm. Mag., 40(3):126–131, March 2002. [16] M. Zonoozi and P. Dassanayake. User mobility
[9] M. P. J. Knutsson, P. Butovitsch and R. Yates. modeling and characterization of mobility patterns.
Downlink admission control strategies for cdma IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.,, 15(7):1239–1252,
systems in a manhattan environment. IEEE 48th September 1997.

1158