Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bandwidth scheduling and optimization using non-cooperative game model-based shuffled frog leaping algorithm in a networked learning control system

  • LSMS2010 and ICSEE 2010
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, under a general framework of Networked two-layer Learning Control Systems (NLCSs), optimal and fair network scheduling is studied. Multi-networked feedback control loops called subsystems in an NLCS share a common communication media. Therefore, there is a competition for the available bandwidth. A non-cooperative game fairness model is first formulated, and then the utility function of subsystems is designed. This takes into account of a number of factors, namely transmission data rate, sampling, the feature of scheduling pattern adopted, and networked control. For the problem defined above, the existence and uniqueness of Nash equilibrium point are proved. Following this, an evolutionary algorithm appeared in the literature recently, shuffled frog leaping algorithm, is improved applying to obtain an optimal solution. The algorithm has a high convergence rate, and the comparison simulation results have demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed theoretical approach and the algorithm applied.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yang TC (2006) Networked control system: a brief survey. J IEE Proc Control Theory Appl 153(4):403–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chunjie Z, Chunjie X, Hui C, Huajing F (2008) Genetic algorithm-based dynamic reconfiguration for networked control system. J Neural Comput Appl 17(2):153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dajun D, Fei M, Li K (2008) A two-layer networked learning control system using actor-critic neural network. J Appl Math Comput 205(1):26–36

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Dajun D, Fei M, Hu H (2007) Two-layer networked learning control using self-learning fuzzy control algorithms. Chin J Sci Instrum 28(12):2124–3131

    Google Scholar 

  5. Salles RM, Barria JA (2008) Lexicographic maximin optimisation for fair bandwidth allocation in computer networks. Eur J Oper Res 185:778–794

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Correa JR, Schulz AS, Stier-Moses NE (2007) Fast, fair, and efficient flows in networks. J Oper Res 55(2):215–225

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Nash JF (1951) Non-cooperative games. J Annal Math 54(2):286–295

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganesh A, Laevens K, Steinberg R (2007) Congestion pricing and noncooperative games in communication networks. J Oper Res 55(3):430–438

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Yibo J, Wanliang W, Jing J (2007) Non-cooperative network scheduling game model of streaming media based surveillance system and its optimization based on genetic algorithm. Chin J Sci Instrum 28(10):1800–1805

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goh CK, Tan KC, Liu DS, Chiam SC (2010) A competitive and cooperative co-evolutionary approach to multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm design. Eur J Oper Res 202:42–54

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Nash JF (1950) Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 36(1):48–49

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Lozovanu D, Pickl S (2007) Algorithms and the calculation of Nash equilibria for multi-objective control of time-discrete systems and polynomial-time algorithms for dynamic c-games on networks. Eur J Oper Res 181:1214–1232

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen Q, Zhong Y, Zhang X (2010) A pseudo genetic algorithm. J Neural Comput Appl 19:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Malossini A, Blanzieri E, Calarco T (2008) Quantum genetic optimization. J IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(2):231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Michalewicz Z (1996) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Tseng C-T, Liao C-J (2008) A discrete particle swarm optimization for lot-treaming flowshop scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 191:360–373

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Pu X, Yi Z, Fang Z (2008) Holistic and partial facial features fusion by binary particle swarm optimization. J Neural Comput Appl 17:481–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghosh S, Das S, Kundu D, Suresh K, Panigrahi BK (2010) An inertia-adaptive particle swarm system with particle mobility factor for improved global optimization. J Neural Comput Appl (Online First™, 12 April 2010)

  19. Nanni L, Lumini A (2009) Particle swarm optimization for ensembling generation for evidential k-nearest-neighbour classifier. J Neural Comput Appl 18:105–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Xu L, Fei M (2010) A hybrid quantum clone evolutionary algorithm-based scheduling optimization in a networked learning control system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Chinese control and decision conference (CCDC 2010), Xuzhou, pp 3632–3637

  21. Silva CA, Sousa JMC, Runkler TA, Sá da Costa JMG (2009) Distributed supply chain management using ant colony optimization. Eur J Oper Res 199:349–358

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Damousis IG, Bakirtzis AG, Dokopoulos PS (2004) A solution to the unit commitment problem using integer-coded genetic algorithm. J IEEE Trans Power Syst 19(2):1165–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ebrahimi J, Hosseinian SH, Gharehpetian GB (2010) Unit commitment problem solution using shuffled frog leaping algorithm. J IEEE Trans Power Syst 5:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liong SY, Atiquzzaman M (2004) Optimal design of water distribution network using shuffled complex evolution. J Inst Eng 44:93–107

    Google Scholar 

  25. Eusuff MM, Lansey KE (2003) Optimization of water distribution network design using the shuffled frog leaping algorithm. J Water Resour Plan Manag 129:210–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ittipong P, Luangpaiboon P, Pongcharoen P (2008) Solving non-linear continuous mathematical models using shuffled frog leaping and memetic Algorithms. Operations Research Network Conference, Bangkok, Thailand

  27. Chung G, Lansey K (2009) Application of the shuffled frog leaping algorithm for the optimization of a general large-scale water supply system. J Water Resour Manag 23:797–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Elbeltagiy E, Hegazy T, Grierson D (2007) A modified shuffled frog-leaping optimization algorithm: applications to project management. J Struct Infrastruct Eng 3(1):53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. Proc IEEE Conf Neural Netw 4:1942–1948

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang X, Hu X, Cui G, Wang Y, Niu Y (2008) An improved shuffled frog leaping algorithm with cognitive behavior. In: Proceedings of 7th world congress intelligent control and automation

  31. Eslamian M, Hosseinian SH, Vahidi B (2009) Bacterial foraging based solution to the unit-commitment problem. J IEEE Trans Power Syst 24(3):1478–1488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Elbehairy H, Elbeltagi E, Hegazy T (2006) Comparison of two evolutionary algorithms for optimization of bridge deck repairs. J Comput-Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 21:561–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rahimi-Vahed A, Mirzaei AH (2007) Solving a bi-criteria permutation flow-shop problem using shuffled frog-leaping algorithm. C. in Soft Computing. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Luo X-H, Yang Y, Li X (2008) Solving TSP with shuffled frog-leaping algorithm. Proc ISDA 3:228–232

    Google Scholar 

  35. Elbeltagi E, Hegazy T, Grierson D (2005) Comparison among five evolutionary-based optimization algorithms. J Adv Eng Inform 19(1):43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Eusuff MM, Lansey KE, Pasha F (2006) Shuffled frog-leaping algorithm: a memetic meta-heuristic for discrete optimization. J Eng Optim 38(2):129–154

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Huynh TH (2008) A modified shuffled frog leaping algorithm for optimal tuning of multivariable PID controllers. In: Proceedings of ICIT 2008, pp 1–6

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 60834002 and 60774059 and the Excellent Discipline Head Plan Project of Shanghai under Grant 08XD14018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Power Station Automation Technology, Shanghai University, Shanghai, 200072, China

    Lijun Xu & Minrui Fei

  2. Central Academe, Shanghai Electric Group Co., Shanghai, China

    Tinggang Jia

  3. University of Sussex, Brighton and Hove, UK

    T. C. Yang

Authors
  1. Lijun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minrui Fei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tinggang Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. C. Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lijun Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xu, L., Fei, M., Jia, T. et al. Bandwidth scheduling and optimization using non-cooperative game model-based shuffled frog leaping algorithm in a networked learning control system. Neural Comput & Applic 21, 1117–1128 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-011-0736-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-011-0736-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation