2016 International Conference on Computational Techniques in Information and Communication Technologies (ICCTICT)
A Comparative Study of Cooperative and Non-
Cooperative Game Theory in Network Selection
Meenakshi
Dept. of Electronics & Communication Engineering
NIT Kurukshetra
Haryana, India
Email Id: meenakshimunjal206@gmail.com
Abstract —Fifth generation wireless network is consisting
of heterogeneous networks to provide end to end mobility
and service to mobile users. So in heterogeneous wireless
network, selection of the optimal network becomes an
important task. In recent years, network selection has been
mostly studied by using different mathematical methods.
But in this paper, the network selection problem is
modelled as the evolutionary and bankruptcy game in
heterogeneous wireless networks. Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) is used to decide the weights of different
attributes according to service requirement and
evolutionary and bankruptcy game theory is used for
ranking of the networks. Evolutionary game is used as the
non-cooperative game for studying the behavior of selfish
users and bankruptcy game is used as the cooperative game
for achieving mutual advantage. The comparison between
the cooperative game and non-cooperative game is studied
in case of streaming, conversational and background traffic
class. Simulation results show that different networks are
selected for different traffic class according to user
preference.
Keywords – Always Best connected (ABC), Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP), Heterogeneous Wireless Network (HWN), Multiple
Attribute Decision Making (MADM) and Radio Access Technology
(RAT).
I. INTRODUCTION
In the past few years, there is an impressive growth in
wireless communication systems due to the popularity of smart
phones and other mobile devices. Nowadays, there are various
types of Radio Access Technologies (RATs) and each of them
supports different data rates, mobility, coverage, power and
Quality of Service (QoS). So in the multi-access network
scenario, the users is able to select the most appropriate
network from various heterogeneous access networks.
Deciding to which one mobile connect is known as the network
selection problem [1].
Network selection is an important part from consumer-
centric and network-centric view for wireless access services
[2]. Moreover, the selection of an optimal network depends on
various parameter having different importance such as service
N. P. Singh
Dept. of Electronics & Communication Engineering
NIT Kurukshetra
Haryana, India
Email Id: nirajatnitkkr@gmail.com
cost, propagation delay, bandwidth etc [3]. Therefore, network
selection depends on many attributes and it is solved by
different techniques.
Multi Attributes Decision making (MADM) algorithms
that have been used for ranking of a network include Simple
Additive Weighting (SAW), Grey Relational Analysis (GRA),
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS), Multiplicative Exponential Weighting (MEW),
Elimination and Choice Translating Reality (ELECTRE) are
discussed in [4].SAW, GRA, MEW and TOPSIS algorithm are
used for ranking of the networks and ranking depend upon the
coefficients which is calculated by combining adjusted values
of all criteria. And ELECTRE algorithm uses the pairwise
comparison of all the networks. The author in [5] used the
AHP and grey relational analysis (GRA) methods for optimal
access network selection. In [6], combined fuzzy AHP and
ELECTRE algorithm are discussed where fuzzy AHP is used
for assigning the weight to the criteria and ELECTRE is used
for ranking the candidate networks.
In [7], the basic concept of game theory and different types
of games are described. The author describes the use of game
theory in network selection. Game Theory based network
selection concept in heterogeneous wireless network is
described in [8].
Detail about evolutionary game theory is described in
[9].The author use the dynamic evolutionary game for sharing
of bandwidth in Heterogeneous wireless networks. Network
selection using bankruptcy game theory is described in
[10].The use of utility function in evolutionary game theory is
described in [11]. In all the literature, network selection is
done for two or three network while in practical life, there are
large number of networks available. Secondary, there is no
difference is given between cooperative and non-cooperative
game theory in terms of network selection.
In this paper, six networks are considered i.e. Wi-Fi,
WiMAX, WLAN, LTE and two different UMTS networks. In
this heterogonous network, selection of the optimal network is
done by using evolutionary and bankruptcy game theory in
case of streaming, conversational and background traffic class.
After that, a comparative study of evolutionary and
bankruptcy game is described. Evolutionary game is used as
non-cooperative game and bankruptcy game is used as the
978-1-5090-0082-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
cooperative game. Next, the difference between two games is
described in terms of network selection. The weight of different
attributes is measured by AHP method and then network
selection analysis is done using evolutionary and bankruptcy
game theory.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follow: In
section II, basic introduction of network selection is given. In
the III section, the basic concept of game theory is given and
mapping of game theory to network selection problem is
described. Section IV describes the evolutionary game usage
for network selection and section V describes the bankruptcy
game usage for network selection. In section VI, simulation
results using evolutionary and bankruptcy game theory for
different traffic classes are discussed. Finally, in section VII,
conclusion and future work directions are given.
II. NETWORK SELECTION
Network selection is the critical issue in the vertical
handover process. It is a complex problem which involves
several tasks so that the user is able to select the optimal
network [12]. More specifically, the network selection problem
is decomposed into four fundamental steps [13].
In the first step, all the parameters are identified which is
considered during the network selection process. After
selecting the parameters, value of parameters are collected and
the network conditions are monitored. Most of the time, these
values are normalized. Then weights are assigned according to
their preference of different parameters. Finally, the ranking of
the alternatives is done. The outcome of this process is the
selection of the most suitable or optimal network according to
the user requirements. [14]
III. GAME THEORY
Game theory is a mathematical tool which is used to
analysis the strategical interaction among multiple decision
makers [15]. Initially it was used in economics for
understanding the concept of economic behavior. But now it is
used in various fields such as communication, biology,
psychology for modelling the decision making situation where
the outcomes depend upon the interacting strategies of two or
more agents [16].
Game theory is used to the study of decision-making
process where different players make their choices. The agents
who are playing the game are called players. In every
movement of the game, the player takes an action. Their plan
of actions to be taken by the player is called strategy such as
request for bandwidth, offered price, new call etc. [6]. After
taking the decision of all players, each player will get either a
positive or a negative return. This return of every player is
called its payoff. Each player will choose strategies which can
maximize their payoff. This will lead to the concept of
equilibrium in a game, which is called the solution of a game.
Thus, equilibrium is defined as the combination of best
strategies for each player. When every player cannot increase
its payoff by changing its strategy while there is no change in
another player strategy then the solution of that game is called
Nash equilibrium. When the player cannot be further increased
its payoff with any strategy, then the game has its Pareto
optimal solution. If there are more than one equilibrium
candidate then the Pareto optimal solution are preferred [17].
It can be used for decision making between competitive
environment and cooperative environment. So depending on
this environment, there are two types of game i.e. cooperative
and non-cooperative game. In the cooperative game, players
coordinate their strategies and share their payoff. In this type
of game, Shapley value gives the solution. Shapley value
provides the only one way to divide the total payoff in
between the different players for every coalition game [18]. In
the non-cooperative game, every player individually selects its
strategy. It is closely connected to minimax optimization and
the results is calculated by Nash equilibrium[19].
IV. EVOLUTIONARY GAME THEORY
Evolutionary game theory is the type of non-cooperative
game. In evolutionary game theory, players adopt their
strategies through a trial-and-error process through which they
learn over time that some strategies work better than
others[20]. It provides a simple framework for describing
strategic interactions among different players (base stations
,mobile terminals etc.)[21]. As the traditional game is
described by set of players, payoff of each player, set of
strategies and solution of each player. But evolutionary game
includes the concept of population. The population can be
finite or infinite number of players and the game is played
between group of individual rather than individual [22].
Nash equilibrium is the well-known solution in
traditionally game theory. But in this game, evolutionary
equilibrium provides an optimal solution and it gives the
stability. None of the individual wants to change its strategy at
the evolutionary equilibrium because at this point, payoff of
individual is equal to average payoff of the population [8].
In evolutionary game, initially random networks are assigned
to all the users present in the scenario. Then payoff associated
with each user assigned any particular network in the scenario
is calculated [23]. The payoff achieved by user choosing
network is given by
= − (1)
Where denotes the capacity associated with network, is
the pricing function of the network and is the total number
of users choosing network in that area which is given by
= ∗ (2)
Where N and denotes the total number of users and
proportion of users choosing network respectively.
The function in equation (1) is called utility function and
defined by
= [ ( )] (3)
978-1-5090-0082-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Where denotes the number of network attributes, denote ELSE (i.e., is the cost parameters)
the utility associated with each attribute, denotes the THEN = 1/
attributes vector and denotes the weight given to each END
attribute and it can be calculated by any method such as AHP 3) Column by column normalization :The column by column
method. normalization is done by this formula
After calculating individual payoff, the average payoff of the
user is calculated which is given by (5)
(4) =
= max ǀ1 ǀ1

This average payoff is used for selection of network. If the 4) Complete normalization: A matrix =[ ] ,
average payoff is equal to the individual payoff, then the 0 ( = 1,2 … ; = 1,2, . . . ) is finally given by
network which has the maximum payoff is selected by the user.
This selection technique is particularly used at the user side for (6)
= , = 1,2 … .
selection of network and in this no cooperation is involved as ∑
every time user select the network from the list of network
without consulting any other user present in the selection Matrix R is called the resource matrix. Each element of R
environment. So it is a user centric and non-cooperative game matrix represents the resource possessed by the candidate
theory approach. network.
5) Characteristics function: The coalition is taken as a
V. BANKRUPTCY GAME THEORY
subset of where the coalition of bankruptcy game is
denoted by( , ). Characteristics function is defined by
Bankruptcy game is the cooperative game theory which is
used to model distribution problems [6]. Bankruptcy game is ( : 2 → ) and it is given by
used in the case when the amount is insufficient to satisfy all
user condition. A coalition exists in this game as it is a
( ) = max 0, ∗
− , = 1,2, . . . (7)
cooperative game. For obtaining better or maximum payoff,
players cooperate with each other. After coalition forming, the , ∉

earned payoff is denoted by the characteristics function. After

that, the remaining payoff is perfectly divisible among a group Where
∗ (8)
of agents [24]. = max , = 1,2 … , = 1,2 …

Various network attributes such as available bandwidth, 6) Shapley value: After the calculation of characteristics
jitter, cost and loss has different characteristics. Some attributes function, the Shapley value is calculated. It used to find
should be small such as delay while some attribute should be the average payoff. Every players will get average payoff
larger such as available bandwidth. Different network have when he enter into the coalition [25].
different attributes value, so normalization is done to guarantee
that all the attributes are in the same order. (| | )!( | |)! (9)
∑ ⊂ , ∈ ( ( ) ( ))
!

A set of available candidate networks is given by =
, ….. where m is the total number of available
networks [9]. The network selection using bankruptcy game
theory is done by different steps. The first four steps are used
for normalization of different attributes matrix. After that
characteristics function and Shapley value is calculated. And in
the last step, potential contribution ratio is calculated for
ranking of networks. The different steps are:
1) Construct network attribute matrix
The matrix £ = [ ] ; 0 is constructed by
taking m network and n attribute corresponding to that
network.
2) Scale matrix according to attribute: The matrix is scaled
according to following rules
Where |S| is the count of elements in the set S.
7) Network ranking: Weight can be calculated by using AHP
method. For ranking the network using this game theory,
Potential Contribution (PC) and Potential Contribution
Ratio (PCR) of networks are calculated as
(10)
= , = 1,2, …
(11)
= 100
∑
Where wj is the weight assigned to different attributes.

IF is the benefit parameters In short, the network which has the highest value of PCR is
THEN = selected as the user network.

978-1-5090-0082-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

This technique is usually used at the network operator side to
provide resources to user. If one network is unable to provide
resources to users then coalition provides the required
resources to the user. For distributing the coalition payoff,
Shapley value is used which provide a fair solution of
distribution as compared to other methods.
Fig. 1 shows the different weights for different traffic class
which is calculated by AHP method. In case of streaming
traffic class, bandwidth is taken most important attributes so it
is given more weightage. In conversational traffic class,
packet delay is given more weightage and in case of
background traffic class, cost is given more weightage.

VI. SIMULATION SCENARIO AND CONFIGURATIONS

A. Simulation Scenario

The six networks are considered for network selection i.e.

Wi-Fi, WiMAX, WLAN, LTE, UMTS_1, and UMTS_2. Three
different applications streaming, conversational, background
are taken to investigate the different game theory.
In case of streaming traffic class, Bandwidth is considered as
the extremely important attribute because it is used for
multimedia and video transfer. As video application required
more bandwidth so in this case most preference is given to
bandwidth. For conversational traffic class, packet delay is
taken as the extremely important attributes because it is used
for voice transfer. A voice application require continuous flow
of information so packet delay is taken as most important
factor. For background traffic class, cost is taken as the most
important attribute because it is used for downloading of a file. Fig. 1 Weight of Different Attributes for Different Traffic Class

B. Simulation Configuration The selection of network is done using evolutionary and

bankruptcy game theory. The score calculation and ranking of
There are different networks available i.e. Wi-Fi, WiMAX, the networks is done using evolutionary game theory in case
WLAN, LTE, UMTS_1, UMTS_2. The selection of network of streaming, conversational, background traffic class is given
is depending upon the applications. The weight calculation is
in Fig. 2. LTE network is selected for streaming traffic class as
done using AHP method [26].The different attributes taken
LTE and WiMAX both networks provides the maximum
are Available Bandwidth(AB) in Mbps, Propagation
Delay(PD) in millisecond, Packet Jitter(PJ) in millisecond, bandwidth. In case of conversational traffic class, UMTS_1 is
Cost per Byte(CB) in percent, Packet Loss(PL) per each 106 selected because UMTS network provides the less packet
packets. For simulation, maximum value of attributes are delay. And in case of background traffic class, WLAN
taken. The different networks with their attributes are given in network is selected as WLAN network provide least cost.
table I.
3.5
TABLE I: DIFFERENT NETWORK ATTRIBUTES
Streaming Traffic Class
3 Conversational Traffic Class
Network AB PD PJ CB PL
Background Traffic Class
(Mbps) (ms) (ms) (%) (per 106)
2.5

Wi-Fi 10 115 15 7 20-80 2

Network Scores

WiMAX 1-60 60-100 3-10 40 20-80 1.5

1
WLAN 1-11 100-150 10-20 10 20-80
0.5
LTE 1-60 60-100 3-10 50 20-80
0

UMTS_1 0.1-2 25-50 5-10 60 20-80

-0.5

UMTS_2 0.1-2 25-50 5-10 80 20-80 -1

WiFi WiMAX WLAN LTE UMTS_1 UMTS_2
Available Networks

Fig. 2 Network Scores using Evolutionary Game Theory

978-1-5090-0082-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

 The score calculation and ranking of the networks is done
using bankruptcy game theory in case streaming,
conversational, background traffic class is given in Fig. 3.
WiMAX and LTE networks are selected for streaming traffic
class as it provides the maximum bandwidth. In case of
conversational Traffic class, UMTS network is selected as it
provides the less packet delay. And In case of background
traffic class, WLAN network is selected because it provides
less cost.
0.35
0.3
0.25
Network S c ores
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
WiFi WiMAX WLAN LTE
Available Networks
Fig. 3 Network Scores using Bankruptcy Game Theory
In the evolutionary game theory, initial network selection is
based on the random behavior and payoff function of each
network is calculated. Due to random and dynamic nature of
evolutionary game, new network is selected every time but in
case of bankruptcy game, fixed network is selected every time.
In the evolutionary game theory, load balancing can be
achieved to the highest degree as compared to the bankruptcy
game theory.
Most commonly, game theory is used for distributive
approaches with a lower communication overhead and self-
configuration features. The aim of these two game theory
approach in network selection is to improve the overall system
performance (e.g. QoS guarantee, throughput maximization,
efficient resource utilization) but in MADM algorithm, only
most weight attributes is considered i.e. no impact of another
attributes. This simulation always provide Always Best
Connected (ABC) because every time, the network is selected
according to application e.g. if higher bandwidth is required
then WiMAX and LTE is always selected because it provide
maximum bandwidth and so on.
VII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
In this paper, the network selection problem in
heterogeneous network is modelled as the evolutionary and
bankruptcy game. Decision factors are taken in case of
streaming, conversational, background traffic class. The weight
Streaming Traffic Class
Conversational Traffic Class
Background Traffic Class
UMTS_1 UMTS_2
for different traffic class is calculated by the AHP method. In
case of streaming traffic class, bandwidth is given more
preference. In case of conversational traffic class, delay is
taken as most important factor and in case of background
traffic class, cost is taken as most important factor. Simulation
results show that in case of streaming traffic class, WiMAX
and LTE is selected because both provide maximum
bandwidth. In case of conversational traffic class, UMTS is
selected and in case of background traffic class, WLAN
network is selected.
In the evolutionary game theory, initial network selection
is based on the random behavior and payoff function of each
network is calculated. Due to random and dynamic nature of
evolutionary game, new network is selected every time but in
case of bankruptcy game, fixed network is selected every time.
In the evolutionary game theory, the user behavior is selfish
and always tries to gain maximum benefit. While in the
bankruptcy game, users behave in a manner to achieve mutual
advantage. In the evolutionary game theory, load balancing
can be achieved to the highest degree as compared to the
bankruptcy game theory. Load balancing is still a research
topic in the bankruptcy game theory.
REFERENCES
[1] D. E. Charilas and A. D. Panagopoulous, “Multiaccess
Radio Network Enviroments,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag.,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 40–49, 2010.
[2] M. O’Droma and I. Ganchev, “Toward a ubiquitous
consumer wireless world,” IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 14,
no. 1, pp. 52–63, 2007.
[3] F. Bari and V. Leung, “Automated network selection in a
heterogeneous wireless network environment,” IEEE Netw.,
vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 34–40, 2007.
[4] L. Wang and D. Binet, “MADM-based network selection in
heterogeneous wireless networks: A simulation study,” in
1st International Conference on Wireless Communication,
Vehicular Technology, Information Theory and Aerospace
& Electronic Systems Technology, 2009.
[5] R. Verma and N. P. Singh, “GRA Based Network Selection
in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks,” Wirel. Pers.
Commun., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1437–1452, 2013.
[6] D. E. Charilas, O. I. Markaki, J. Psarras, and P.
Constantinou, “Application of Fuzzy AHP and ELECTRE to
Network Selection,” Mob. Light. Wirel. Syst., vol. 13, pp.
63–73, 2009.
[7] R. Trestian, O. Ormond, and G. Muntean, “Game Theory-
Based Network Selection : Solutions and Challenges,” IEEE
Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1212–1231,
2012.
[8] H. Pervaiz and J. Bigham, “Game Theoretical Formulation
of Network Selection in Competing Wireless Networks: An
Analytic Hierarchy Process Model,” Third Int. Conf. Next
Gener. Mob. Appl. Serv. Technol., pp. 292–297, 2009.
[9] D. Niyato and E. Hossain, “Dynamics of Network Selection
in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks: An Evolutionary
Game Approach,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 4,
pp. 2008–2017, 2009.
[10] B. Liu, H. Tian, B. Wang, and B. Fan, “AHP and Game
Theory based Approach for Network Selection in
978-1-5090-0082-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
 Heterogeneous Wireless Networks,” Consum. Commun.
Netw. Conf., pp. 973–978, 2014.
[11] M. El Helou, M. Ibrahim, S. Lahoud, K. Khawam, D.
Mezher, and B. Cousin, “A Network-Assisted Approach for
RAT Selection in Heterogeneous Cellular Networks,” IEEE
J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1055–1067, 2015.
[12] G. A. F. Mohamed Khalaf and H. Z. Badr, “A comprehensive
approach to vertical handoff in heterogeneous wireless
networks,” J. King Saud Univ. - Comput. Inf. Sci., vol. 25, no.
2, pp. 197–205, 2013.
[13] C.Makaya and S.Pierre, Emerging Wireless
Networks:Concepts, Techniques, and Applications. CRC
Press,New York, 2012.
[14] E. Aryafar, A. Keshavarz-Haddad, M. Wang, and M. Chiang,
“RAT selection games in HetNets,” Proc. - IEEE INFOCOM,
pp. 998–1006, 2013.
[15] B. Wang, Y. Wu, and K. J. R. Liu, “Game theory for
cognitive radio networks: An overview,” Comput. Networks,
vol. 54, no. 14, pp. 2537–2561, 2010.
[16] W. Liu, J. Liu, M. Cui, and M. He, “An introductory review
on quantum game theory,” Proc. - 4th Int. Conf. Genet. Evol.
Comput. ICGEC 2010, pp. 386–389, 2010.
[17] X. Liang and Y. Xiao, “Game Theory for Network Security,”
IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 472–486,
2013.
[18] G. Chalkiadakis, E. Elkind, and M. Wooldridge,
“Cooperative game theory: Basic concepts and computational
challenges,” IEEE Intell. Syst., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 86–90,
2012.
[19] J. Sun and Q. H. Wu, “A Non-Cooperative Power Control
Game via New Pricing in Cognitive Radio,” 2009 Int. Conf.
Wirel. Commun. Signal Process. (Wcsp 2009), pp. 1295–
1299, 2009.
[20] B. Benmammar and F. Krief, “Game theory applications in
wireless networks: A survey,” 13th Int. Conf. Softw. Eng.
Parallel Distrib. Syst. (SEPADS ’14), Gdansk, Poland;
05/2014.
[21] M. Khan, H. Tembine, and A. Vasilakos, “Evolutionary
coalitional games: design and challenges in wireless
networks,” IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 50–56,
2012.
[22] J. Chen, L. C. Jiao, J. Wu, and X. Wang, “Fast efficient
spectrum allocation and heterogeneous network selection
based on modified dynamic evolutionary game,” Phys.
Commun., vol. 13, pp. 53–60, 2014.
[23] N. Sui, D. Zhang, W. Zhong, L. Wu, and Z. Zhang,
“Evolutionary Game Theory Based Network Selection for
Constrained Heterogeneous Networks,” 2015 2nd Int. Conf.
Inf. Sci. Control Eng., pp. 738–742, 2015.
[24] M.J.Osborne and A. Rbinstein, A course in game theory. The
MIT Press,London, 1995.
[25] D. Niyato and E. Hossain, “A Cooperative Game Framework
for Bandwidth Allocation in 4G Heterogeneous Wireless
Networks,” vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 4357–4362, 2006.
[26] T. L. Saaty, “The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network
Measurement Processes: Applications to Decisions under
Risk,” Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 122–196,
2008.

978-1-5090-0082-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE