Advertisement

Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 104, Issue 3, pp 1175–1208 | Cite as

Analysis and Comparison of Different Fuzzy Inference Systems Used in Decision Making for Secondary Users in Cognitive Radio Network

  • Shrivishal TripathiEmail author
  • Ashish Upadhyay
  • Shashank Kotyan
  • Sandeep Yadav
Article

Abstract

Spectrum scarcity is one of the major challenges that the modern communication engineers are going through because of inefficient utilization of allocated frequency spectrum. The spectrum scarcity is a problem because there is not enough wavelengths/frequency to match the number of channels which are required to broadcast in a given bandwidth. Therefore, the utilization of available allocated spectrum when licensed users are not in use offers an opportunity as well as challenge, also, to increase the efficiency of spectrum utilization. Cognitive Radio offers a promising solution by reutilisation of unused allocated frequency spectrum. It helps to fulfil the demand of frequency requirement for modern communication system to accommodate more data transmission. In this optimum utilization of reuse of frequency spectrum required optimising algorithms in all parts of Cognitive Cycle. This paper focuses on designing a system based on fuzzy logic with a set of input and output parameters to obtain an optimised solution. A comparative analysis is also carried out among various types of membership functions of input and output on Mamdani Fuzzy Inference System and Sugeno Fuzzy Inference System. The proposed approach is applicable to design a better system model for a given set of rules.

Keywords

Fuzzy inference system Cognitive radio Mamdani Sugeno Spectrum scarcity 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Haykin, S. (2005). Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communications. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 23(2), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitola, J., & Maguire, G. Q. (1999). Cognitive radio: Making software radios more personal. IEEE Personal Communications, 6(4), 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yucek, T., & Arslan, H. (2009). A survey of spectrum sensing algorithms for cognitive radio applications. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 11(1), 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2014). A comparison of Mamdani and Sugeno fuzzy inference systems for traffic flow prediction. Journal of Computers, 9(1), 12–21.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaur, A., & Kaur, A. (2012). Comparison of fuzzy logic and neuro-fuzzy algorithms for air conditioning system. International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering, 2(1), 417–420.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shleeg, A. A., & Ellabib, I. M. (2013). Comparison of mamdani and sugeno fuzzy interference systems for the breast cancer risk. International Journal of Computer, Information Science and Engineering, 7(10), 387–391.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zaher, H., Kandil, A. E., & Fahmy, R. (2014). Comparison of mamdani and sugeno fuzzy inference systems for prediction (with application to prices of fund in egypt). British Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science, 4(21), 3014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jain, K., & Soni, A. (2015). Comparision of Mamdani and Sugeno fuzzy inference system for deciding the set point for a hydro power plant dam reservoir based on power generation requirement. International Journal of Engineering, Management and Sciences, ISSN, 2348–3733.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kansal, V., & Kaur, A. (2013). Comparison of Mamdani-type and Sugeno-type FIS for water flow rate control in a rawmill. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 4(6), 2580–2584.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    MATLAB® (2017). Fuzzy Logic Toolbox™: User's Guide (R2017a). Retrieved April 14, 2017 from https://www.mathworks.com/help/pdf_doc/fuzzy/fuzzy.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Klir, G. J., & Yuan, B. (2001). Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: Theory and application. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zadeh, L. A. (1971). Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings. Information Sciences, 3(2), 177–200.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, D., & Verma, P. (2015). Comparative study of Mamdani & Takagi-Sugeno models for spectrum access in cognitive radio networks. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research (ICCI(C). IEEE 2015.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niyato, D., Wang, P., & Kim, D. I. (2014). Channel selection in cognitive radio networks with opportunistic RF energy harvesting. In 2014 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), Sydney, NSW (pp. 1555–1560).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ahmed, E. et al. (2013). Fuzzy-based spectrum handoff and channel selection for cognitive radio networks. In 2013 International conference on computer, control, informatics and its applications (IC3IN(A). IEEE.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Le, H.-S. T., & Ly, H. D. (2008). Opportunistic spectrum access using fuzzy logic for cognitive radio networks. In Second international conference on communications and electronics, 2008 (ICCE 2008). IEEE.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaur, P., Uddin, M., & Khosla, A. (2010). Fuzzy based adaptive bandwidth allocation scheme in cognitive radio networks. In 2010 8th International conference on ICT knowledge engineering. IEEE.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, L., Soong, B., & Xiao, W. (2007). An integrated cluster-based multi-channel MAC protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 6(11), 3964–3974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shrivishal Tripathi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ashish Upadhyay
    • 1
  • Shashank Kotyan
    • 1
  • Sandeep Yadav
    • 2
  1. 1.Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee International Institute of Information TechnologyNaya RaipurIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of TechnologyJodhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations