Dragonfly-based swarm system model for node identification in ultra-reliable low-latency communication


Latency and reliability are essential parameters for enabling ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC). Therefore, an approach for node identification that satisfies the requirements of latency and reliability for URLLC based on the formation of swarms by dragonflies, called dragonfly node identification algorithm (DNIA), is proposed. This method maps bio-natural systems and legacy communication into metrics of URLLC, i.e., latency and reliability, for node identification. A performance analysis demonstrates that the new paradigm for mapping the metrics, i.e., latency and reliability, in terms of nodes (food source) and noise (predators) provides another dimension for URLLC. A comparative analysis proves that DNIA demonstrates significant impact on the improvement of latency, reliability, packet loss rate, as well as throughput. The robustness and efficiency of the proposed DNIA are evaluated using statistical analysis, convergence rate analysis, Wilcoxon test, Friedman rank test, and analysis of variance on classical as well as modern IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2014 benchmark functions. Moreover, simulation results show that DNIA outperforms other bioinspired optimization algorithms in terms of cumulative distributive function and average node identification errors. The conflicting objectives in the tradeoff between low latency and high reliability in URLLC are discussed on a Pareto front, which shows the improved and accurate approximation for DNIA on a true Pareto front. Further, DNIA is benchmarked against standard functions on the Pareto front, providing significantly superior results in terms of coverage as well as convergence.

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

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
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34


  1. 1.

    Leyva-Mayorga I, Rodriguez-Hernandez M, Pla V, Martinez-Bauset J (2019) Filtering methods for efficient dynamic access control in 5g massive machine-type communication scenarios. Electronics 8(1):27

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mozaffari M, Saad W, Bennis M, Debbah M (2016) Unmanned aerial vehicle with underlaid device-to-device communications: performance and trade-offs. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 15(6):3949–3963

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bennis M, Debbah M, Poor HV. Ultra-reliable and low-latency wireless communication: tail, risk and scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01270

  4. 4.

    Shannon CE (1997) The mathematical theory of communication. 1963. MD Comput 14(4):306–317

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sheikh MU, S¨ae J, Lempi¨ainen J (2018) Multipath propagation analysis of 5G systems at higher frequencies in courtyard (small cell) environment. In: 2018 IEEE 5G World Forum (5GWF). IEEE, pp 239–243

  6. 6.

    Mukherjee A (2018) Energy efficiency and delay in 5g ultra-reliable low-latency communications system architectures. IEEE Netw 32(2):55–61

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Shariatmadari H, Duan R, Iraji S, Li Z, Uusitalo MA, Jantti R (2017) Resource allocations for ultra-reliable low-latency communications. Int J Wirel Inf Netw 24(3):317–327

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lien SY, Hung SC, Deng DJ, Wang YJ (2017) Optimum ultra-reliable and low latency communications in 5 g new radio. Mob Netw Appl 23(4):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Quang PTA, Kim D-S (2012) Enhancing real-time delivery of gradient routing for industrial wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans Ind Inf 8(1):61–68

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Pham TMT, Nguyen T-T, Kim D-S (2017) Geographical awareness hybrid routing protocol in mobile ad hoc networks. Wirel Netw 23(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chandola V, Banerjee A, Kumar V (2009) Anomaly detection: a survey. ACM Comput Surv 41(3):15

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Fefferman NH (2017) Bio-inspired distributed decision algorithms for anomaly detection. Technical report. Rutgers University New Brunswick United States

  13. 13.

    Gupta S, Deep K (2019) A novel random walk grey wolf optimizer. Swarm Evolut Comput 44:101–112

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gupta S, Deep K (2018) Cauchy grey wolf optimiser for continuous optimisation problems. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 30(6):1051–1075

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gupta S, Deep K, Heidari AA, Moayedi H, Chen H (2019) Harmonized salp chain-built optimization. Eng Comput 11:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gupta S, Deep K (2019) A hybrid self-adaptive sine cosine algorithm with opposition based learning. Expert Syst Appl 119:210–230

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Gupta S, Deep K (2019) Improved sine cosine algorithm with crossover scheme for global optimization. Knowl Based Syst 165:374–406

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gupta S, Deep K (2019) A novel hybrid sine cosine algorithm for global optimization and its application to train multilayer perceptrons. Appl Intell 1–34

  19. 19.

    Kulkarni RV, Venayagamoorthy GK, Cheng MX (2009) Bio-inspired node localization in wireless sensor networks. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. IEEE, pp 205–210

  20. 20.

    Su R-Q, Lai Y-C, Wang X, Do Y (2014) Uncovering hidden nodes in complex networks in the presence of noise. Sci Rep 4:3944

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yang J, McAuley J, Leskovec J (2013) Community detection in networks with node attributes. In: IEEE 13th international conference on data mining. IEEE, pp 1151–1156

  22. 22.

    Guo S, Zhong Z, He T (2009) Find: faulty node detection for wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems. ACM, pp 253–266

  23. 23.

    Hortos WS (2012) Bio-inspired, cross-layer protocol design for intrusion detection and identification in wireless sensor networks. In: 37th Annual IEEE conference on local computer networks-workshops. IEEE, pp 1030–1037

  24. 24.

    Milner S, Davis C, Zhang H, Llorca J (2012) Nature-inspired self-organization, control, and optimization in heterogeneous wireless networks. IEEE Trans Act Mob Comput 11(7):1207–1222

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27(3):379–423

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Biglieri E, Proakis J, Shamai S (1998) Fading channels: information-theoretic and communications aspects. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 44(6):2619–2692

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Durisi G, Koch T, Popovski P (2016) Toward massive, ultrareliable, and low-latency wireless communication with short packets. Proc IEEE 104(9):1711–1726

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gursoy MC (2013) Throughput analysis of buffer-constrained wireless systems in the finite blocklength regime. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 2013(1):290

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Nokia, 5G For mission critical communication: achieve ultra-reliability and virtual zero latency, Nokia, Nokia White Paper

  30. 30.

    Shehab M, Dosti E, Alves H, Latva-aho M (2017) On the effective capacity of mtc networks in the finite blocklength regime. In: 2017 European conference on networks and communications (EuCNC). IEEE, pp 1–5

  31. 31.

    Angjelichinoski M, Trillingsgaard KF, Popovski P. A statistical learning approach to ultra-reliable low latency communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.05515

  32. 32.

    Feng J, Feng Z, Wei Z, Li W, Roy S (2015) Optimal base station density in ultra-densification heterogeneous network. In: IEEE wireless communications and networking conference (WCNC). IEEE, pp 1452–1457

  33. 33.

    Vodak R, Bıl M, Krivankova Z (2018) A modified ant colony optimization algorithm to increase the speed of the road network recovery process after disasters. Int J Disast Risk Reduct 31:1092–1106

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Yang XS (2009) Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization. In: International symposium on stochastic algorithms. Springer, pp 169–178

  35. 35.

    Yang XS (2010) A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm. In: Nature in- spired cooperative strategies for optimization (NICSO 2010), vol 284. Springer, pp 65–74

  36. 36.

    Pan J-S, Dao T-K et al (2019) A compact bat algorithm for unequal clustering in wireless sensor networks. Appl Sci 9(10):1973

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Pan J-S, Kong L, Sung T-W, Tsai P-W, Snasel V (2018) A clustering scheme for wireless sensor networks based on genetic algorithm and dominating set. J Internet Technol 19(4):1111–1118

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2012) Krill herd: a new bio-inspired optimization algorithm. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 17(12):4831–4845

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Mirjalili S (2016) Dragonfly algorithm: a new meta-heuristic optimization technique for solving single-objective, discrete, and multi-objective problems. Neural Comput Appl 27(4):1053–1073

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Popovski P, Nielsen JJ, Stefanovic C, de Carvalho E, Strom E, Trillingsgaard KF, Bana A-S, Kim DM, Kotaba R, Park J et al (2018) Wireless access for ultra-reliable low-latency communication: principles and building blocks. IEEE Netw 32(2):16–23

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Thery M, Gomez D (2010) Insect colours and visual appearance in the eyes of their predators. Adv Insect Physiol 38:267–363

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Combes S, Salcedo M, Pandit M, Iwasaki J (2013) Capture success and efficiency of dragonflies pursuing different types of prey. Integr Comp Biol 53(5):787–798

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hengstenberg R (1993) Multisensory control in insect oculomotor systems. Rev Oculomot Res 5:285–298

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Liu J, Zhang Q (2018) Offloading schemes in mobile edge computing for ultra-reliable low latency communications. IEEE Access 6:12825–12837

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Dickinson MH (2015) Motor control: how dragonflies catch their prey. Curr Biol 25(6):R232–R234

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kral K (2003) Behavioural analytical studies of the role of head movements in depth perception in insects, birds and mammals. Behav Proc 64:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Nash FR (1993) Estimating device reliability: assessment of credibility. The Springer international series in engineering and computer science. Kluwer Academic New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Lyu MR et al (1996) Handbook of software reliability engineering, vol 222. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Mafarja M, Heidari AA, Faris H, Mirjalili S, Aljarah I (2020) Dragonfly algorithm: theory, literature review, and application in feature selection. In: Nature-inspired optimizers, vol 811. Springer, pp 47–67

  50. 50.

    Cheng M-Y, Prayogo D (2014) Symbiotic organisms search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Struct 139:98–112

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Adorio EP, Diliman U (2005) Mvf-multivariate test functions library in c for unconstrained global optimization, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, pp 100–104

  52. 52.

    Laguna M, Martı R (2005) Experimental testing of advanced scatter search designs for global optimization of multimodal functions. J Glob Optim 33(2):235–255

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Molga M, Smutnicki C. (2005) Test functions for optimization needs. In: Test functions for optimization needs, vol 101, pp 1–43

  54. 54.

    Jamil M, Yang XS. A literature survey of benchmark functions for global optimization problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.4008

  55. 55.

    Liang J, Qu B, Suganthan P (2014) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2014 special session and competition on single objective real-parameter numerical optimization. Computational Intelligence Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou China and Technical Report. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, p 635

  56. 56.

    Zheng T, Luo W (2019) An enhanced lightning attachment procedure optimization with quasi-opposition-based learning and dimensional search strategies. Comput Intell Neurosci 2019:1589303

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Jain M, Singh V, Rani A (2005) A novel nature-inspired algorithm for optimization: squirrel search algorithm. Swarm Evolut Comput 44:148–175

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Liang J, Qu B, Suganthan P, Chen Q (2014) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2015 competition on learning-based real-parameter single objective optimization. Technical Report 201411A. Computational Intelligence Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou China and Technical Report, vol 29. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pp 625–640

  59. 59.

    Deb K (2001) Nonlinear goal programming using multi-objective genetic algorithms. J Oper Res Soc 52(3):291–302

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Sierra MR, Coello CAC (2005) Improving pso-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, mutation and-dominance. In: International conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Springer, pp 505–519

  62. 62.

    Coello CAC, Pulido GT, Lechuga MS (2004) Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(3):256–279

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1:80–83

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Derrac J, Garcia S, Molina D, Herrera F (2011) A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evolut Comput 1(1):3–18

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Mazzeo BA, Rice M (2016) Bit error rate comparison statistics and hypothesis tests for inverse sampling (negative binomial) experiments. IEEE Trans Commun 64(5):2192–2203

    Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by Priority Research Centers Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2018R1A6A1A03024003).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dong-Seong Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhardwaj, S., Kim, D. Dragonfly-based swarm system model for node identification in ultra-reliable low-latency communication. Neural Comput & Applic (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05056-6

Download citation


  • Bit error rate
  • Dragonfly
  • Latency
  • Node identification
  • Reliability
  • Throughput
  • Ultra-reliable low-latency communication