33 1

HEURISTICS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF CELLS TO SWITCHES IN A PCSN: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee Dept. of Telecommunications 10 Girish Chandra Bose Road Calcutta 700 032, INDIA
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a comparative study of various heuristics proposed to solve the problem of vptimally assigning cells to switches in a Personal Communication Services (PCS) Network. In the literature, this problem is known as cell-to-switch assignment (CSA) and has been conventionally formulated as an integer programming problem. However, because of the time complexity of the problem, the solution procedures are heuristics, especially when the number of cells and switches are more The common objective of these assignment heuristics is to minimize the hybrid cost comprising handoff cost between adjacent cells and cable cost between cells and switches, The constraint to be obeyed in all such assignments is that the call volume to be handled by a switch should not exceed the traffic handling capacity for which the switch is designed for. In this paper, we have proposed a few novel assignment heuristics and compared them with other existing ones in respect of execution time and total hybrid cost. Our results indicate thut there is no single heuristic that performs equally well in terms of cost and execution time. However, heuristic IV can be identifed as the one which is less costlier than most of the other heuristics whereas heuristic VI is the fastest of all.
In [ l ] and [8], the CSA problem has been formulated as an integer program (IP) [9], which is solved by the integer programing method as well as heuristic. The integer programming method could not find any solution for large problem sizes, whereas the heuristic fared consistently well. Even then, we are unable to find any solution within a few seconds in our desktop by the heuristic when the problem size grows around 100 cells and 20 switches. This motivated us to look for other heuristics, which will be simpler and faster than the earlier one so that those bigger problems can be tackled more effectively. In our earlier paper, we have worked out a single heuristic, which is based on natural clustering [I 21. This paper describes a few other novel heuristics and makes a comparative study of all the heuristics proposed by Merchant [ 1J and us [12]. No such comparative study amongst the heuristics has been made so far. Here we first present all the heuristics and then describe a comparative study among them.

Debashis Saha Dept. of CSE Jadavpur University Calcutta 700 01 7, INDIA

d.saha @computer.org

Amitava Mukherjee PricewaterhOuseCoopers Ltd Salt Lake City Calcutta 700 091, INDIA
amitava.mukher.iee@ieee.org

11. CSA HEURISTICS

The crux of all the heuristics presented here is to pick up one or more cells either randomly [ l ] or in a specific manner [ 5 ] , [6] and then assign the cells to that cluster around a switch for which the total hybrid cost is optimum provided capacity constraint of the switch is not violated. The heuristic presented by Merchant [ l l is referred to as Heuristic I (H-I). Except H-I, we have proposed all other versions of CSA heuristics (H-I1 through H-VI). For the sake of continuity in reading, we reproduce the code of H-I too from [ 13 and [SI.

I. INTRODUCTION
This paper describes several natural clustering algorithms for optimally assigning cells to switches [l] in a Personal Communication Services Network (PCSN) [ 2 ] , [3] in such a way that the total hybrid cost is minimized under the constraint of call handling capacity of switches. The algorithms always produce optimalhear-optimal solutions. The problem of assigning cells to switches [ l ] is often faced by the designer of mobile communication services [2] and [3] in near future, it is likely to be faced by the designers of Personal Communication Services (PCS) too. So the present work presents an insight toward various methods of cell-to-switch assignment required for network planning. In cellular network, the cells are grouped into clusters and for each cluster, a switch is allocated. \ n i l e clustering the cells, an important criterion should be the frequency of handoff between the cells. Obviously, the cells, among which the handoff frequency is high, should come under one cluster so that handoff cost is minimized, provided the switch meant for the cluster can handle all the calls fiom the cells. The corresponding optimization problem is known as cell-to-switch assignment problem [I] in the literature.

Heuristic4 Begin with a single empty assignment. STEP 0: Initial assignment 0.1) Order the cells in decreasing order of call volume. 0.2) Cells are assigned one at a time in n stages. Forj=1,2,...n Extend each partial assignments under consideration by adding all possible assignment of the jth cell. Discard all assignment that violates the call handling capacity constraints. Ifno assignment remains, algorithm fails and go to endstep. if b or less partial assignments remain, keep them all, else keep the b best assignments based on the total cost of the j assigned cells only. 0.3) Keep the best assignments found. STEP 1(1>0):Refinement

0-7803-4912-1/99/$10.0001999 IEEE

IcPWC99

332

1.1) Mark all cells as unlocked. 1.2) Find the best feasible move: f all feasible moves, identify a cell j and a switch k, such that, o moving cell j to switch k reduces the value of the objective function by the greatest amount. 1.3) Assign cell j to switch k. Mark cell j as temporarily locked. Note the current cell assignment pattern. 1.4) Repeat (1.2) & (1.3) until no move is found. In the sequence of cell assignment pattern generated in this pass, select the one with lowest objective value. and reset the current cell assignment to it. I f the value o f the objective function is not reduced, then go to end step. ENDSTEP: Stop.
In H-I the maximum value of handoff cost is taken account while deciding whether a cell is to be included in a cluster or not. Instead of taking the maximum value of handoff cost, the cumulative sum of handoff cost of a cell with all its neighbors which are already assigned to a cluster is considered in heuristic I1 (H-11). The idea of this algorithm follows from our previous work on clustering [lo], [12]. Natural clustering of cells around a switch assumes that a cluster should be generated incrementally with the switch at the center. This implies that a cluster around a switch must begin with the cell, which houses the switch. This cell is called the seed cell. Initially, every seed cell is a cluster. Since the number of clusters must be equal to the number of switches (because one switch is assigned per cluster), clusters should be formed around every seed cell. As its neighboring cells will join a seed cell, the cluster corresponding to the seed cell will grow. The heuristic will expand all the clusters concurrently, until the set of cells is exhausted. While expanding each cluster, we will pick up one of the neighboring cells in an optimized way. At the same time, we will also verify that addition of the selected cell to the cluster under consideration, will result in a feasible move satisfying the call handling capacity of the switch. It is worth noting that we consider only the neighboring cells of a cluster (not all cells) when a cell is to be selected for the cluster. This follows intuitively from the fact that when a mobile subscriber moves out of a cell it enters into one of its neighboring cells. This type of natural, continuous mobility pattern (hence, handoff pattern) implies that natural clustering should resemble the mobility pattern as close as possible, subject to the call handling capacity of the switch. An algorithmic version of the heuristic (H-11) is presented below. We assume that cj represents cell j and sefk represents the cluster around switch k formed in step I (1=0,1,2,3,....).

STEP 1 (>O): ITERATION 1.1) Identify the neighboring cells o f set;-' and arrange them in descending order of p, where p i s equal to cumulative sum o f hand08 cost with all the neighboring cells which are already assigned with respect to set/-'. 1.2) Choose the one (say cj) with maximum p. I f there is a tie, select the one with less cable cost. r f ; still, there is a tie, select one randomly. Do it for all switch i.e. {set;-'], k=0,1,2,.... 1.3) Ifcl is neighbor to more than one set/-', then assign it to the sett-lfor which cable cost is minimum provided its call volume can be supported by the remaining call handling capacity of the set. I f there is a tie in cable cost, break it randomly. I f c, can not be assigned to the nearest switch due to call handling limitation, try for the second nearest switch, if any, and so on. I f any switch cannot accept cj, leave it unassigned. 1.4) I f ci is assigned to switch k, then reduce the call handling capacity of setk by the call volume of cell e,. 1.5) Go to step 2 until the call handling capacity of all the switches have become insufficient or all the cells have been assigned. Otherwise, go to endstep. ENDSTEP: If no cell remains unassigned, report SUCCESS, else report FAILURE. Stop.
In Heuristic 111 (H-III), the average handoff cost of a cell is considered while arranging the members of the neighbor set in the descending order of total hybrid cost. The average handoff cost is determined by dividing the cumulative sum of handoff cost with all its neighboring cells that arc already included in a cluster by the number of already assigned neighboring cells. The step of H-I11 that differs from the previous one is only furnished below for the sake of brevity. The other steps will remain identical to Heuristic-11.

Heuristic-III 1.1) IdentiSy the neighboring cells of set,'-' and arrange them in descending order of p, where p average handoff cost respect to set:.'. Average handoff cost = cumulative handoff cost with all the neighboring cells already assigned by the number of assigned neighboring cells.
In another version of CSA i.e. heuristic-IV (H-IV), instead of sorting the neighboring cells on descending order of total cost, we simply take the maximum of the ratios of handoff cost to cable cost to determine which cell is to be assigned to a particular cluster. The steps, which differ, from the previous one is given below.

Heuristic-I1 Let setkdenote the set of cells assigned to switch k. STEP 0: INITIAL ASSIGNMENT Find the cell cj that houses switch k and initialize setk to Cj i.e., set: = {cj). Correspondingly, reduce Mk by ?$ Mi=ktk- &,

Heuristic-IV 1.1) Identify the neighboring cells o f set;.' and arrange them in descending order o p, where p = (handoff cost/cabLe cost) with respect to setk . 1.2) Choose the one (say Cj) with maximum p. I f there is a tie, select the one with less cable cost. I j still, there is a tie,

333

select one randomly. Do it for all switch i.e. {set:], k=O, 1,2,... The other Heuristic (H-V) [12] selects a cell from the neighboring set after arranging the members of the neighboring set in descending order of cost which is the sum of cable cost and handoff cost. We only present the step 1.1) of H-V. Heuristic - V
1.1) Identify the neighboring cells of set:- and arrange them in descending order of p, where p =(handoffcost+cable cost) with respect to set:-.

we studied. In case of remaining heuristics, the hybrid costs lie between cost computed by H-IV and H-VI.

IV.CONCLUSION
We take several test cases for testing the performance of the algorithm presented here. In conclusion, it can be said that, if execution time is not the primary concern, then H-IV is always preferable to others because It gives optimal/near optimal solution at moderate time complexity. However, if the input size becomes too large to handle, then only H-VI may be tried to arrive at a solution at least.
Table I : Performance of the heuristics based on execution time
NO. of cells NO. of swit

In another version of CSA heuristic which is referred to as Heuristic-VI (H-VI), [13] all the members of the neighboring set are assigned straightway till a common member occurs between two neighboring sets. While deciding the fate of a common element, handoff and cable cost are taken into consideration.

H-I

H-I1

H1x1

HIV

H-

HVI

111. SIMULATION RESULTS

The comparative study of all the heuristics i.e. H-I through H-VI based on the optimization of the cost and their time complexity is furnished below. The time complexity of H-I is O(m4) [12] where n is the number of cells and m is the number of switches. The time Complexity of H-I1 through H-V is O(nm) [12] whereas it is only -O(nO.) in case of H-VI [13]. Obviously, HVI is the fastest amongst all the six algorithms discussed here. As number of cell increases, H-I takes more time for the assignment. One important characteristic of H-I1 through H-VI is that time complexity depends not only upon the value of m and n but also upon the structure of the network. The time complexity will be large for a network having a high value of average number of neighbor of the cells even if n and m remain unchanged. If we consider actual execution time, H-VI clearly outperforms others in this respect. For 484 cells and 2 switches (switches are assumed to be far apart), the execution time of HVI is only 30 milli seconds whereas the execution time of others i.e., H-I through H-V varies between 142 to 34Oms (Table 1). Although time complexity of H-IT through H-IV is O(n*m), the actual execution time varies in each case. In H-11, we take the cumulative sum of handoff cost of each cell from the neighbor set with its adjoining cells already assigned to a cluster. In H-111, we take the average handoff cost by dividing the cumulative sum by the number of neighbors whereas in H-IV, the ratio of handoff cost to cable cost for each cell to be included in a cluster is computed. The operation of summing, dividing for computation of average or handoff to cable cost ratios attribute to the variations in actual execution time. As the cost depends on the location of switches, for the sake of comparison amongst all the heuristics (H-I through H-VI) the position of switches remain fixed. With varying input sizes (i.e. cells upto 484 and switches upto 3), we have found that the cost using H-I through H-VI (Table 2). It is observed that H-IV gives the minimum cost in 90% cases whereas H-VI is the worst in this aspect. The speedup in H-VI is achieved at the expense of increased total cost. Amaximum hike of 21% is obseried for the cases, which

Table 2: Ranking of the heuristics based on optimization o f hybrid cost

REFERENCES
[ l ] A. Merchant, and B. Sengupta, Assignment of cells to switches in PCS networks, IEEEIACM Trans. On Networking, Vol. 3, NO. 5, pp 521-526, Oct. 1995. [2] D. C. Cox, Personal Communications - a viewpoint, IEEE Commun. Mag. pp 8-12, Nov 1990. [3] R. Steele, Mobile Radio Communications, Pentech Press, 1992. [4] M. D. Yacoub, Foundations of Mobile Radio Engineering, -. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press 1993.

334

[5] R. H. Katz, "Adaptation and mobility in wireless information systems", IEEE Personal Commun., Vol.1, No.1, pp 6-17, 1994. [6] M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and intractability, a guide to the theory of NP-completeness, New York: W.H. Freeinan, 1979. [7] B. Samadi, and W. S. Wong, "Optimization techniques for location area partitioning", 8th ITC Specialist Sem. UPC, Geneva, Italy, 1992. [8] A. Merchant, and B. Sengupta, "Multiway graph partitioning with applicationsto PCS networks", Tech. Report, TR-93-COO24-5021-1, NEC, USA, 1993. [9] G. L. Nemhauser, and L. A. Woolly, Integer and combinatorial Optimization, New York: Wily, 1988.

[lo] D. Saha and A. Mukherjee, "Design of hierarchical communication networks under noddink failure constraints", Computer Communication,Vol. 18, No. 5, pp 378-283, 1995. [ l 11 D. Saha, A. Mukherjee and P. S. Bhattacharya, "Design of a personal communication services network (pcsn) for optimum location area size", Proc. IEEE,ICPWC '97, Mumbai, India, Dec 1997. [ 121 D.Saha, A.Mukherjee, P.S.Bhattachatjee, "A Simple Heuristic for Assigning Cells to Switches in a Personal Communication Network", Wireless and Personal Communication, Kluwer publication (to be published). [ 131 P.S.Bhattacharjee D.Saha, & A. Mukherjee,"a Practical Approach for Location Area Planning for Personal Communication Services Network", MMT98, U.S.A. (to be published).