A Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Resource Selection in Mobile Crowd Computing

In mobile crowd computing (MCC), smart mobile devices (SMDs) are utilized as computing resources. To achieve satisfactory performance and quality of service, selecting the most suitable resources (SMDs) is crucial. The selection is generally made based on the computing capability of an SMD, which is...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Symmetry (Basel) 2021-09, Vol.13 (9), p.1713
Hauptverfasser: Pramanik, Pijush Kanti Dutta, Biswas, Sanjib, Pal, Saurabh, Marinković, Dragan, Choudhury, Prasenjit
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In mobile crowd computing (MCC), smart mobile devices (SMDs) are utilized as computing resources. To achieve satisfactory performance and quality of service, selecting the most suitable resources (SMDs) is crucial. The selection is generally made based on the computing capability of an SMD, which is defined by its various fixed and variable resource parameters. As the selection is made on different criteria of varying significance, the resource selection problem can be duly represented as an MCDM problem. However, for the real-time implementation of MCC and considering its dynamicity, the resource selection algorithm should be time-efficient. In this paper, we aim to find out a suitable MCDM method for resource selection in such a dynamic and time-constraint environment. For this, we present a comparative analysis of various MCDM methods under asymmetric conditions with varying selection criteria and alternative sets. Various datasets of different sizes are used for evaluation. We execute each program on a Windows-based laptop and also on an Android-based smartphone to assess average runtimes. Besides time complexity analysis, we perform sensitivity analysis and ranking order comparison to check the correctness, stability, and reliability of the rankings generated by each method.
ISSN:2073-8994
2073-8994
DOI:10.3390/sym13091713