4.7 Article

Coalitional Graph Games for Popular Content Distribution in Cognitive Radio VANETs

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
卷 62, 期 8, 页码 4010-4019

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TVT.2013.2245353

关键词

Coalitional graph game; popular content distribution; vehicular ad hoc networks

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [61061130561, 61222104]
  2. Ministry of Education of China through the Ph.D. Program Foundation [20110001120129]
  3. National 973 Project [2013CB336700]
  4. Qatar National Research Fund
  5. U.S. National Science Foundation [CNS-1117560, ECCS-1028782, CNS-0905556, CNS-0953377]
  6. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  7. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [0953377] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  9. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [1265268] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Popular content distribution is one of the key services provided by vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs), in which a popular file is broadcast by roadside units (RSUs) to the onboard units (OBUs) driving through a particular area. Due to fast speeds and deep fading, some file packetsmight be lost during the vehicle-to-roadside (V2R) broadcasting stage. In this paper, we propose a peer-to-peer (P2P) approach to allow the OBUs to exchange data and complement the missing packets. Specifically, we introduce a coalitional graph game to model the cooperation among OBUs and propose a coalition formation algorithm to implement the P2P approach. Moreover, cognitive radio (CR) is utilized for vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) transmissions so that the P2P approach does not require additional bandwidth. Simulation results show that the proposed approach performs better under various conditions, relative to the noncooperative approach, in which the OBUs share no information and simply respond to any data request from other OBUs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据