Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:37:40.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MOVE-FORWARD RULES AND f-SWAP RULES APPLIED TO A COMMUNICATION PROBLEM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2006

King Sing Chong  and
Kin Lam
King Sing Chong
Affiliation:
Department of Finance and Decision Sciences, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Kin Lam
Affiliation:
Department of Finance and Decision Sciences, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a communication network, one might attempt to route calls from an origin to a destination through n paths that will be tried one by one, each having a success probability pi ∈ (0,1), i = 1,2,…,n. The order of trying is controlled by a routing table. The number of attempts made is defined as the cost of the routing table. Move-forward self-organizing rules are applied to the routing table and comparisons of expected equilibrium costs are performed when p2 = p3 = … = pn. Stationary distributions for a subset of f-swap rules are obtained for general pi's.

Type
Research Article
Information
Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 271 - 286
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chong, K.S. & Lam, K. (1997). Cost comparison of a spectrum of self-organizing rules. Journal of Applied Probability 34: 583–592.Google Scholar
Chong, K.S. & Lam, K. (1998). Applying POS(i) rules to communication problems. Journal of Applied Probability 35: 762–769.Google Scholar
Hendricks, W.J. (1972). The stationary distribution of an interesting Markov chain. Journal of Applied Probability 9: 231–233.Google Scholar
Hendricks, W.J. (1976). An account of self-organizing systems. SIAM Journal on Computing 5: 715–723.Google Scholar
Kan, Y.C. & Ross, S.M. (1980). Optimal list order under partial memory constraints. Journal of Applied Probability 17: 1004–1015.Google Scholar
Lam, K. (1984). Comparison of self-organizing linear search rules. Journal of Applied Probability 21: 763–776.Google Scholar
Lam, K. & Cowan, R. (1992). Stochastic reversibility in self-organizing systems. Communications in Statistics: Stochastic Models 8: 325–336.Google Scholar
Phelps, R.I. & Thomas, L.C. (1980). On optimal performance in self-organizing paging algorithms. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences 1: 80–93.Google Scholar
Rivest, R. (1976). On self-organizing sequential search heuristics. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 19: 63–67.Google Scholar
Ross, S.M. (1990). Processor reordering rules. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 4: 181–186.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, A.M. & Nemes, R.M. (1982). Two spectra of self-organizing sequential search algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 11: 557–566.Google Scholar
Topkis, D.M. (1986). Reordering heuristics for routing in communications networks. Journal of Applied Probability 23: 130–143.Google Scholar