The use of MADM methods in the vertical handover
decision making context
MANSOURI Mouâd, LEGHRIS Cherkaoui
Department of computer sciences
FST, L@M Lab, RTM team
Hassan II university, Casablanca, Morocco
mansouri.mouad@yahoo.com, cleghris@yahoo.fr
Abstract—The vertical handover is an important issue in the
world of internet. In fact, the use of internet is becoming wider
with the diversity of possible offered services, going from e-
mailing, Data and video transfers, to IoT. The number of internet
users has reached multimillions of people these last two decades,
in addition, they are willing to connect wirelessly anytime and
anywhere, to the best available technology, under the Always
Best-Connected paradigm (ABC). The mobile terminals are
nowadays, equipped with multiple interfaces, allowing them, to
connect to any available wireless access technology, and this
provokes vertical handovers to happen. The vertical handover is
the changing of the wireless access technology (Ex: from Wi-Fi to
4G), unlike the horizontal handover, which means changing the
base station or access point, while staying within the same
wireless technology. Thus, the vertical handover process needs to
be improved, especially the decision phase, which is the most
crucial, while the sensors and antennas’ technologies are
developing very fast, to collect more efficient metrics, to make
faster and more precise decisions anytime.
Many theories have been used to deal with the vertical
handover decision making, like utility function, fuzzy theory,
neural networks, artificial intelligence, and Multi-Attributes
Decision Making (MADM). Naturally, MADM methods are the
most suitable for this kind of decision making issues. Moreover,
these algorithms are relatively simple to implement, and are
executing fast enough, to ensure a “seamless” handover, without
interrupting the services and sessions. The aim of this paper is to
investigate which MADM combination is relatively the best,
amongst 120 combinations of MADM methods compared.
Keywords— MADM methods; Network selection; Vertical
handover; Wireless access networks;
I. INTRODUCTION
The number of internet users has been exponentially
increasing these last two decades; with the fast development in
the fields of electronic material, computation techniques, and
networking technologies, mobile terminals (MTs) are now such
sophisticated, that they are allowing users to connect wirelessly
to the best available wireless access technology anywhere and
anytime, without interrupting the services either e-mailing, data
and voice transfers, or cloud computing and content streaming,
which require a good quality of service (QoS), to be run.
To achieve this goal, networking and computation
techniques must be improved, to be efficient enough (offering a
978-1-5386-2123-3/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Ilan Univ.. Downloaded on March 04,2021 at 15:51:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
good QoS), and fast enough, to not interrupt the active
sessions. This supposes to make very fast decisions, every
time, to decide which available connectivity is the best, and
then, ensure a fast communication transfers to a new wireless
technology, if this one is the same, the transfer of
communication is called horizontal handover (Ex: From two
base stations offering 3G connectivity), else, if the chosen
technology type is different (From 3G connection to Wi-Fi
hotspot), it’s called vertical handover (VH).
The VH process can be divided up into three major steps:
 VH initiation, or discovery, where the MT discovers all
the available wireless networks in every decision point,
and collects data and metrics about them;
 VH decision making, The MT computes the global
score for each available network, considering different
attributes such as the delay, the bandwidth, the
throughput, etc.
 VH execution: After the scores are computed and
compared, and the best alternative is chosen, the MT
proceeds to the VH executing, transferring the
communication to the new different wireless
technology.
The main step of this process is the second one, because in
this phase, the MT computes the data gathered from the
discovery phase by sensing different metrics about every
available wireless network. Then, it makes the decision,
whether to perform a VH or not. Moreover, this process needs
to be fast, not to cause a session or service rupture, that’s why
we decided to research in improving the decision making
because it is the phase that takes the most of the global duration
of the VH, and we found that there is no best method ever to
deal with this kind of problems, and that many theories have
been adapted to this context, such as the Fuzzy theory, gaming
theory, neural networks theory, and MADM theory methods,
and those are perfectly adapted, by their nature to this kind of
decision problems, and are fast enough to ensure the session
and services continuity, which is called a “seamless VH”.
The VH decision was standardized in 2009 by the IEEE, as
“Media Independent Handover” MIH (IEEE 802.21), but no
precise method is applied to make the decision, it only gives
the general messages that can be sent within the MIHF (MIH
Function), then the transfers of communication after the
decision is made, is ensured by Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6), Fast
Handover for Mobile IPv6 (FHMIPv6), etc. The VH decision
is made either from the network side “Network Controlled
Handover” (NCH), or the mobile side (MCHO), which can be
Network Assisted (NAHO); Network stations communicate
information about networks and link states, and the decision is
made in the mobile terminal (MT) side. In our case, we treat
the Mobile Controlled Network Assisted Handover
(MCNAHO).
The second section of this paper will present the
background of the VH decision problem, the third section will
be about our approach to handle this problem with brief
mathematic description of some MADM methods used in our
simulation, the fourth section will give illustrations of the
obtained results and discuss them, and finally, we will
conclude about the best relative MADM method, or
combination of methods, that fits the best, with the VH context.
II. BACKGROUND
We found in the literature many works dealing with the VH
decision making (Network selection), using different kinds of
algorithms and applying many theories, going from basic
methods based on one single criterion (RSS, Bandwidth, etc.),
cost function methods, and multi-attribute utility functions, to
the fuzzy logic, neural networks, artificial intelligence, gaming
theory, and the MADM methods, which can take into account
many criteria at the same time.
MADM methods are widely used in this context of VH, but
they are also applied in many other decision-making situations
going from leader selection problems and choosing the best car
to buy, to complicated economic and R&D problems. These
methods are by nature, the best adapted to the VH decision
context, because it is a multi-criteria decision-making problem,
where we have to determine the best alternative, from a set of
distinct alternatives, taking in account many criteria together.
MADM methods are used in different decision-making
contexts, by computing the values gathered from any system,
and giving scores to each alternative (seen all the criteria), they
all follow the same process whose phases are:
 Normalization: Data gathered are normalized to be
computable and aggregated together.
 Weighting: This phase can be treated independently, in
which different weights are assigned to each criterion,
reflecting its relative importance towards the other
criteria.
 Ranking: Alternatives are ranked following the score
that obtained each one, after applying the ranking
algorithm on the normalized and weighted data; the
alternative with the best score is chosen.
In [5], Viji R. and Rathipriya R. used MADM methods to
compute the best score alternative using multi-criteria vertical
handover decision metrics, the proposed solution’s aim is to
choose the best network from the available networks and to
reduce the number of unnecessary VHs. In [6] different VH
decision algorithms are compared, namely multiplicative
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Ilan Univ.. Downloaded on March 04,2021 at 15:51:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
exponent weighting (MEW), simple additive weighting
(SAW), technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal
Solution (TOPSIS), and grey relational analysis (GRA) are
compared using different normalization methods and weighting
algorithms. In [7], propose a novel network selection algorithm
for a heterogeneous environment consisting of WiMAX and
LTE technologies, based on the scores obtained for each
alternative using a cost function of weighted criteria.
Different works have been published, using a modified
MADM method. In [8], M. Lahby et al. provide an optimized
network selection decision that allow mobile users to choose
the best available network, in a seamless manner and to exploit
a minimum of criteria for all traffic classes using ANP and
MAHALANOBIS distance to compute the distance between
the alternatives. M. M. Alkhawlani and K. A. Alsalem in [9],
present a multi criteria radio network selection that considers
an environment with a co-existed WWAN, WMAN, and
WLAN. The developed solution contains two modules. The
first one contains a network-assisted terminal-controlled
algorithm to reflect the user’s point of view in the selection
process. The second module contains a terminal assisted
network-controlled algorithm to reflect the operator point of
view of the selection decision, using MADM.
There exist also hybrid methods, combining two or more
different technologies (MADM methods and other theory), like
in [10], where K. Radhika, and A. V. Reddy propose a network
selection algorithm based on Fuzzy Multiple Attribute
Decision Making, that takes into account different criteria of
selection, and computes a network selection function that
calculates the efficiency and utility in handing off to a new
wireless technology. In [11], R. K. GOYAL et al. used extent
analysis on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) is applied
to select the Radio access technology (RAT), among multiple
RATs by calculating and comparing the values of the fuzzy
synthetic extent of each available wireless network. In [12], M.
El Helou’s hybrid approach involves two inter-dependent
decision-making processes. The first one is on the network
side, it consists in exploring network information so as to guide
user decisions in a way to meet operator objectives. The second
one, consists in selecting the RAT to be associated with in a
way to maximize user utility by combining their needs and
preferences. Moreover, this proposal uses introduce two
heuristic methods, namely the staircase and the slope tuning
policies, to dynamically collect network information, to
increase the efficiency.
III. OUR PROPOSAL
We extended our previous work in [6], by adding new
combinations based on Distance to Ideal Alternative (DIA)
method, and using different normalization and weighting
methods, namely Euclidian, Sum, Product, Max, and Min-Max
with two variants as normalization methods, and AHP, ANP,
FAHP, and fuzzy ANP, as weighting methods. These new
combinations are compared with the results obtained using the
combinations based on TOPSIS, GRA, MEW, SAW, and DIA.
The steps of the VH decision making using different MADM
methods combinations are illustrated in figure 1, to explain
when are used every type of MADM methods.
 C. The third step is to weight the criteria using equation (7),
to have the V matrix:
vij  rij *W j (7)

D. The final step is to compute the score for each alternative,

and to rank them by score, we give two examples in the
following equations (8) to (11) of TOPSIS and GRA
methods:
1) TOPSIS:
Basically, TOPSIS uses the Euclidian normalization
method, and its process begins after constructing the V matrix
as follows:
 Defining the best and worst alternative:
V+= max {Vij}; for benefice criteria, and min {Vij}; for
Fig. 1. An organigram showing MADM methods proccessing steps in the cost criteria.
VH context.
V-= min {Vij}; for benefice criteria, and max {Vij}; for
We give in the following some mathematic equations of cost criteria.
MADM methods, as treated in this paper:
 Compute the distances between every vij and the best
and the worst alternative respectively:
A. The first step is to construct a decision matrix D, with dij
is the value of attribute ith for the jth technology, gathered n
in the discovery phase, the D matrix is represented in (1): S i   (V
i 1

 vij ) 2 (8)

 d11  d1n 
 
Dmn      (1)
n

d 
S i   (v ij  V  )2 (9)

 m1  d mn 
i 1

 Compute the final score for each alternative:

B. The second thing to do is to normalize the D matrix, using
one of the methods (2) to (6): Si
Ci  (10)
dij Si  Si
 Euclidian method: rij  (2)
m
 Finally, the scores are ranked in a decreasing order.
d
i 1
2
ij
2) GRA:
Basically, GRA uses the min max normalization method,
dij its process after creating the V matrix:
 Sum method: rij  m
(3)
 Defining the best alternative: Same as TOPSIS.
 dij
i 1  Compute the GRA coefficient:

dij 1
 Product method: rij  (4) GRCi  n
(11)
m

d 2
ij v
i 1
ij

 Vi  1
i 1

 Min-Max method:  Rank the GRCi in decreasing order.

We designed a dataset containing a simulation of the
dij gathered data, every time along the trajectory of a designed
For benefit criteria: rij  (5)
max  d j  movement scenario of a MT, described in [13], and then we
applied the different combinations of MADM algorithms on
the same dataset, to compute every time, the returned scores.
min  d j  Finally, we compare the results obtained by using different
For cost criteria: rij  (6) MADM combinations during the whole movement, in terms of
dij the offered quality of service (QoS), the number of VHs

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Ilan Univ.. Downloaded on March 04,2021 at 15:51:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
occurred, and the number of rank reversals. The number of the simulations with eight networks, and we compared the
VHs is increased with every change of the wireless technology, results). Finally, we evaluate the results obtained in terms of
and the number of rank reversals is calculated by redoing the delivered QoS, the number of VHs, and the rank reversals.
simulation while taking off the worst alternative, and seeing if
the best wireless network chosen is still the same.
For our simulation, we considered nine wireless network
technologies: GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, HSxPA, LTE, Wi-Fi
a/b/g, Wi-Fi n, Wi-Fi ac, and WiMAX, because these are the
most used and omnipresent technologies. These wireless
networks are judged, taking into account eight different
criteria: The throughput (T), the network availability (Av), the
security (S), the delay (D), the losses (L), the cost (C), the
energy consumption (EC), and the jitter (J). We will add some
other criteria in the future, like the MT velocity or speed, or the
battery level every time. The values used in the simulation are
taken uniformly from the table. 1 below. Fig. 2. Record of decisions made by applying FAHP/FANP with the
Euclidian normalization, and TOPSIS.
TABLE I. VALUES OF ATTRIBUTES USED TO SIMULATE THE DATA
GATHERED DURING THE MOVEMENT

NETWORK F (KBPS) AV(%) S (%) D (MS) L EC* C* J (MS)

GPRS 21.4 - 171.2 50-100 50 50-70 50-80 2 1 3 – 20
EDGE 43.2 - 345.6 40-100 50 20-60 25-70 2 2 3 – 20
UMTS 144 - 2000 40-100 60 20-40 15-65 4 4 3 – 20
HSDPA 14 MBPS 50-100 60 10-50 10-80 5 5 3 – 20
LTE 10 - 300 MBPS 40-100 65 10-30 10-40 7 7 3 – 20
WIFI A,B,G 8 - 54 MBPS 40-100 60 130–200 30-70 3 1 3 – 20
WIFI N 72 - 450 MBPS 30-100 65 100–140 20-60 4 1 3 – 20
WIFI AC 433 - 1300 MBPS 50-100 70 90–110 10-40 5 2 3 – 20
WIMAX 70 MBPS 40-100 60 60-100 10-70 7 5 3 – 20
a.
Attributes in green are of benefit, those in red are of cost.
We distinguish between eight different zones of decision Fig. 3. Record of decisions made by applying FAHP/FANP with the Sum
normalization, and GRA.
during the MT movement, every decision zone is represented
by 22 decision points; so as to simulate the changes in the
attributes values in the same heterogeneous zone. We made
different functions for the different methods, in order to
compare 6 normalization methods, 4 weighting methods, and 5
ranking methods, what makes: 6
C 1 * C 41 * C 51  120 possible
combinations of MADM methods. An interesting way of
further researches is to compare more combinations in this
same context.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Results: Fig. 4. Record of decisions made by applying AHP/ANP with the Sum
After the simulations were run we recorded the chosen normalization, and GRA.
wireless network at every decision point during the movement
scenario. The results were captured for every combination of
MADM methods. The figures 2 and 3 show the records of VH
decisions made by the best combinations, compared to some
other less efficient combinations shown in figures 4, 5 and 6, in
order to have an idea about the QoS offered in every decision
zone and the stability of decisions made by these different
methods. These results are obtained using the same dataset, so
the more stable results are the best in this case.
The figures 8 and 9 show respectively the total number of
VHs and the number of rank reversals occurred using the
different combinations, which means the change of the VH
decisions when changing the number of alternatives (We rerun Fig. 5. Record of decisions made by applying FAHP/FANP with the Max
normalization, and TOPSIS.

Authorized licensed use limited to: National Ilan Univ.. Downloaded on March 04,2021 at 15:51:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig. 6. Record of decisions made by applying FAHP/FANP with the
Euclidian normalization, and DIA..
Fig. 7. Number of VHs occurred using different MADM combination.
Fig. 8. Number of rank reversals occurred using different MADM
combination.
B. Discussion:
As shown in the records, we observed that FANP with
TOPSIS using the Euclidian normalization is relatively the best
amongst the compared ones, taking into consideration three
decision evaluation parameters, namely the number of VHs, the
rank reversals and the QoS offered during the movement. with
a good delivered QoS seen all the trajectory, with only 5 VHs,
and 4 rank abnormalities. Followed by FAHP with the same
TOPSIS with a little bit less QoS delivered in the 8th decision
zone. FANP with GRA using the sum normalization comes in
the third place with the same number of VHs (5) and rank
reversals (4), but a little bit less efficient QoS, FAHP with
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Ilan Univ.. Downloaded on March 04,2021 at 15:51:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
GRA and Sum produces more rank reversals (6). The other
combinations are less satisfying either in terms of the delivered
QoS, or they made a large number of VHs and rank reversals.
We still have to optimize more the VH decision making by
combining MADM methods with fuzzy logic, as an example,
the fuzzy logic is designed to deal with the uncertainties in the
metrics and judgements. The decision should take into account
more important criteria, such as the battery level or the MT
velocity.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we presented a comparison of 120 MADM
methods in the context of the VH decision making. We
designed a simulation scenario containing different decision
zones, containing every time, different wireless technologies to
be compared. We generated data to simulate the data gathered
in the discovery phase of the VH, and we made a separated
module for each MADM method, so as to try all the possible
combinations. We recorded the results obtained by applying
every MADM method combination, and compared them in
terms of the number of VHs, the rank reversals, and the QoS
delivered in every decision zone. We concluded that FANP-
TOPSIS-Euclidian normalization is relatively the best
combination of MADM methods, followed by FAHP-TOPSIS-
Euclidian normalization, FANP-GRA-Sum normalization, and
FAHP-GRA-Sum normalization as the four relatively best
MADM combinations in the VH context.
There is a lot of other MADM methods to be compared also
with these methods, to see if there is a better efficient
combination of MADM methods. Other combinations between
different technologies are to be tried in this same context, to try
to find a hybrid decision making method, in the context of VH
decision.
REFERENCES
[1] Tarek Bouali and Sidi-Mohammed Senouci. “A Fuzzy Logic-Based
Communication Medium Selection for QoS Preservation in Vehicular
Networks”. IEEE ICC 2016 - Next-Generation Networking and Internet
Symposium.
[2] J. Marquez-Barja, C. T. Calafate, J-C. Cano, and P. Manzoni. MACHU.
“A novel vertical handover algorithm for vehicular environments”.
Wireless Telecommunications Symposium, April 2012..
[3] A. De La Oliva, A. Banchs, I. Soto, T. Melia, and A. Vidal. “An
overview of ieee 802.21: media-independent handover services.
Wireless Communications, IEEE, Aug 2008.
[4] Amali Chinnappan, Ramachandran Balasubramanian. “Complexity–
consistency trade-off in multi-attribute decision making for vertical
handover in heterogeneous wireless networks”. IET Networks, 2016, Vol. 
5, Iss. 1, pp. 13‒21.
[5] Viji R, Rathipriya R. The Network Selection Using for Seamless
Connectivity of Heterogeneous Networks Based on MADM Methods.
Indian Journal of Engineering, 2015, 12(30), 380-387.
[6] M. Mansouri, C. Leghris, “Towards a better combination of the MADM
algorithms for the Vertical Handover optimization in a mobile network
multi-access environment”. Intelligent Systems: Theories and
Applications (SITA), 2015 10th.
[7] Kiran Ahuja et al, “Optimal Network Selection in Heterogeneous
Wireless Environment for Multimedia Services”, Wireless Personal
Communications. Feb. 2015.
[8] Lahby, M., Leghris, C., & Adib, A. “New Optimized Network Selection
Decision in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks”. International Journal of
Computer Applications (0975 - 8887), Volume 54 - No. 16, September
2012.
[9] Mohammed M. Alkhawlani and Kasim A. Alsalem. “Radio Network
Selection for Tight-Coupled Wireless Networks”. Informatics and
Systems (INFOS), 2010 The 7th International Conference on.
[10] K. Radhika, and Dr. A. Venugopal Reddy, “Network Selection in
Heterogeneous Wireless Networks based on Fuzzy Multiple Criteria
Decision Making”International Journal of Computer Applications (0975
– 8887) Volume 22– No.1, May 2011.
[11] Raman Kumar Goyal, Sakshi Kaushal, and Sundarapandian
Vaidyanathan. “Fuzzy AHP for Control of Data Transmission by
Network Selection in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks”. I J C T A,
9(1), 2016, pp. 133-140.
[12] Melhem El Helou, Samer Lahoud, Marc Ibrahim, Kinda Khawam,
Bernard Cousin, et al.. “A Hybrid Approach for Radio Access
Technology Selection in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks”. Wireless
Personal Communications, Springer Verlag, 2015, 86 (2), pp.1-46.
[13] IEEE 802.21 MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER, IEEE P802.21
Tutorial, July 17, (2006).
[14] Ali F. Almutairi, Mohamed A. Landolsi, Aliaa O. Al-Hawaj. “Weighting
Selection in GRA-based MADM for Vertical Handover in Wireless
Authorized licensed use limited to: National Ilan Univ.. Downloaded on March 04,2021 at 15:51:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Networks”. 2016 UKSim-AMSS 18th International Conference on
Computer Modelling and Simulation.
[15] Loveneet Kaur Johal and Amandeep Singh Sandhu,“ An Overview of
Vertical Handover Process and Techniques”. Indian Journal of Science
and Technology, Vol 9(14), April 2016.
[16] Enoruwa Obayiuwana and Olabisi Emmanuel Falowo, “Network
selection in heterogeneous wireless networks using multi-criteria
decision-making algorithms: a review”. Wireless Networks, pp 1-33,
2016.
[17] Dhanaraj Cheelu et al. “A Study of Vertical Handoff Decision Strategies
in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks”. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IJET). Vol 5 No 3 (Jun-Jul 2013).
[18] K.Savitha & C.Chandrasekar “Trusted Network Selection using SAW
and TOPSIS Algorithms for Heterogeneous Wireless Networks”.
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume
26– No.8, July 2011.
[19] Liu, H.-T., & Wang, C.-H. (2010). An advanced quality function
deployment model using fuzzy analytic network process. Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 34(11), 3333–3351.
[20] Quang Hung Do1, Jeng-Fung Chen “Establishing the Index System for
Sustainable Urban Transport Project Selection: An Application of Group
MCDM based on the Fuzzy AHP Approach”, International Journal of
Business and Management Invention. Volume 2 Issue 6, PP.47-57, June.
2013.