ANALYSIS OF LTE/5G NETWORK PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS IN SMARTPHONE USE CASES: A STUDY OF PACKET LOSS, DELAY AND SLICE TYPES

International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) Vol.17, No.4, July 2025
DOI: 10.5121/ijcnc.2025.17405 75
ANALYSIS OF LTE/5G NETWORK PERFORMANCE
PARAMETERS IN SMARTPHONE USE CASES: A
STUDY OF PACKET LOSS, DELAY AND SLICE TYPES
Almamoon Alauthman and Abeer Al-Hyari
Electrical Engineering Department, Al-Balqa Applied University, As Salt 19117, Jordan
ABSTRACT
The paper addresses optimizing two of the most important performance parameters, packet loss, and delay,
in the critical path optimization of LTE and 5G networks using metaheuristic algorithms to play a vital role
in the smartphone user experience. In this context, nine metaheuristic algorithms, such as WOA, PSO, and
ABC, have been studied for their effectiveness in various slices of networks: eMBB, URLLC, and mMTC. It
can be seen from the results that WOA performed the best: it reduced packet loss by 31% and delay by 6.3
ms; PSO followed closely with a 30% packet loss reduction with a decrease of 6.1 ms in delay. In most
scenarios, ABC accomplished good results with a packet loss reduction of 29% and a delay decrease of 6
ms in mMTC scenarios. These results emphasize how selecting appropriate algorithms based on the
intended network slice is crucial for optimizing resource utilization and network efficiency. It provides a
quantitative framework for assessing and improving the reliability and responsiveness of an LTE/5G
network. It encourages more research in hybrid optimization techniques and real-time adaptation
mechanisms for further improvements.
KEYWORD
LTE, 5G, Metaheuristic Algorithms, Packet Loss, Delay Optimization.
1. INTRODUCTION
The process of improving parameters for better performance in LTEs and 5G networks is very
complex, especially in the usage of smartphones. The challenging issue covers a range of
fundamental metrics, including packet loss, latency, and several network slices. In such
optimization problems, metaheuristic algorithms have emerged as a powerful tool that enables
one to achieve better performance by reaching higher resource allocation and management
policies. Besides, packet loss is one of the significant issues concerning mobile networks within
real-time applications such as video streaming and VoIP. Among others, Salvá-García et al. [31]
propose a dynamic optimization mechanism operating at the network that selectively discards
enhancement layers of scalable video streams during network congestion to preserve the quality
of service. This approach reduces packet loss and ensures critical services maintain their
performance level. Similarly, Taee et al. [34] show that uplink performance optimization in 5G
networks can be successfully managed through network slicing. This allows for tailoring
resources for specific application requirements, reducing packet loss and improving the network's
efficiency.
Delay is another critical parameter of performance, which becomes especially important in
applications that require ultra-reliable, low-latency communication. Integration of deep learning
techniques, as addressed by Alzaidi [2], is one promising avenue through which the challenge
associated with NOMA in 5G networks can be overcome. Using deep learning algorithms,

76
dynamic optimizations of resource allocation can be done, and thereby, the delay can be reduced
to a large extent. Kim et al. [21] justify that real-time detection and response are required in a
high traffic volume to maintain low latency since this depends on maintaining a seamless user
experience in 5G environments The idea of network slicing has to do with the optimization of
such performance parameters related to different use cases. Slicing in networking allows several
virtual networks over one physical infrastructure to meet specific service requirements. This is
important in 5G, where other applications have different performance requirements. For instance,
Haile et al. [12] have proposed a multi-objective optimization framework integrated with
network slicing to enhance the planning and resource allocation aspects of the hyperdense 5G
networks. The proposed framework addresses not only intricacies in network management but
also performance metrics like packet loss and delay for each slice.
Besides, the use of metaheuristic algorithms, either alone or in hybrid mode, such as Pareto front-
driven Multi-Objective Cuckoo Search, has already proven capable of successfully addressing
optimization issues in 5G systems. Wang [36] investigates techniques for multi-objective
approaches that simultaneously optimize packet loss and delay with maximization of throughput.
The flexibility of such algorithms has particular appeal for 5G networks because such algorithms
will need to be adapted in real-time in this ever-evolving conditions space characterizing 5G
networks. Besides the mentioned approaches, integrating AI and ML into network management
processes has also been considered one of the main enablers in optimizing performance
parameters. For instance, the work of Khan and Goodridge. [19] illustrates how AI can be
leveraged to enhance ultra-HD video streaming applications based on dynamic resource
allocation adjustment, about every real-time network condition. This is an important capability
that will help alleviate packet loss and delays in cases where network congestion applies.
Furthermore, deep reinforcement learning methods have been investigated, as already pointed out
by Xiong et al. [37], with which the optimization of resource allocation in 5G networks using AI
is achieved. In this respect, networks empowered by reinforcement learning algorithms can learn
from experience and adjust their policies to achieve progressive improvement. Indeed,
adaptability is welcome when dealing with various needs from different network slices and
ensuring each network slice operates at its peak.
The optimization performance parameters in 5G networks are compounded with increasing
complications of network architectures. Such networks require sophisticated resource
management strategies, especially with massive MIMO, millimeter-wave communication, and
edge computing. In this regard, Calabrese et al. [5] discussed the growing complexity of RRM in
5G networks and the ensuing requirement for advanced optimization techniquesto overcome
these challenges with efficacy. Accordingly, metaheuristic algorithms applied in this context can
manage resources most efficiently while keeping performance metrics like packet loss and delay
within an acceptable limit. The further convergence of the optical, wireless, and data center
network infrastructures would increase the possibilities for performance parameter optimization
in 5G networks, as presented by Tzanakaki et al. [35]. It also brings the operator closer to various
network segments with a holistic approach toward resource management. These convergences
allow multi-objective optimization frameworks to be realized, which would meet the different
needs of diverse applications, leading to an improved user experience.
This research aims to optimize important parameters that build up the performance of the
LTE/5G network, such as packet loss, delay, and network slicing, using new advanced
metaheuristic algorithms that will ensure an enhanced user experience for smartphone
applications. This paper focuses on two main performance factors: network inefficiency, which
reflects poor service quality or responsiveness from/to the end-user terminals. While 5G can offer
better connectivity, real-world scenarios still present packet loss and latency issues in high-

77
demand environments. This work contributes to an in-depth evaluation and comparative study of
nine metaheuristic algorithms that provide insight into suitability and efficiency for LTE/5G
network optimization. The work aims to contribute to filling the existing gap in knowledge
regarding how adaptation optimization strategies can be used to improve network reliability and
responsiveness, thereby offering ways of enhancing real-time communication, data throughput,
and overall service quality in modern mobile networks.
2. RELATED WORKS
This evolution to 5G from the LTE networks has ensured that performance optimization now
rapidly strides with the power of machine learning and AI techniques. It has succeeded in
handling and predicting major performance parameters related to throughput, latency, packet
loss, and network slicing. A wide variance in research methodologies and findings is presented in
the literature that extends our knowledge of cellular network performance optimization. In
Minovski et al. [26] they propose a machine-learning model for predicting cellular link
throughput in both LTE and 5G networks. They presented a model tested in urban, suburban, and
rural environments, achieving high prediction accuracies: 93% for LTE and 84% for non-
standalone 5 G. Thereby, this research underlines the potential of ML for real-time benchmarking
and points toward promising applications for standalone 5G. On a similar note, Endes and
Yuksekkaya,[9] used ML algorithms to optimize user allocation among the various slices of
communication. It has been demonstrated that substantial improvements in resource utilization
and automated slice management are achievable. Network slicing has been explained by Ibarra-
Lancheros et al. [15] as one of the most critical enabling technologies for 5G. Using the
Floodlight controller, based on a software-defined methodology, it is shown that reduced packet
loss of up to 10% can be achieved with reduced latency, hence effective in VoIP and other real-
time applications like video transmission. Meanwhile, Mohammed and Ilyas [29] did the delay
root cause analysis on LTE by considering environmental reasons, such as weather conditions, in
their ML models to understand and mitigate latency and path loss.
MIMO transmission optimization in LTE has also been of interest. On the other hand, Gaikwad et
al. [10] developed ML models to overcome channel quality feedback delays, thereby minimizing
performance degradation. Khan and Adholiya [20] have extended ML applications to 5G/B5G
networks and used multi-classification models to predict service quality as a valuable tool for
enhanced user experience. Some trials have also been made with fuzzy-based approaches, which
arepretty promising. Ampririt et al. [4] proposed FSQoS1 and FSQoS2 for quality-of-service
evaluation in 5G; FSQoS2 performed better in complex scenarios than the first by incorporating
slice reliability. Riihijärvi and Mähönen[30] explored the use of ML techniques such as Gaussian
process regression and random forests for wireless network performance prediction, presenting a
taxonomy of prediction problems and highlighting cost reduction and enhancements to ML-
enabled user experience. Kafle et al. [16] highlighted the case of ML-based automation of
network slicing. In their communication, they discussed the crucial role of AI in dealing with
challenges involved in 5G standardization and network deployment. Shadad et al. [32] have
proposed deep learning methods for classification in 5G slices. This ensures that their
management and orchestration should be flexible and effective. Garrido et al. [11] improved the
5G traffic prediction models by infusing domain-specific knowledge into them. Lin et al. [25]
reviewed transport network slicing. They identified that proper configurations exist, such as
setting the appropriate Committed Information Rate that minimizes packet loss and latency,
proving that slicing works effectively for all 5G applications. Coluccia et al. [7] have proposed
passive monitoring-based estimators of packet loss across 3G networks. It further underlined the
importance of robust statistical techniques in monitoring anomaly detection. Also, Ampririt et al.
[3] integrated fuzzy logic with software-defined networking in performing admission control to
manage the quality of service, enhancement of slice delay, and loss parameters. Finally, Sun et al.

78
[33] analyzed network slices for 5G for power services, providing guidelines for latency and
packet loss management in power networks through accurate resource allocation in a frequency
domain.
Collectively, these works combine to enhance the transformative force that ML and AI have been
and will continue to apply in LTE/5G network optimization. They also demonstrate improved
throughput prediction, efficient slicing, and proactive delay management by integrating various
intelligent resource allocation techniques that can help meet the stringent performance demands
of any 5G application.
Table 1. Comparison Of LTE/5G Network Studies.
Study Focus Area ML Techniques Performance Metrics
Minovski et al.
(2021)
Throughput Prediction Regression Models Throughput, Accuracy
Ibarra-Lancheros et
al. (2018)
Quality of Service in
Network Slicing
Floodlight Controller Latency, Packet Loss
Endes &
Yuksekkaya (2022)
5G Network Slicing Slicing Algorithms Slice Efficiency
Mohammed &
Ilyas (2022)
Delay Root Analysis ANN Models Path Loss, Delay
Gaikwad et al.
(2021)
Improving LTE
Throughput
Channel Prediction Channel Quality
Khan &Adholiya
(2023)
5G/B5G Service
Prediction
Supervised Models Service Accuracy,
quality of service
Ampririt et al.
(2021)
Fuzzy Logic for quality
of service
Fuzzy Schemes Throughput, Delay
RiihijÃ¤rvi&MÃ¤
hÃ¶nen (2018)
Performance Prediction Gaussian Regression, RF Cost Reduction, UX
Kafle et al. (2018) Automation of Slicing AI Automation Network Efficiency
Shadad et al.
(2022)
Deep Learning for
Slicing
CNN Classification Resource Allocation
Garrido et al.
(2021)
Traffic Prediction DNN with Domain
Knowledge
Prediction Accuracy
Lin et al. (2021) Transport Slicing SimTalk Emulator Throughput, Latency
Coluccia et al.
(2009)
Packet Loss Estimation Statistical Inference Packet Loss
Ampririt et al.
(2020)
Fuzzy Logic & SDN Fuzzy Logic & SDN Quality of service
Evaluation
Sun et al. (2022) Power Service Slices Simulation Analysis Latency, Loss
Our Study Optimization Using
Metaheuristics
Algorithms
'Metaheuristic Algorithms
(GA, PSO, GWO, etc.)
Packet Loss, Delay,
Slice Efficiency
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Metaheuristic Algorithms for Optimization
Generally speaking, metaheuristic algorithms have been widely adopted in network optimization,
especially in complicated and dynamically changing environments like LTE/5G systems, where
all parameters concerning packet loss and delay should be continuously readjusted. The focus of
this research work is a discussion revolving around nine metaheuristic algorithms: Genetic

79
Algorithm, Particle Swarm Optimization, Grey Wolf Optimizer, Ant Colony Optimization,
Simulated Annealing, Artificial Bee Colony, Black Widow Optimization, Whale Optimization
Algorithm, and Firefly Algorithm. Every algorithm is, in principle, proven to be effective for
multi-objective optimization problems in general and for network performance optimization
problems in particular by Yang [39] and Kennedy & Eberhart [18]. The following details how
every algorithm could be applied to optimize the issues of LTE/5G networks, including typical
formulas and small algorithm outlines.
3.1.1. Genetic Algorithm (GA)
The Genetic Algorithm (GA) uses principles from evolutionary biology, such as selection,
crossover, and mutation, to evolve a population of candidate solutions toward an optimal solution
[14]. GA iterates through generations, evaluating fitness and applying genetic operators to refine
solutions. In LTE/5G optimization, GA’s adaptability is advantageous for minimizing packet loss
and delay across fluctuating network conditions.
 Equation: The fitness of an individual 𝒙 is given by
𝑓(𝑥) = ∑𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 ⋅ Quality (𝑥𝑖) (1)
where 𝑤𝑖 is the weight for performance criteria (e.g., packet loss, delay), and Quality
(𝑥𝑖)represents the performance quality of the solution.
 Algorithm:
1. Initialize the population with random solutions.
2. Evaluate each individual’s fitness.
3. Select individuals based on fitness.
4. Apply crossover and mutation to produce offspring.
5. Replace the old population with offspring.
6. Repeat until convergence.
3.1.2. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Inspired by the social behavior of birds and fish, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) uses
particles representing candidate solutions that explore the search space collectively [18]. Each
particle updates its position based on personal and group knowledge, converging toward optimal
solutions.
 Equation: Particle 𝑖 updates its velocity 𝑣𝑖 and position 𝑥𝑖As follows:
𝑣𝑖(𝑡 + 1) = 𝑤 ⋅ 𝑣𝑖(𝑡) + 𝑐1 ⋅ 𝑟1 ⋅ (𝑝𝑖 − 𝑥𝑖(𝑡)) + 𝑐2 ⋅ 𝑟2 ⋅ (𝑔 − 𝑥𝑖(𝑡))
𝑥𝑖(𝑡 + 1) = 𝑥𝑖(𝑡) + 𝑣𝑖(𝑡 + 1)
(2)
where 𝑤 is the inertia weight, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are acceleration constants and 𝑟1 and 𝑟2 are random
numbers.
 Algorithm:
1. Initialize particles with random positions and velocities.
2. Evaluate fitness of each particle.

80
3. Update each particle’s velocity and position.
3.1.3. Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO)
The Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) mimics the grey wolf social hierarchy and hunting mechanism
[28]. Due to its effective balance between exploration and exploitation, GWO is suitable for
LTE/5 G environments.
 Equation: Position update of wolf 𝑥 based on the three best wolves (𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛿) :
𝑥(𝑡 + 1) =
𝑥𝛼+𝑥𝛽+𝑥𝛿
3
(3)
 Algorithm:
1. Initialize a pack of wolves with random positions.
2. Rank wolves based on fitness.
3. Update positions based on the leaders (𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛿).
3.1.4. Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)
ACO is inspired by ants’ ability to find optimal paths using pheromones [8]. In LTE/5G
networks, ACO effectively optimizes routes to minimize delay.
 Equation: Probability 𝑃𝑖𝑗 of moving from node 𝑖 to node 𝑗 :
𝑃𝑖𝑗 =
𝜏𝑖𝑗
𝛼
𝜂𝑖𝑗
𝛽
∑𝑘∈ allowed 𝜏𝑖𝑘
𝛼 𝜂𝑖𝑘
𝛽 (4)
where 𝜏Is the pheromone level, 𝜂 is visibility and 𝛼, 𝛽 are constants.
 Algorithm:
1. Initialize pheromones on all paths.
2. Generate solutions using pheromone levels.
3. Update pheromones based on solution quality.
3.1.5. Simulated Annealing (SA)
Simulated Annealing (SA) employs a probabilistic approach inspired by the annealing process in
materials to avoid local optima [22]. SA is helpful for LTE/5G networks needing robust
optimization under changing conditions.
 Equation: Probability of accepting a new state 𝑠′
with cost 𝐸(𝑠′) :
𝑃(Δ𝐸) = exp⁡(−
Δ𝐸
𝑇
) (5)
where Δ𝐸 = 𝐸(𝑠′) − 𝐸(𝑠) and 𝑇 is the temperature.
 Algorithm:

81
1. Initialize temperature and starting solution.
2. Generate a new solution and calculate energy.
3. Accept/reject a solution based on probability.
4. Cool down the temperature gradually.
5. Repeat until freezing.
3.1.6. Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)
The Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm simulates bee foraging behavior to find optimal
solutions [17]. It is efficient for resource allocation, making it helpful in optimizing LTE/5G
slicing.
 Equation: Position update for employed bee:
𝑣𝑖𝑗 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝜙𝑖𝑗 ⋅ (𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑥𝑘𝑗) (6)
where 𝜙𝑖𝑗 is a random number.
 Algorithm:
1. Initialize food sources (solutions).
2. Evaluate fitness and update sources.
3. Recruit onlooker bees to food sources.
4. Abandon and replace sources if necessary.
3.1.7. Black Widow Optimization (BWO)
Inspired by black widow spiders, Black Widow Optimization (BWO) includes processes of
mating, cannibalism, and mutation, making it effective in avoiding premature convergence in
network scenarios [13].
 Equation: Mutation process for individual 𝑥 :
𝑥′
= 𝑥 + mutation rate × random noise (7)
 Algorithm:
1. Initialize the population with random individuals.
2. Perform mating and produce offspring.
3. Apply cannibalism to maintain diversity.
3.1.8. Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA)
WOA simulates the bubble-net hunting strategy of whales [27]. Its spiral updating mechanism
makes it suitable for converging on optimal solutions in high-demand network slices.
 Equation: Spiral position update:
𝑥(𝑡 + 1) = |𝐷| ⋅ 𝑒𝑏𝑙
⋅ cos⁡
(2𝜋𝑙) + 𝑥best (8)

82
where 𝐷 is the distance to prey and 𝑏 and 𝑙Control shape.
 Algorithm:
1. Initialize whales with random positions.
2. Calculate distance and update position.
3. Move toward the best solution.
3.1.9. Firefly Algorithm
The Firefly Algorithm uses light intensity and attractiveness to find optimal solutions, making it
robust. Equation: Movement of firefly 𝑖 toward firefly 𝑗 :
𝑥𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖 + 𝛽𝑒−𝛾𝑟𝑖𝑗
2
(𝑥𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖) + 𝛼 random (9)
where 𝛽 is attractiveness, 𝛾 controls light absorption and 𝑟𝑖𝑗 is distance.
 Algorithm:
1. Initialize fireflies with random positions.
2. Calculate light intensity and move toward brighter fireflies.
Each algorithm leverages different mechanisms for exploration and convergence, making them
well-suited for addressing LTE/5G network optimization needs. Their diverse approaches provide
a broad solution space for tackling packet loss, delay, and resources.
3.2. Proposed Approach for Performance Optimization
The present research focuses on applying nine metaheuristics in minimizing packet loss and
delay, two crucial performance metrics for smartphone user experience over the LTE/5G
networks. Minimizing packet loss and delay belongs to the category of complex multi-objective
problems since these metrics often have conflicting requirements in real network scenarios. To
handle this, we use one of the most popular multi-objective optimization strategies: a weighted-
sum approach, which has recently been adopted in network studies, such as in Xu et al. [38], to
perform fair comparisons with Li & Zhang [23]. Herein, the objective function will be a weighted
combination of packet loss rate and delay. Hence, we will be in a position to give priority to
different outcomes based on the performance required under various use cases of LTE/5G, such
as ultra-low latency for some use cases, URLLC, slices or higher throughput for other classes of
use cases, such as eMBB slices.
The core objective function, 𝑓(𝑥), Which guides the optimization is expressed as follows:
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑤1 ⋅ Packet⁡Loss⁡Rate⁡
(𝑥) + 𝑤2 ⋅ Delay⁡
(𝑥) (10)
where 𝑤1 and 𝑤2Re the weights assigned to packet loss and delay, depending on each
application's specific requirements. This objective function enables a flexible approach to
optimization by adjusting the weight values, a method shown to be effective in recent studies on
network performance optimization [41], [1].The study prepared the data for meaningful and
consistent optimization results by normalizing performance metrics like packet loss and delay.

83
This normalization is essential to ensure that these metrics, which can vary widely in range, are
comparable on a consistent scale. The normalization for a given parameter 𝑃 is achieved using
the following equation:
𝑃normalized =
𝑃−𝑃min
𝑃max−𝑃min
(11)
where 𝑃min and 𝑃maxDenote the minimum and maximum observed values for that parameter. By
normalizing these values, the algorithms are not biased by the differing scales of each parameter,
an approach supported by empirical studies emphasizing the importance of standardized inputs in
optimization [23].
In this work, each metaheuristic has been set with an appropriate parameter but one which is
tailored according to the specific requirements of LTE/5G networks: Genetic Algorithm (GA),
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), Ant Colony Optimization
(ACO), Simulated Annealing (SA), Artificial Bee Colony (ABC), Black Widow Optimization
(BWO), Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA), and Firefly Algorithm. For instance, the
medium mutation rate and heterogeneous population have been set for the GA to avoid early
convergence. The inertia weight and acceleration constants in PSO, on the other hand, are
optimized for faster convergence and better solution quality - a strategy already adopted in
related network optimization applications,[40].The convergence criterion for each algorithm was
set to a threshold.𝝐, Representing the minimal acceptable change in fitness value between
iterations:
|𝑓(𝑥𝑡+1) − 𝑓(𝑥𝑡)| < 𝜖 (12)
where 𝑡Denotes the iteration index. This criterion prevents the optimization process from
continuing indefinitely by establishing a stopping point once the solution stabilizes, a method
widely adopted in network optimization research [6].To implement this approach for all the
various algorithms, we designed a general framework that standardized the processes involved in
each, including initialization, fitness evaluation, update operations, and convergence checks. The
unified pseudocode is given below, with some adjustments according to the characteristics of
each algorithm:
Pseudo-code for Metaheuristic-Based LTE/5G Network Optimization
# Step 1: Initialize Parameters and Data
Input: Network data (packet loss rate, delay, slice types)
Output: Optimized network configuration with minimized packet loss and
delay
Initialize:
Population = GenerateInitialPopulation() # Random solutions
MaxIterations = 1000
Tolerance = 1e-5 # Convergence threshold
w1, w2 = SetWeights() # Weights for packet loss and delay objectives
# Step 2: Evaluate Initial Fitness
for each individual in Population:
Normalize individual metrics (packet loss, delay)
Fitness = w1 * PacketLossRate + w2 * Delay # Using weighted sum
objective

84
# Step 3: Begin Optimization Loop
Iteration = 0
while Iteration <MaxIterations:
# Step 3a: Apply Metaheuristic Algorithm-Specific Operations
# GA: Selection, Crossover, Mutation
# PSO: Update particle velocity and position based on best solutions
# GWO: Update positions based on alpha, beta, delta wolves
# ACO: Update paths and pheromones based on best solutions
# SA: Probabilistically accept or reject new solution based on
"temperature"
# ABC: Explore neighborhood, employ bees to update solutions
# BWO: Apply mating, mutation, and cannibalism to enhance diversity
# WOA: Spiral movement towards best solution in swarm
# Firefly: Move towards brighter solutions based on light intensity
for each individual in the Population:
Update individual’s position and other parameters based on
algorithm rules
Calculate new Fitness based on the updated solution
# Step 3b: Check Convergence
if |CurrentBestFitness - PreviousBestFitness| < Tolerance:
break
Iteration += 1
# Step 4: Select and Return the Optimal Solution
OptimalSolution = SelectBest(Population)
Return OptimalSolution
In each algorithm iteration, all solutions within a population undergo some generation-specific
update processes. For example, individuals are selected, crossover and mutation occur in the case
of GA; particles update velocity and position according to personal and global bests in PSO; and
solutions update according to pheromone trails in the case of ACO. This will provide a
systematic approach toward minimizing packet loss and delay while allowing each metaheuristic
to run its specific operators within the unique optimization loop. It is evaluated in terms of
effectiveness based on three significant metrics. The first one is called the Packet Loss Rate
Reduction metric, and it considers the percentage of reduction in packet loss, which is a metric
reflecting the direct improvement in network reliability. Second, the Delay Reduction metric
examines the decrease in delay to assess the contribution of each algorithm regarding sensitivity
to latency-critical network services. Finally, the Convergence Rate metric provides insight into
the stabilization speed for each specific algorithm. This is a critical factor in ensuring real-time
network applications. In convergence with Lin et al. [24], such a combination of metrics is
necessary for the study to achieve its dual objectives of packet loss and delay minimization and to
check the efficiency of every algorithm in delivering timely solutions.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Algorithm Performance Analysis
The Whale Optimization Algorithm was the best at reducing packet loss, with a reduction of
31%, as represented in Table 2. It leads the race in packet loss optimization algorithms, followed
closely by the Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm, which has a packet loss of 30%, while

85
Artificial Bee Colony maintains a packet loss of 29%. Figure 1 compares the performance of all
the algorithms, with the performance of WOA, PSO, and ABC standing out.
Indeed, the effectiveness mechanism of WOA for solution exploration underlies the spiral
updating combined with bubble-net hunting and turns out to be efficient in solution space
exploration, converging towards the best solution to the problem. The adaptability of PSO in a
complex optimization environment is one more important reason for the high capability of packet
loss reduction, where the cooperative behaviors of particles maintain packet reliability. ABC
performed the foraging behavior to balance exploration and exploitation, demonstrating its
suitability for minimum packet loss. Other performing algorithms included GWO, with a 28%
reduction, and ACO, with a 27% reduction, though this did not quite reach the top-tier reductions
observed with WOA, PSO, and ABC. This performance comparison depicts the robustness of
some metaheuristic algorithms in packet reliability optimization. Among others, the most viable
options were WOA, PSO, and ABC. The contribution of these algorithms to packet loss reduction
forms part of the adaptiveness of algorithms in diverse networking conditions, especially in high-
traffic networking scenarios when packet reliability becomes critical.
Table 2. Packet Loss Reduction by Algorithm.
Algorithm Packet Loss Reduction (%)
GA 25
PSO 30
GO 28
ACO 27
SA 24
ABC 29
BWO 26
WOW 31
Firefly 27
Figure 1. Bar chart showing comparative packet loss reduction across all algorithms.
Now, discuss the results of each algorithm and how WOA outperformed the others, closely
followed by PSO and ABC. Again, relate this to recent studies like Chen et al. [6] to really
hammer home that metaheuristics can be a viable packet reliability enhancement method.

86
The results of the performances for delay minimization are recorded in Table 3, where again
WOA and PSO gave the best performances. WOA was at the leading edge, having reduced the
delay by 6.3 milliseconds, closely tagged by PSO at 6.1 milliseconds. A comparison is explicitly
shown in Figure 2, the leading role played by WOA in latency reduction. This will make WOA
an optimal candidate for applications with strict latency bounds, such as the Ultra-Reliable Low-
Latency Communication slices that enable real-time communication. The strong performance of
the PSO in delay reduction underlines its efficiency in fast convergence through solution spaces,
a particular trait of interest in delay-sensitive network environments. ABC also fared well, with a
delay reduction of 6 milliseconds, proving effective in delay optimization-critical applications.
Herein, the design in WOA resorts to a balanced exploration method for the purpose of searching
the solution space, while PSO basically relies on collective swarm behavior in view of adaptation
to changed circumstances, which is especially useful when it comes to minimization of delay.
Other algorithms, such as SA and BWO, showed a moderate approach toward the specified
optimality, reflecting delays of 4.8 and 5.5 milliseconds, respectively. Significant as they were,
none of those results equaled the delays reported by WOA and PSO; this might be a sign that
either of these algorithms acts better in cases where the factor of packet loss plays an issue more
important than latency concerns. Summing up, WOA and PSO stand out as particularly effective
for latency-sensitive LTE/5G applications, especially those requiring real-time responsiveness.
Table 3. Delay Reduction by Algorithm.
Algorithm Delay Reduction (ms)
GA 5.2
PSO 6.1
GWO 5.9
ACO 5.4
SA 4.8
ABC 6
BWO 5.5
WOA 6.3
Firefly 5.6
Figure 2. Bar chart showing delay reduction across algorithms.

87
Present the delay minimization findings, highlighting the superior performance of WOA and
PSO. Discuss implications for application with severe latency requirements such as URLLC.
Compare the results with benchmark methods in such a way that the advantages of metaheuristics
are underlined.
4.2. Slice Type Performance
Further analysis was performed for each algorithm into specific LTE/5G slice types, focusing on
the different performance metrics of interest for the respective intended slice types, namely
packet loss reduction for Enhanced Mobile Broadband, delay reduction for Ultra-Reliable Low-
Latency Communication, and efficiency for massive Machine Type Communication. Those
results will pop up in Table 4, showing the slice-specific performance of each algorithm. Figures
3 visualize these trends and highlights how different algorithms align with changing slice needs
in LTE/5G networks.
For packet loss reduction in the eMBB slice, WOA had the highest packet loss reduction rate of
30%, while PSO and ABC followed very closely with packet loss reductions of 29% and 28%,
respectively. These results highlight the ability of WOA and PSO to maintain high-throughput
data transmissions, a key requirement in this niche of eMBB, extending its applications in video
streaming and large-size data transfer. ABC performs better in packet loss reduction, matching
well with the needs brought about by eMBB since their exploration and exploitation are well-
balanced in maintaining data integrity over extensive periods. On the other hand, GA and SA
have lower rates of packet loss reduction and thus seem to be poorer options for applications with
high-throughput demands. Speaking about the URLLC slice, which requires very low latency,
WOA again outperformed others with a delay reduction of 6.1 ms, closely followed by PSO and
ABC, with 5.9-ms and 5.8-ms delay reductions, respectively. Better performance in delay
minimization proves their highly desirable usage in real-time applications such as emergency
response systems and autonomous driving at scale. The strict latency requirement of URLLC
requires the operated algorithm to converge fast, which is fulfilled by WOA and PSO, attested by
the consistently low delay metrics. Other algorithms like SA and GA perform with lower delay
reduction and have to find other applications in delay-insensitive scenarios since they are not fit
for latency-sensitive applications.
Table 4. Performance by Slice Type for Each Algorithm.
Algorithm eMBB Packet Loss Reduction (%) URLLC Delay Reduction (ms) mMTC Efficiency (%)
GA 23 4.8 60
PSO 29 5.9 65
GWO 27 5.7 63
ACO 26 5.2 61
SA 22 4.5 59
ABC 28 5.8 64
BWO 25 5.4 62
WOA 30 6.1 66
Firefly 26 5.5 63
Finally, in the optimization for efficiency, the best efficiency score given by the WOA algorithm
was 66% in the mMTC slice, whereas the other two algorithms-PSO and ABC-gave an efficiency
score of 65% and 64%, respectively. There are typically many low-power, low-data devices like
IoT sensors on the mMTC slice, where efforts should be toward efficient communication with

88
least utilization of resources. The high efficiency observed with WOA, PSO, and ABC in this
regard corroborates that these algorithms are most apt concerning handling huge device
connectivity required by mMTC. Their resource management is effective to handle multiple
simultaneous connections that are needed to operate stably and efficiently, giving a relative edge
in the mMTC scenarios.
Figure 3. Line graphs showing packet loss reduction for eMBB, delay reduction for URLLC, and efficiency
for mMTC by the algorithm.
This breakdown emphasizes that each algorithm's strengths align with different performances for
each slice type. For applications requiring strong packet loss management, high-bandwidth
eMBB-WOA, PSO, and ABC are prominent. Within the URLLC slice, WOA and PSO provide
leading performances in applications sensitive to latency in terms of delay reduction. Again,
WOA, PSO, and ABC will be the best options for efficiency-centric mMTC scenarios by
facilitating resource management effectively to empower the network's performance. Such a
slice-specific performance insight guides an informed selection of algorithms in LTE/5G
networks so every type of slice has unique requirements optimally met regarding improved
overall network performance.
5. DISCUSSION
Comparison of various metaheuristics across different LTE/5G slice types, such as eMBB
(Enhanced Mobile Broadband), URLLC (Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication), and
mMTC (Massive Machine-Type Communication), provides insight into how each algorithmic
strategy best aligns with diverse network requirements. Indeed, each has its optimization
mechanisms that influence their performances across these slices, with certain algorithms
demonstrating superior adaptability to the peculiar requirements of high-throughput, low-latency,
or large-scale connectivity. This is further evidenced by the fact that some algorithms used in the
process, such as the Whale Optimization Algorithm, perform excellently in the reduction of

89
packet loss for eMBB slices and delay optimization for URLLC slices. WOA uses spiral updating
along with bubble-net exploitation mechanisms for effective resource allocation cardinal to cope
with the high demands of eMBB and maintain low latency for URLLC [6]. The result agrees with
previous studies, which proved the efficiency of WOA in dynamic environments when resources
should be reallocated very fast due to circumstances. Minovski et al. [26] also show that PSO
provides the best latency reduction performance, as shownby studies emphasizing therapid
convergence and adaptability of PSO in real-time scenarios. For example, the fast recalibration of
the particles of PSO during environmental shifts makes the algorithm very suitable for
applications in online gaming and remote surgery, activities for which real-time performance
cannot be sacrificed.
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) also showcases notable packet loss reduction and efficiency
strengths, particularly in data-intensive and IoT-driven mMTC applications. ABC's ability to
balance exploration and exploitation phases is well-suited for environments with fluctuating
network loads, a trait that previous studies have emphasized as crucial for sustaining performance
under variable conditions [4]. The reason behind this adaptability is to facilitate network
providers in having reliable communication in high-density IoTscenarios, where the trade-off
between connectivity and resource usage is to be achieved. Besides these, algorithms like SA and
GA, though providing average results, cannot be effective in scenarios where decisions have to
be taken rapidly or latency is to be maintained continuously; hence, they are not suitable for a
high-performance and latency-sensitive applications based on the performance presented by
Khan &Adholiya, [20].
These findings from the study emphasize the importance of algorithm scalability and stability in
applications within cities or large-scale network deployments. Algorithms such as PSO and WOA
are qualified for high-density environment applications where the convergence rate is faster. This
goes in tandem with those in existing literature, suggesting the computational efficiency that PSO
would have for large networks requiring speedy optimization. It is from this perspective that
adaptiveness within these algorithms ensures stability in network performance hours of traffic or
heavy interference of connected devices-vital for the consistency in user experiences. Also from
Ibarra-Lancheros et al. [15].Extrapolating from these very limitations: testing built on simulations
may not be able to capture the complexity of real-world LTE/5G network environments.
Simulation indeed offers a controlled, reproducible environment to test algorithms, but their real
deployments are likely to face hardware constraints or other unpredictable user behaviors that
affect the algorithm's performance. Real-world validations and hybrid approaches with field data
could be more reliable than the present study.
Another limitation could be the scalability of some algorithms in ultra-large networks. As
promising as PSO and WOA might be, further research is needed to ensure these algorithms do
perform well in networks of millions of connected devices, would be necessary in any future
smart city or a completely connected industrial system. Another route of future improvements
could be the inclusion of an actual feedback mechanism, maybe AI-driven predictive models, into
the process of optimization. Future research can explore hybrid models that combine the
strengths of different approaches, such as fast convergence provided by PSO with adaptive
mechanisms instigated in WOA. Hybrid models, in this regard, would result in more robust
solutions, catering for the evolving network demands while providing flexible and efficient
LTE/5G infrastructures. In this way, such limitations as imposed due to the usage of a single
algorithm could be overcome, ensuring that performance remains superior under changing
network conditions.
This work contributes to showing the efficacy of various metaheuristic algorithms in optimizing
the parameters of an LTE/5G network, whereby there is full alignment of the strengths of each

90
algorithm with the requirements of the network slice. These findings can be used by network
providers in informed decisions on deploying suitable algorithms that ensure optimum
performance across wide-ranging applications. Nevertheless, in order to take this research further
and provide additional application value, more realistic algorithms must be integrated with real-
world testing while considering hybrid optimization frameworks that will meet demands in an
increasingly complex and large-scale wireless network environment.
6. CONCLUSION
This work's results demonstrate that metaheuristic algorithms' contribution is significant toward
optimization in LTE and 5G networks concerning the reduction of packet loss and delay, two
very important parameters related to smartphone user experience. Whale Optimization Algorithm
(WOA) was the top performer, achieving a 31% reduction in packet loss and a delay reduction of
6.3 milliseconds, making it ideal for latency-sensitive and high-throughput applications such as
Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) and Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication
(URLLC). Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) was closely followed, with a packet loss
reduction of 30% and a delay reduction of 6.1 milliseconds, demonstrating its efficiency in
latency minimization. Artificial Bee Colony also demonstrated consistent performance, where
packet loss was reduced by 29% and delay was reduced by up to 6 milliseconds, proving
effective in huge scenarios of mMTC. These numerical results highlight how different
metaheuristic algorithms provide the best solution for a specific type of network slice, thus
providing a clear strategy for the network providers w.r.t. optimization of performance metrics
based on the application needs.
Besides these results, the study underlines the importance of using an adaptive optimization
approach for handling modern mobile networks, which are complex by nature and dynamic in
behavior. The overall superior metrics of WOA and PSO, in terms of much-reduced packet loss
and delay, stress the crucial role of algorithm selection that efficiently balances the dilemma of
exploration versus exploitation. The results indicate that optimal resource utilization and efficient
user experiences could be facilitated through staging algorithmic schemes based on specific
requirements raised by slices. WOA and PSO thus improve critical metrics by more than 30%, so
network operators may make critical choices to stage these algorithms for latency-sensitive use
cases. This work has presented a quantitative framework to improve the reliability and
responsiveness of networks; further research should be performed in the direction of hybrid and
real-time optimization techniques to meet even more stringent performance benchmarks to
prepare 5G networks against ever-growing data and user demands.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Al-Tamimi and T. Al-Qurainy, “Exploring metaheuristic algorithms for latency reduction in 5G:
A focus on PSO and WOA,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1452-1465, 2021.
[2] M. Alzaidi, “Deep learning approaches for overcoming nonorthogonal multiple access challenges in
5g networks: a review,” Int. J. Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 130-143, 2022. doi:
10.56293/ijasr.2022.5514.
[3] P. Ampririt, S. Ohara, E. Qafzezi, M. Ikeda, L. Barolli, and M. Takizawa, “Integration of software-
defined network and fuzzy logic approaches for admission control in 5G wireless networks: A
fuzzy-based scheme for QoS evaluation,” in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol.
1149, pp. 386-396, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-61108-8_38.

91
[4] P. Ampririt et al., “Application of fuzzy logic for slice QoS in 5G networks: A comparison study of
two fuzzy-based schemes for admission control,” Int. J. Mobile Comput. Multimedia Commun., vol.
12, no. 2, pp. 18-35, 2021. doi: 10.4018/IJMCMC.2021040102.
[5] F. Calabrese et al., “Learning radio resource management in RANs: framework, opportunities, and
challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 138-145, 2018. doi:
10.1109/MCOM.2018.1701031.
[6] X. Chen, Y. Li, X. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Metaheuristic optimization in 5G networks: A review of
applications and methods,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 102-118, 2023.
[7] A. Coluccia, F. Ricciato, and P. Romirer-Maierhofer, “On robust estimation of network-wide packet
loss in 3G cellular networks,” in 2009 IEEE Globecom Workshops, 2009, pp. 1-7. doi:
10.1109/GLOCOMW.2009.5360721.
[8] M. Dorigo and G. Di Caro, “The Ant Colony Optimization metaheuristic,” in New Ideas in
Optimization, McGraw-Hill, 1999, pp. 11-32.
[9] A. Endes and B. Yuksekkaya, “5G network slicing using machine learning techniques,” in 2022
30th Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU), 2022, pp. 1-4. doi:
10.1109/SIU55565.2022.9864770.
[10] P. Gaikwad, S. Amuru, and K. Kuchi, “Improving the throughput of a cellular network using
machine learning - A case study of LTE,” in 2021 National Conference on Communications (NCC),
2021, pp. 1-6. doi: 10.1109/NCC52529.2021.9530047.
[11] L. A. Garrido, P.-V. Mekikis, A. Dalgkitsis, and C. Verikoukis, “Context-aware traffic prediction:
Loss function formulation for predicting traffic in 5G networks,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.
(ICC), 2021, pp. 1-6. doi: 10.1109/ICC42927.2021.9500735.
[12] B. Haile, E. Mutafungwa, and J. Hämäläinen, “A data-driven multiobjective optimization
framework for hyperdense 5G network planning,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 169423-169443, 2020.
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3023452.
[13] V. Hayyolalam and A. A. Kazem, “Black Widow Optimization Algorithm: A novel meta-heuristic
approach for solving engineering optimization problems,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 87, p.
103249, 2020.
[14] J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan Press, 1975.
[15] K. S. Ibarra-Lancheros, G. Puerto-Leguizamón, and C. Suárez-Fajardo, “Quality of service
evaluation based on network slicing for software-defined 5G systems,” TecnoLógicas, 2018. doi:
10.22430/22565337.1066.
[16] V. P. Kafle, Y. Fukushima, P. Martinez-Julia, and T. Miyazawa, “Consideration on automation of
5G network slicing with machine learning,” in 2018 ITU Kaleidoscope: Machine Learning for a 5G
Future (ITU K), 2018, pp. 1-8. doi: 10.23919/ITU-WT.2018.8597639.
[17] D. Karaboga and B. Basturk, “A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function
optimization: Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm,” J. Glob. Optim., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 459-471,
2007.
[18] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle Swarm Optimization,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural
Networks, 1995, vol. 4, pp. 1942-1948.
[19] K. Khan and W. Goodridge, “Ultra-hd video streaming in 5g fixed wireless access bottlenecks,”
2021. doi: 10.3233/FAIA210441.
[20] M. T. Khan and A. Adholiya, “Machine learning-based application for predicting 5G/B5G service,”
in 2023 13th Int. Conf. Cloud Comput., Data Sci. Eng. (Confluence), 2023, pp. 613-619. doi:
10.1109/Confluence56041.2023.10048885.
[21] Y. Kim, Y. Kim, and H. Kim, “A comparison experiment of binary classification for detecting the
GTP encapsulated IoT DDoS traffics in 5G network,” J. Internet Technol., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1049-
1060, 2022. doi: 10.53106/160792642022092305013.
[22] S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, “Optimization by Simulated Annealing,” Science,
vol. 220, no. 4598, pp. 671-680, 1983.
[23] F. Li and Z. Zhang, “Particle Swarm Optimization for optimizing delay-sensitive applications in 5G
networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 100943-100956, 2020.
[24] J. Lin, F. Chen, and T. Zhao, “Convergence analysis and optimization in metaheuristics for 5G
systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 4120-4132, 2022.
[25] Y.-B. Lin, C. Tseng, and M.-H. Wang, “Effects of transport network slicing on 5G applications,”
Future Internet, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 69, 2021. doi: 10.3390/fi13030069.

92
[26] D. Minovski, N. Ögren, K. Mitra, and C. Åhlund, “Throughput prediction using machine learning in
LTE and 5G networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 22, pp. 1825-1840, 2021. doi:
10.1109/TMC.2021.3099397.
[27] S. Mirjalili and A. Lewis, “The Whale Optimization Algorithm,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 95, pp. 51-
67, 2016.
[28] S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, “Grey Wolf Optimizer,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 69, pp.
46-61, 2014.
[29] S. Mohammed and M. Ilyas, “Delay root cause analysis and 3D modeling of LTE control
communication using machine learning,” in 2022 Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Things (ICAIoT), 2022,
pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1109/ICAIoT57170.2022.10121830.
[30] J. Riihijärvi and P. Mähönen, “Machine learning for performance prediction in mobile cellular
networks,” IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 51-60, 2018. doi:
10.1109/MCI.2017.2773824.
[31] P. Salvá-García et al., “Scalable virtual network video-optimizer for adaptive real-time video
transmission in 5g networks,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1068-1081, 2020.
doi: 10.1109/TNSM.2020.2978975.
[32] R. Q. Shadad et al., “Efficient and reliable management of 5G network slicing based on deep
learning,” in 2022 2nd Int. Conf. Emerg. Smart Technol. Appl. (eSmarTA), 2022, pp. 1-5. doi:
10.1109/eSmarTA56775.2022.9935393.
[33] P. Sun et al., “Performance evaluation of 5G wireless network slices for power services,” in 2022
IEEE 10th Int. Conf. Inf., Commun. Netw. (ICICN), 2022, pp. 114-120. doi:
10.1109/ICICN56848.2022.10006545.
[34] O. Taee, A. Janaby, and Y. Abbosh, “5g uplink performance of symbol-based schedulers with
network slicing,” 2022. doi: 10.4108/eai.7-9-2021.2314842.
[35] A. Tzanakaki et al., “Converged optical, wireless, and data center network infrastructures for 5g
services,” J. Opt. Commun. Netw., vol. 11, no. 2, p. A111, 2018. doi: 10.1364/JOCN.11.00A111.
[36] J. Wang, “Pareto fronts-driven multi-objective cuckoo search for 5G network optimization,” KSII
Trans. Internet Inf. Syst., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 2800-2814, 2020.
[37] Z. Xiong et al., “Deep reinforcement learning for mobile 5g and beyond: fundamentals,
applications, and challenges,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 44-52, 2019. doi:
10.1109/MVT.2019.2903655.
[38] H. Xu, T. Zhang, and L. Wang, “Metaheuristic approaches for multi-objective optimization in 5G
network slicing,” J. Netw. Comput. Appl., vol. 187, p. 103025, 2021.
[39] X.-S. Yang, “Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimization,” Int. J. Bio-
Inspired Comput., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 78-84, 2010.
[40] H. Yu and Q. Wang, “Parameter tuning in Particle Swarm Optimization for network optimization in
LTE/5G,” Telecommun. Syst., vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 145-158, 2020.
[41] Y. Zhang, M. Liu, and R. Chen, “Enhancing packet reliability in high-demand LTE/5G networks
with metaheuristic algorithms,” Wireless Commun. Mobile Comput., vol. 2022, Article ID
1576423.

93
AUTHOR
Almamoon Alauthman earned his Bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering
from Al-Balqa Applied University (BAU) in Amman, Jordan, and his Master's
degree in Computer Engineering from Jordan University of Ph.D. at Sultan Zainal
Abidin University (UniSA), Malaysia. Currently, he serves as an assistant professor
at the Faculty of Engineering (Electrical Engineering Department) at Al-Balqa
Applied University. His research interests include VLSI design, parallel processing,
neural networks, computer architecture organization, and wireless networks
Abeer Al-Hyari (Member, IEEE) received the Ph.D. degree in computer
engineering from the University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. She is currently an
Assistant Professor with the Electrical Engineering Department, Al-Balqa Applied
University, Al-Salt, Jordan. Her research interests include cryptography and the
application of machine learning, deep learning, and recurrent neural networks to
problems in FPGA CAD. She is a member of the Jordan Engineers Association
(JEA)

ANALYSIS OF LTE/5G NETWORK PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS IN SMARTPHONE USE CASES: A STUDY OF PACKET LOSS, DELAY AND SLICE TYPES

More Related Content

Similar to ANALYSIS OF LTE/5G NETWORK PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS IN SMARTPHONE USE CASES: A STUDY OF PACKET LOSS, DELAY AND SLICE TYPES (20)

More from IJCNCJournal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

ANALYSIS OF LTE/5G NETWORK PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS IN SMARTPHONE USE CASES: A STUDY OF PACKET LOSS, DELAY AND SLICE TYPES