Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40062302›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025

An optimal peer selection for peer-to-peer video content distribution using fuzzy linear programming approach.

M Anandaraj, Naganandhini S

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M AnandarajDepartment of Information Technology, PSNA College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul, Tamilnadu, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0255-8094
Naganandhini SDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, PSNA College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul, Tamilnadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The problem of peer selection in peer-to-peer (P2P) video content distribution network is significant to solve since it affects the performance and efficiency of the network widely. In this article, a novel framework is introduced that uses fuzzy linear programming (FLP) to address the inherent uncertainties in peer selection. The primary motivation for the use of FLP lies in its capability to handle the imprecision and vagueness that are characteristic of dynamic P2P environments. Factors such as peer reliability, bandwidth, and proximity are often uncertain in this environment. By using fuzzy logic, the proposed framework models these criteria as fuzzy sets and then integrates uncertainty into the decision-making process. FLP is then applied to optimize peer selection, improving download speed, reducing download time, and enhancing peer reliability. The proposed method is evaluated and analyzed using extensive simulation with SciPy. The result reveals that proposed technique works better compared to some of the traditional methods in terms of download time, download speed and also reliability measure. It also exhibits approximately 20% of increase in download speed as well as a 15% decrease in download time compared to traditional approaches. It leads to faster content retrieval and enhanced the efficiency in content distribution. Also, in selection of reliable peers for content distribution, there is a notable 20% of increase in peer reliability with result of enhanced robustness. The proposed method provides efficient and robust solution to the problem of peer selection. It can be implemented in a broad range of P2P content distribution networks.

Indexed as

Content distribution networkFuzzy linear programmingFuzzy setPeer selection problemPeer to peer network

Identifiers

PMID40062302
PMCPMC11888916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.