## 1 Introduction
### Related Work  
Wireless mobile communication technology has proliferated greatly to accommodate its users [18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23]. Optimization methods have not only benefited wireless communication in terms of user satisfaction, but also opened a great scope for the further improvements.  
In RSS-based algorithms [24; 25; 26], researchers have done a considerable amount of work. In [PERSON] algorithm [24], a very high delay is observed, up to 1%, and this reduces the number of handovers up to 85%. The study does not provide any information about handover failure probability. It also states that throughput decreases as the velocity increases. [PERSON]'s algorithm [25] shows that HFP can always be at the required value as the velocity increases, but the study does not provide any information about the delay, number of handovers, or throughput. Regarding [PERSON]'s algorithm [26], several transfers decrease as the velocity increases, and HFP can always be kept at the required value as the velocity increases.  
Bandwidth-based algorithms also show good results regarding the performance of the system. Regarding [PERSON]'s algorithm [27], relatively short handover delay is observed, and a higher throughput of up to 40% is achieved compared to its traditional counterpart. However, no information is provided regarding the number of handovers or HFP. Regarding [PERSON]'s algorithm [28], there is a very high value of transfers because of SINR; it also shows a very high value of throughput, up to about 40% compared to the conventional methods [29]. This study also fails to provide information regarding delay and HFP [30]. Regarding [PERSON]'s algorithm [31], it is suggested that there are small unnecessary handovers up to 2.5%. HFP and throughput are very high. Cost-function-based algorithms [32; 33; 34] also provide several ideas. Regarding [PERSON]'s algorithm [32], it has been said that the high value of throughput is gained by connecting users with several networks, but the study failed to provide any information about the delay, HFP, or number of handovers. Regarding [PERSON]'s algorithm [33], an increase in throughput of 57.9% in different background traffic is noted, but the study does not have any information about the delay, HFP, or number of handovers. [PERSON]'s algorithm [34] shows about 50% shorter handover delays compared to the centralized vertical handoff decision (VHD). The study also states that there is low HFP due to the distribution of the decision calculation and 17% higher throughput compared to centralized VHD; it does not have any information about the number of handovers.  
There are also several combination-based algorithms [35; 36; 37; 38]. In the [PERSON] algorithm [35], long delay is observed because of the increased complexity and the training. However, the study fails to provide any information regarding the number of handovers,HFP, or throughput. Results similar to those for the Nasser algorithm are presented for [PERSON]'s algorithm [36] regarding the delay. It also reduces the number of transfers by eliminating the ping pong effect, but the study does not include any information regarding HFP and throughput. Similar results are observed with the algorithm in [38; 39; 40], but no information is presented regarding the delay, HFP, or performance. From the literature and Table 1, it can be seen that there is a need for a procedure that can make a correlation between the different vertical handover (VHO) systems proposed and perform an assessment of these strategies. Considering this, we propose a strategy to compute the VHO procedure that would give an indication of its adequacy. Table 1 shows a comparative analysis of proposed scheme with existing schemes.