Data Processing Efficiency Aware User Association and Resource Allocation in Blockchain Enabled Metaverse over Wireless Communications

Jun Zhao; Liangxin Qian

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 26 references

Data Processing Efficiency Aware User Association and Resource Allocation in Blockchain Enabled Metaverse over Wireless Communications

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes the DAUR algorithm, which maximizes data processing efficiency (processed bits per delay-plus-energy) in blockchain-enabled Metaverse wireless systems by jointly optimizing user association, work offloading, and…

desk verdict The DPE idea is fine and the system model is detailed, but Lemma 5.3 breaks the equivalence chain: P3 is unbounded, so DAUR's optimality claims do not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16083 v1 pith:UNH2T5SL submitted 2024-11-25 eess.SP cs.DCcs.ETcs.NI

Liangxin Qian , Jun Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SPcs.DCcs.ETcs.NI

keywords dataprocessingefficiencyblockchainMetaverseuserassociationresourceallocationfractionalprogrammingsemidefiniterelaxationworkoffloading

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces data processing efficiency (DPE), defined as processed data bits divided by the sum of delay and energy consumption, as a metric for blockchain-enabled Metaverse wireless systems where users offload NFT tasks to servers. Its central claim is that the resulting sum-of-ratios optimization problem, which couples binary user-association variables with continuous offloading, bandwidth, power, and computing allocations, can be transformed into a sequence of solvable convex subproblems. The proposed DAUR algorithm alternates between optimizing user association, offloading ratios, and task-specific computing distribution on one side, and bandwidth, transmit power, and resource usage ratios on the other, using fractional programming, QCQP reformulation, semidefinite relaxation, and Hungarian rounding. The authors report that DAUR converges quickly and achieves DPE up to 86.48 Mbits/(s·J), outperforming four heuristic baselines across the simulated settings. If correct, this offers a tractable way to balance latency and energy in Metaverse task processing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the sequence of equivalent reformulations of the sum-of-ratios objective. The named objects are the DPE ratio (processed bits over delay-plus-energy), the auxiliary variables $\theta_n^{(u)}$, $\theta_{n,m}^{(s)}$, $\alpha_n^{(u)}$, $\alpha_{n,m}^{(s)}$, and $\upsilon_{n,m}^{(s)}$, and the alternating optimization of variable blocks $[\mathbf{x}, \boldsymbol{\varphi}, \boldsymbol{\gamma}]$ and $[\boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\rho}, \boldsymbol{\zeta}, \boldsymbol{\psi}]$. The $\upsilon$-rewrite is what turns the non-convex server cost into a convex function, and the QCQP/SDR transformation with Hungarian rounding is what handles the binary user-association constraint.

What would settle it

Evaluate both sides of the claimed equality $F=G$ at a randomly chosen feasible point, substituting $\upsilon_{n,m}^{(s)} = 1/(2 x_{n,m}\rho_n p_n \varphi_n d_n r_{n,m})$; if the numerical values differ, the convexified Problem P5 is not equivalent to Problem P4, and the algorithm's solution is not a DPE maximizer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the joint DPE-maximization problem can be reduced through a chain of transformations instead of being solved directly. Auxiliary variables turn the sum of ratios into a sum of linear terms, KKT-type multipliers move the ratios back into the objective, a fractional-programming rewrite with an auxiliary variable makes the non-convex server cost convex, and the remaining mixed-integer problem becomes a QCQP that semidefinite relaxation plus Hungarian rounding solves. Alternating these blocks yields a stationary point of the transformed problem, and the paper claims this stationary point corresponds to a high-DPE operating point. Simulations support this by showing DAUR surpassing all baselines at every tested bandwidth, server capacity, user capacity, and transmit power level.

Load-bearing premise

The entire convexification rests on the claim that a specific algebraic rewrite of the transmission cost is exactly equal to the original transmission cost; if that equality is off, DAUR maximizes a different objective than the DPE it reports.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

DPE gives operators a single number that trades off delay and energy; tuning the weights $\omega_t$ and $\omega_e$ shifts the operating point from delay-optimal to energy-optimal.
The alternating FP/QCQP/SDR decomposition makes the mixed-integer problem solvable in polynomial time per iteration, with complexity of order $O((N^{3.5}+M^{3.5}+N^{3.5}M^{3.5})\log(1/\epsilon))$ as reported in the paper.
In the simulated settings, DAUR outperforms random and greedy user-association baselines and average-resource-allocation baselines, and its advantage persists as bandwidth, server capacity, user capacity, and transmit power vary.
The same algorithmic recipe is claimed to extend to energy-efficiency and utility-cost objectives when combined with successive convex approximation for non-concave utilities.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the claimed equality $F=G$ in the fractional-programming step is checked numerically at a few feasible points, the set where it holds exactly is where the equivalence proof succeeds; outside that set, DAUR may be maximizing a surrogate objective rather than the original DPE.
The same transformation chain could be tested on smaller ratio problems with known optima to quantify the gap introduced by the SDR rounding step, which the paper does not isolate.
The centralized nature of DAUR, acknowledged in the conclusion, suggests that a distributed version would be needed for privacy-preserving Metaverse deployments; the alternating structure is a natural starting point for such an extension.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper defines DPE (processed bits divided by delay plus energy) and a DAUR algorithm to maximize it in a blockchain-Metaverse MEC system. The system model is detailed and P1 is a reasonable sum-of-ratios problem. Lemma 5.2's epigraph reformulation is fine. But the chain breaks at Lemma 5.3, not at Lemma 5.5. The Reader's Eq.(63) algebra actually checks out: with chi = x rho p phi d and v = 1/(2 chi r), chi^2 v + 1/(4 r^2 v) = chi/(2r) + chi/(2r) = chi/r, so the FP transform in Appendix C preserves F = G. That part is standard and correct.

Lemma 5.3 is the real problem. P3 drops constraints (15a)-(15b) and instead puts alpha times (c d - theta cost) in the objective, with theta and alpha both free variables. If theta is unrestricted, the objective is unbounded above because negative theta with positive alpha and positive cost gives arbitrarily large values. If theta is restricted to be nonnegative, then alpha can go to infinity whenever the bracketed term is positive. Either way P3 has no finite optimum. The claimed KKT relations (17)-(20) are not KKT conditions of P3: stationarity with respect to theta gives -alpha cost = 0, contradicting alpha = 1/cost. Appendix B actually derives KKT conditions of P2 and then asserts P3 follows; it does not. Since P3 is not equivalent to P2, the later problems P4-P10 do not inherit any claim to solve P1, and Theorem 5.1 is unproven.

What is legitimately new: the DPE metric is a simple but reasonable composite, and the paper formulates a concrete joint user-association and resource-allocation problem. The simulations are clearly described and show consistent gains over four heuristics. But those baselines are all home-made (random or greedy connection plus average allocation), with no comparison to an existing FP-based method or any bound on suboptimality. The reported convergence in one outer iteration across all tested sizes also makes the alternating-optimization claims hard to trust. No code or data is provided; the appendices point to a OneDrive full version.

Bottom line: this paper is not ready for serious peer review as a correctness contribution. The DPE metric and the system model might be useful to someone working in this niche, but the algorithm's guarantees do not survive contact with Lemma 5.3. I would desk-reject rather than send it to referees in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper defines data processing efficiency (DPE) as processed data bits divided by delay plus energy consumption, formulates a sum-of-ratios maximization problem P1 for user association and resource allocation in a blockchain-enabled Metaverse wireless system, and proposes the DAUR algorithm. DAUR is claimed to transform P1 into a sequence of tractable problems: an equivalent summation problem P2, a 'splitting' problem P3 with auxiliary variables, a fractional-programming subproblem P5 for communication and computing resources, and an SDR-based QCQP subproblem P10 for user association and offloading. Numerical experiments compare DAUR with four heuristic baselines and report DPE gains.

Significance. The DPE metric is a reasonable system-level efficiency objective, and the system model usefully combines wireless offloading, server processing, and blockchain-related delays. If the claimed transformation chain were correct, DAUR would be a valuable contribution to resource allocation in similar MEC/blockchain settings. The paper also provides a clearly described simulation setup and reports reproducible-looking convergence behavior. However, the mathematical core of the paper is not established: the equivalence of P2 and P3 is invalid, and the proof of Lemma 5.3 derives KKT conditions for a different problem. Since the correctness of DAUR, the stationarity claim, and the interpretation of the simulation results all rest on this chain, the central contribution is currently unsupported. I note that the suspected algebra in Eq. (63) is actually correct; the load-bearing flaw is in Lemma 5.3, not in the fractional-programming transformation.

major comments (3)

[Lemma 5.3, Eq. (16)] Problem P3 is not equivalent to P2 and is generally unbounded. In P3 the variables alpha and theta appear only in the objective and are not constrained by the cost expressions. For fixed feasible (x, phi, gamma, phi, rho, zeta, psi), the term alpha_u (c_n(1-phi_n)d_n - theta_u cost_u) can be made arbitrarily large by taking theta_u to -infinity, or, if theta is required nonnegative, by taking alpha_u to infinity with theta_u = 0 whenever c_n(1-phi_n)d_n > 0. The proof in Appendix B forms the Lagrangian of P2, derives stationarity and complementary slackness for P2 (Eqs. (38)-(45)), and then asserts the transformation to P3. But stationarity of the P3 objective with respect to theta_u gives -alpha_u cost_u = 0, which contradicts the claimed value alpha_u = 1/cost_u in Eq. (17). Since Lemma 5.3 is the basis for the alternating update of alpha and theta in Algorithm 1, the claimed reduction of P1 to a solvable problem is unproven.
[Lemma 5.7, Eq. (66)] Lemma 5.7 restricts the system parameter omega_b to 1 without justification. The proof shows two different minimizers: gamma = omega_b/(1+omega_b) minimizes the energy term in Eq. (64), and gamma = 1/(1+omega_b) minimizes T_sp + T_sg in Eq. (66). These values coincide only when omega_b = 1. The paper then substitutes gamma = 1/2 into Problem P7 and uses that substitution throughout P8-P10. Since omega_b is a data-size changing ratio specified in the general problem and is only set to 1 in the default simulation, the SDR formulation solves a different problem whenever omega_b != 1. This is a load-bearing step for Theorem 5.6.
[Theorem 5.1 and Algorithm 1] Because Lemma 5.3 and Lemma 5.7 are load-bearing, the convergence claims in Algorithm 1 and the statement that the returned point is a stationary point of P3 do not follow from the provided proofs. The numerical DPE values in Figs. 3 and 4 therefore do not establish that DAUR maximizes DPE for P1; they only show that the proposed heuristic outperforms four hand-crafted baselines. Without a valid proof of equivalence, the reported gains cannot be attributed to the claimed optimality properties.

minor comments (3)

[Fig. 4(e), Section 7] The text describing Fig. 4(e) says the emphasis shifts from 'delay-centric (0.1, 0.9)' to 'energy-centric (0.9, 0.1)', but with weights (omega_t, omega_e), the pair (0.1, 0.9) gives low weight to delay and high weight to energy. The labels appear reversed and should be corrected.
[Section 3.1.5 and Lemma 5.7] The assumption that the server validation delay T_sv is negligible relative to processing and block generation delays is used implicitly in Lemma 5.7 but is not stated in the system model. This assumption should be made explicit, or the proof should handle T_sv.
[References to full version] Several proofs say 'Refer to Appendix A/B/C in the full version paper [14]' even though the corresponding appendices appear in this manuscript. These references should be updated to the local appendices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DPE objective is an input, and the P1 to P2/P5/P10 chain consists of standard epigraph and fractional-programming reformulations; self-citations are not load-bearing, and identified gaps are correctness issues, not self-reference.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs. Lemma 5.2 introduces auxiliary variables theta and T as an epigraph reformulation: at the optimum theta equals the ratio, but this is an exact standard transformation, not a definition of the ratio in terms of the objective. Lemma 5.3 and Appendix B derive alpha=1/cost and theta=ratio from stationarity and complementary slackness of P2; whether or not the P2-to-P3 equivalence is fully justified, the step does not fit a parameter to data and then predict that same parameter, so it is not circularity. Lemma 5.5's fractional-programming transform defines v=1/(2 chi r) and the identity chi^2 v + 1/(4 r^2 v) = chi/r follows algebraically (Eq. 63), so the claimed equality F=G is exact rather than an imported ansatz. Lemmas 5.7 through 5.9 are algebraic transformations and semidefinite relaxations with no fitted inputs. The self-citations, especially the full-version reference [14] and the JSAC paper [24], are not load-bearing: the proofs appear in the appendices of the present manuscript, and the FP technique is standard and restated in Appendix C. The simulation section compares against self-constructed heuristics rather than external benchmarks, which weakens external validation but is not circular reasoning. Any mathematical flaws, such as the possible ill-posedness of P3 or the mismatch between the claimed KKT analysis of P3 and the actual KKT analysis of P2 in Appendix B, are correctness concerns and should be assessed separately from circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard information-theoretic and convex-optimization tools, plus domain assumptions about the wireless model. No parameters are fitted to data in the derivation. The critical unproven premise is the validity of the fractional-programming transform in Lemma 5.5, which fails algebraically; this is listed as an axiom because the paper treats it as given.

assumptions (4)

standard math Shannon capacity formula r = phi b log2(1 + g rho p / (sigma^2 phi b))
Used to define transmission rate in Eq. (1); standard information-theoretic result.
domain assumption FDMA with no inter-user interference
Assumed in Section 3.1.4 so that each user-server link rate depends only on its own allocation; simplifies the problem but may not hold in dense deployments.
ad hoc to paper Server validation delay T_sv is much smaller than data processing and block generation delays
In Lemma 5.7 (Appendix D), T_sv is ignored when deriving gamma* = 1/2; this is an approximation that may not hold for large block verification workloads.
ad hoc to paper Equality of F and G in Eq. (63) for the chosen auxiliary variable v
This is the critical unproven and false premise behind the fractional programming transform in Lemma 5.5; substituting v = 1/(2 x rho p phi d r) shows the two expressions differ.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Processing Efficiency Aware User Association and Resource Allocation in Blockchain Enabled Metaverse over Wireless Communications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UNH2T5SL

@misc{pith2026241116083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Processing Efficiency Aware User Association and Resource Allocation in Blockchain Enabled Metaverse over Wireless Communications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UNH2T5SL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16083}
}

read the original abstract

In the rapidly evolving landscape of the Metaverse, enhanced by blockchain technology, the efficient processing of data has emerged as a critical challenge, especially in wireless communication systems. Addressing this need, our paper introduces the innovative concept of data processing efficiency (DPE), aiming to maximize processed bits per unit of resource consumption in blockchain-empowered Metaverse environments. To achieve this, we propose the DPE-Aware User Association and Resource Allocation (DAUR) algorithm, a tailored solution for these complex systems. The DAUR algorithm transforms the challenging task of optimizing the sum of DPE ratios into a solvable convex optimization problem. It uniquely alternates the optimization of key variables like user association, work offloading ratios, task-specific computing resource distribution, bandwidth allocation, user power usage ratios, and server computing resource allocation ratios. Our extensive numerical results demonstrate the DAUR algorithm's effectiveness in DPE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16083 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Relationships between Theorems and Lemmas, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Convergence of FP and QCQP methods; Performance comparison of the DAUR algorithm with baselines. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Performance comparison of different communication and computation resources and heterogeneous settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Klitos Christodoulou, Leonidas Katelaris, Marinos Themistocleous, Panayiotis Christodoulou, and Elias Iosif. 2022. NFTs and the Metaverse revolution: Research perspectives and open challenges. Blockchains and the Token Economy: Theory and Practice (2022), 139–178

work page 2022
[2]

Nam H Chu, Dinh Thai Hoang, Diep N Nguyen, Khoa T Phan, Eryk Dutkiewicz, Dusit Niyato, and Tao Shu. 2023. MetaSlicing: A novel resource allocation framework for Metaverse. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 1 (2023), 1–18

work page 2023
[3]

Yueyue Dai, Du Xu, Sabita Maharjan, and Yan Zhang. 2018. Joint computation offloading and user association in multi-task mobile edge computing. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 67, 12 (2018), 12313–12325

work page 2018
[4]

Xiumei Deng, Jun Li, Chuan Ma, Kang Wei, Long Shi, Ming Ding, Wen Chen, and H Vincent Poor. 2022. Blockchain assisted federated learning over wireless channels: Dynamic resource allocation and client scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 22, 5 (2022), 3537–3553

work page 2022
[5]

Jie Feng, F Richard Yu, Qingqi Pei, Jianbo Du, and Li Zhu. 2020. Joint optimization of radio and computational resources allocation in blockchain-enabled mobile edge computing systems. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 19, 6 (2020), 4321–4334

work page 2020
[6]

Fengxian Guo, F Richard Yu, Heli Zhang, Hong Ji, Mengting Liu, and Victor CM Leung. 2019. Adaptive resource allocation in future wireless networks with blockchain and mobile edge computing. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communi- cations 19, 3 (2019), 1689–1703

work page 2019
[7]

Rose Qingyang Hu and Yi Qian. 2014. An energy efficient and spectrum efficient wireless heterogeneous network framework for 5G systems. IEEE Communica- tions Magazine 52, 5 (2014), 94–101

work page 2014
[8]

Thien Huynh-The, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu, Weizheng Wang, Gokul Yenduri, Pasika Ranaweera, Quoc-Viet Pham, Daniel Benevides da Costa, and Madhusanka Liyanage. 2023. Blockchain for the Metaverse: A review. Future Generation Computer Systems 143 (2023), 401–419

work page 2023

Show all 26 references

[9]

Hyungsik Ju and Rui Zhang. 2013. Throughput maximization in wireless powered communication networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 13, 1 (2013), 418–428

2013
[10]

Harold W Kuhn. 1955. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem.Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 2, 1-2 (1955), 83–97

1955
[11]

Dawei Li, Ruonan Chen, Qinjun Wan, Zhenyu Guan, Yu Sun, Qianhong Wu, Jiankun Hu, and Jianwei Liu. 2023. Decentralized IoT resource monitoring and scheduling framework based on blockchain. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 10, 24 (2023), 21135–21142

2023
[12]

Qi Li, Mingwei Xu, Yuan Yang, Lixin Gao, Yong Cui, and Jianping Wu. 2014. Safe and practical energy-efficient detour routing in IP networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 22, 6 (2014), 1925–1937

2014
[13]

Yandong Li, Liehuang Zhu, Meng Shen, Feng Gao, Baokun Zheng, Xiaojiang Du, Sheng Liu, and Shu Yin. 2018. Cloudshare: Towards a cost-efficient and privacy-preserving alliance cloud using permissioned blockchains. In Mobile Networks and Management: 9th International Conference ....

2018
[14]

Qian Liangxin and Jun Zhao. 2024. Data processing efficiency aware user association and resource allocation in blockchain en- abled Metaverse over wireless communications (full version of this paper). (2024). https://1drv.ms/f/c/cfab1d55a2e68d72/Enr9u3B- n1lOlUOQu5Rl7_sBlhJTlS...

2024
[15]

Liang Liu, Yiting Wang, Weizhi Meng, Zhe Xu, Wenzhao Gao, and Zuchao Ma
[16]

Yuan Liu, Yixiao Lan, Boyang Li, Chunyan Miao, and Zhihong Tian. 2021. Proof of Learning (PoLe): Empowering neural network training with consensus building on blockchains. Computer Networks 201 (2021), 108594

2021
[17]

Zhixin Liu, Lu Gao, Yang Liu, Xinping Guan, Kai Ma, and Yu Wang. 2019. Effi- cient QoS support for robust resource allocation in blockchain-based femtocell networks. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 16, 11 (2019), 7070–7080

2019
[18]

Matthieu Nadini, Laura Alessandretti, Flavio Di Giacinto, Mauro Martino, Luca Maria Aiello, and Andrea Baronchelli. 2021. Mapping the NFT revolu- tion: Market trends, trade networks, and visual features. Scientific Reports 11, 1 (2021), 20902

2021
[19]

Wei Chong Ng, Wei Yang Bryan Lim, Jer Shyuan Ng, Zehui Xiong, Dusit Niyato, and Chunyan Miao. 2022. Unified resource allocation framework for the edge intelligence-enabled Metaverse. In ICC 2022-IEEE International Conference on Communications. IEEE, Seoul, Korea, 5214–5219

2022
[20]

Claude Elwood Shannon. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 3 (1948), 379–423

1948
[21]

Qin Wang, Rujia Li, Qi Wang, and Shiping Chen. 2021. Non-fungible token (NFT): Overview, evaluation, opportunities and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.07447 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[22]

Yuntao Wang, Zhou Su, Qichao Xu, Ruidong Li, and Tom H Luan. 2021. Life- saving with RescueChain: Energy-efficient and partition-tolerant blockchain based secure information sharing for UAV-aided disaster rescue. InIEEE INFO- COM 2021-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications...

2021
[23]

Jie Xu, Kaiping Xue, Shaohua Li, Hangyu Tian, Jianan Hong, Peilin Hong, and Nenghai Yu. 2019. Healthchain: A blockchain-based privacy preserving scheme for large-scale health data. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 6, 5 (2019), 8770–8781

2019
[24]

Jun Zhao, Liangxin Qian, and Wenhan Yu. 2024. Human-centric resource alloca- tion in the Metaverse over wireless communications. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 42, 3 (2024), 514–537

2024
[25]

⇒” means “imply

Pan Zhou, Qian Wang, Wei Wang, Yuchong Hu, and Dapeng Wu. 2017. Near- optimal and practical jamming-resistant energy-efficient cognitive radio commu- nications. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 12, 11 (2017), 2807–2822. 10 A PROOF OF LEMMA 5.2 Proof. Def...

2017
[2021]

Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 14, 6 (2021), 3895–3914

Towards efficient and energy-aware query processing for industrial Internet of Things. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 14, 6 (2021), 3895–3914

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Klitos Christodoulou, Leonidas Katelaris, Marinos Themistocleous, Panayiotis Christodoulou, and Elias Iosif. 2022. NFTs and the Metaverse revolution: Research perspectives and open challenges. Blockchains and the Token Economy: Theory and Practice (2022), 139–178

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Nam H Chu, Dinh Thai Hoang, Diep N Nguyen, Khoa T Phan, Eryk Dutkiewicz, Dusit Niyato, and Tao Shu. 2023. MetaSlicing: A novel resource allocation framework for Metaverse. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 1 (2023), 1–18

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Yueyue Dai, Du Xu, Sabita Maharjan, and Yan Zhang. 2018. Joint computation offloading and user association in multi-task mobile edge computing. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 67, 12 (2018), 12313–12325

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Xiumei Deng, Jun Li, Chuan Ma, Kang Wei, Long Shi, Ming Ding, Wen Chen, and H Vincent Poor. 2022. Blockchain assisted federated learning over wireless channels: Dynamic resource allocation and client scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 22, 5 (2022), 3537–3553

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Jie Feng, F Richard Yu, Qingqi Pei, Jianbo Du, and Li Zhu. 2020. Joint optimization of radio and computational resources allocation in blockchain-enabled mobile edge computing systems. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 19, 6 (2020), 4321–4334

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Fengxian Guo, F Richard Yu, Heli Zhang, Hong Ji, Mengting Liu, and Victor CM Leung. 2019. Adaptive resource allocation in future wireless networks with blockchain and mobile edge computing. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communi- cations 19, 3 (2019), 1689–1703

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Rose Qingyang Hu and Yi Qian. 2014. An energy efficient and spectrum efficient wireless heterogeneous network framework for 5G systems. IEEE Communica- tions Magazine 52, 5 (2014), 94–101

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Thien Huynh-The, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu, Weizheng Wang, Gokul Yenduri, Pasika Ranaweera, Quoc-Viet Pham, Daniel Benevides da Costa, and Madhusanka Liyanage. 2023. Blockchain for the Metaverse: A review. Future Generation Computer Systems 143 (2023), 401–419

work page 2023