Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Distributionally Robust Contract Theory for Edge AIGC Services in Teleoperation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By fusing distributionally robust optimization with contract theory, this paper turns uncertain AIGC service quality into a tractable worst-case pricing problem for teleoperation.

desk verdict First DRO-contract-theory combination for edge AIGC, but the BCD algorithm's L-gradient is wrong, so the reported robustness gains are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06678 v1 pith:JP3YNFHC submitted 2025-05-10 cs.NI eess.SP

Zijun Zhan , Yaxian Dong , Daniel Mawunyo Doe , Yuqing Hu , Shuai Li , Shaohua Cao , Lei Fan , Zhu Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NIeess.SP
keywords teleoperationcontracttheoryAI-generatedcontentoffloadinguncertaintydistributionallyrobustoptimizationedgeAIGCincentivemechanismblockcoordinatedescent
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 tries to establish that pricing an AI-generated-content (AIGC) service for teleoperation can stay robust to uncertain service quality by combining distributionally robust optimization (DRO) with contract theory. The central claim is an equivalence: the teleoperator's max-min contract-design problem, where the inner minimization is over all quality distributions inside a Wasserstein ball around the empirical distribution of historical samples, reduces to a finite-dimensional optimization problem. The paper then presents a block-coordinate-descent algorithm for the reformulated problem and reports simulations on a teleoperation platform where the scheme improves teleoperator utility by 2.7% to 10.74% across quality shifts and raises ASP utility by 60.02% relative to deep-reinforcement-learning contract theory. If the equivalence and algorithm are correct, robust reward-and-latency contracts can be computed from historical quality data alone, without knowing the true quality distribution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Wasserstein ambiguity set $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}=\{P: W(\tilde{P},P)\le\epsilon(N)\}$ built around the empirical distribution $\tilde{P}$ of $N$ historical AIGC-quality scores, with $\epsilon(N)=D\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}\ln\frac{1}{1-\tau}}$; the Wasserstein distance here is the minimal mass-transport cost between two distributions. This set converts the unknown quality distribution into a known uncertainty budget: the teleoperator maximizes worst-case expected utility over all distributions inside the ball. The accompanying machinery is the contract-theoretic reduction of Proposition 1, which collapses the incentive-rationality and incentive-compatibility constraints into a closed-form reward schedule and a monotone-latency condition, and the block-coordinate-descent algorithm that alternates updates of the auxiliary $s$-block, the latency $L$-block, and the dual variable $\lambda$-block, using bunching-and-ironing to keep $L$ monotone.

What would settle it

The direct test is computational: fix $I$ and $N$, solve the reformulated problem (34) on a fine grid, then search over candidate distributions $P$ with $W(\tilde{P},P)\le\epsilon(N)$ for a lower expected teleoperator utility than the value predicted by (34); a single such $P$ would falsify the Proposition 2 equivalence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that uncertainty and information asymmetry can be handled in one incentive-design problem, and that the resulting max-min problem is not inherently intractable. Concretely, Proposition 2 states that the DRO-based contract problem is equivalent to maximizing $-\lambda\epsilon+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N s_n$ over the latency vector $L$, the dual variable $\lambda\ge 0$, and auxiliary variables $s_n$, subject to the constraint that for each historical quality sample $\tilde{\xi}_n$ the minimum over quality $\xi$ in the support interval of $\sum_i\alpha_i\pi_i^T+\lambda\|\xi-\tilde{\xi}_n\|$ is at least $s_n$, together with the closed-form reward schedule $R_i=\gamma_1\left(\frac{L_1}{\theta_1}+\sum_{j=2}^i\frac{L_j-L_{j-1}}{\theta_j}\right)$ and the monotonicity constraint $L_1\le\cdots\le L_I$. The reformulation removes all $I(I-1)$ incentive-compatibility constraints and replaces the inner distributional infimum with finite-dimensional auxiliary variables, which is what makes the block-coordinate-descent algorithm applicable.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on Eq. (12), which assumes a teleoperator's utility from an AIGC service is the natural logarithm of a linear combination of service quality and inverse latency minus the reward; if real preferences depart from that logarithmic form, the robust contracts are not guaranteed to remain robust or optimal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Contracts can be computed from historical quality samples alone, because the ambiguity radius $\epsilon(N)$ shrinks as $N$ grows, so more data yields tighter robustness guarantees.
  • The original $I(I-1)$ incentive-compatibility constraints are replaced by a monotone-latency condition plus a closed-form reward schedule, lowering the numerical burden for realistic numbers of contract types.
  • The block-coordinate-descent algorithm converges empirically within the allowed iteration budget, and its per-iteration cost scales as $O(I(I-1)/2+N(B+I))$, making the approach feasible for realistic data sizes.
  • Under distribution shifts in evaluation data, the DRO contract keeps teleoperator utility nearly flat, while the deep-reinforcement-learning baseline falls behind by up to 10.74%.
  • Raising the confidence level $\tau$ enlarges the ambiguity set and increases ASP utility without reducing teleoperator utility, providing a tunable trade-off between robustness and conservatism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension is to apply the same reformulation to other service markets with uncertain per-job quality and private supplier costs, such as cloud rendering, remote surgery assistance, or federated model inference; the mathematical reduction does not depend on AIGC-specific details.
  • The paper's reported gains are tied to the chosen LPIPS and SSIM quality scores and the utility model in Eq. (12); a testable next step is to re-fit the weighting coefficients $\gamma_2,\gamma_3$ from actual teleoperators' willingness to pay and re-run the comparison.
  • If all AIGC service providers run identical models, the type space is one-dimensional; relaxing that to heterogeneous models would need a multidimensional contract type, but the Wasserstein-DRO inner problem would remain structurally similar.
  • The 60.02% ASP-utility advantage over the deep-reinforcement-learning baseline is measured at one parameter configuration; whether it persists across contract-type distributions and cost coefficients is an empirical question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the design of robust reward-latency contract bundles for edge AIGC services in teleoperation, where a teleoperator faces both information asymmetry about ASP resource capacities and uncertainty in AIGC service quality. The ASP utility is modeled as theta_i R_i - gamma1 L_i and the teleoperator utility as ln(gamma2 xi + gamma3 L_i) - R_i. The authors formulate a Wasserstein-distributionally-robust max-min contract design problem (15), reduce the IR/IC constraints to a reward formula and monotonicity (Proposition 1), and use Lagrangian duality to obtain a finite-dimensional reformulation (Proposition 2, problem (34)). They then propose a block coordinate descent algorithm (Algorithm 1) that alternately updates auxiliary xi variables, the latency vector L, and the dual variable lambda, and they report simulations on a Unity-based teleoperation dataset showing improvements over SP, RO, and DRL-based contract baselines, with code and data publicly available.

Significance. If the reformulation and algorithm were correct, the paper would present a useful and reasonably general method: combining contract theory with Wasserstein DRO is a natural extension, and the final finite-dimensional problem (34) is a tractable target. The paper is also commendable for releasing code and data and for comparing against multiple baselines. However, the central algorithmic step is flawed: the L-block update in Eq. (47) is not a gradient of the reformulated objective (44a), and the reported convergence and utility gains are therefore not presently attributable to solving the stated problem. The theoretical reformulation is sound in its overall structure, but the proof of Proposition 2 contains a sign error, and the convergence evidence does not address the actual objective.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-B, Eq. (39a)] The hypograph reformulation of (38) in the proof of Proposition 2 contains a sign error: (39a) is written as sup over lambda and s of lambda*epsilon + (1/N) sum_n s_n, but the inner supremum in (38) has -lambda*epsilon. The correct hypograph form is -lambda*epsilon + (1/N) sum_n s_n. Although the statement of Proposition 2 in (34a) uses the correct sign, the proof as written is internally inconsistent and must be corrected.
  2. [V-A, Eq. (47)] The L-block gradient in (47) is not the gradient of the objective in (44a). For the g(L) term defined in (42), the partial derivative of g with respect to L_k receives contributions from all alpha_i with i >= k; for example, the partial derivative with respect to L_{I-1} includes alpha_I * gamma1 * (1/theta_{I-1} - 1/theta_I) in addition to alpha_{I-1} * gamma1 / theta_{I-1}. Eq. (47) retains only the alpha_k * gamma1 / theta_k term, so the update (48) omits the cross-derivative terms and is not an ascent direction for (44a). The first term of (47) also ignores the dependence of xi*_n on L, so a correct derivation would require Danskin's theorem applied to phi_n. The paper's remark that (47) is an approximate gradient does not repair this, because Algorithm 1 uses (48) as the L-block update and the convergence and utility claims depend on it.
  3. [VI-D, Figs. 15-17] The convergence evaluation plots only the latency trajectories L_i over iterations, not the objective value of (44a). Since the update in (48) is not a valid ascent step, the empirical curves in Figs. 15-17 cannot establish convergence to a solution of (44) or to a stationary point of (15). The numerical improvements reported in Section VI-C (e.g., 2.7%-10.74% teleoperator utility and 60.02% ASP utility) are therefore not presently attributable to the proposed algorithm solving the stated DRO problem.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV-A, Eq. (36a)] The notation in (36a) uses P_n but the following line writes P(dxi) = sum_{i=1}^N (1/N) P_n(dxi); the index should be n throughout.
  2. [IV-B, Lemma 3] The displayed inequalities in Lemma 3 contain subscript errors (e.g., Ri-2 and Ri-3) that make the induction step hard to follow; please correct them.
  3. [Algorithm 1, lines 8-10] The comment denoting the L-block update is repeated before the lambda gradient calculation; the second occurrence should read Update lambda-block.
  4. [VI-A, paragraph 2] The sentence 'we set Xi = 40' appears to conflate the support set Xi with the diameter D in (9); if D=40 is intended, please correct.
  5. [IV-B, Eq. (39b)] The proof of Proposition 2 switches between tilde xi_n and hat xi_n (for example, Eq. (39b) uses hat xi_n); please unify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DRO reformulation is a self-contained derivation from stated utility assumptions and standard Wasserstein duality, with self-citations used only as context.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Proposition 1 reduces the IR/IC constraints to the reward formula (33) by standard contract-theory manipulation: Lemma 1 establishes monotonicity, Lemma 2 binds the lowest IR constraint, Lemma 3 reduces IC constraints to local downward/upward constraints, and solving the binding constraints yields R_i as a telescoping expression in L. This is a derivation from the model, not an input to the model. Proposition 2 recasts the inner inf over the Wasserstein ambiguity set using Lagrangian duality and a hypograph reformulation, explicitly citing the external DRO literature [29] rather than the authors' own prior work; the equivalence is a standard data-driven DRO dual. The utility models in Section III-C, including the logarithmic teleoperator utility in Eq. (12), are stated modeling assumptions, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction: the hyperparameters (η_L, N, τ) are tuned and then evaluated on held-out data, and the reported improvements are comparisons against baselines, not predictions forced by construction. The self-citations ([7], [22], [24]) appear in the related-work discussion and as a DRL benchmark, but none is load-bearing for Proposition 2 or for the claimed equivalence; the load-bearing references for the reformulation are external ([18], [29], [40]). A separate mathematical concern exists in Eq. (47), where the L-block update drops cross-derivative terms of g(L) and is acknowledged by the authors as an approximate gradient; that is a correctness risk in the optimization analysis, not a circularity of the kind where a result reduces to its own inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on assumed utility models and standard DRO duality. The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The free parameters are simulation choices and model coefficients, not fitted to external data.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma1, gamma2, gamma3 = 1, 1, 1
    Weighting coefficients in the utility functions (11) and (12), set to 1 in Section VI-A. They scale the relative importance of reward, quality, and latency.
  • Confidence level tau = 0.99
    Controls the radius of the Wasserstein ambiguity set via Eq. (9). Higher tau enlarges the set and changes the contract solution.
  • Support diameter D = 40
    Diameter of the support Xi = [60,100], used in Eq. (9) for the DRO radius. Chosen from the AIGC model evaluation results.
  • Step sizes eta_L, eta_lambda, initial lambda0 = 1e4, 1e-3, 6
    BCD hyperparameters. eta_L is selected via Fig. 6 to maximize ASP utility; the others are defaults.
  • Willingness values theta_i = {110,140,175,200,220,235,245,250}
    ASP types from prior literature [18], [40], treated as inputs in the simulation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ASP utility is linear in reward and latency: pi_i^A = theta_i R_i - gamma1 L_i (Eq. 11).
    Assumed utility model for service providers. If real ASPs have nonlinear costs or risk aversion, the contract theory reductions change.
  • domain assumption Teleoperator utility is logarithmic: pi_i^T = ln(gamma2 xi + gamma3 L_i) - R_i (Eq. 12).
    Assumed preference model where the operator's benefit is a concave function of quality and inverse latency. The DRO and all simulations depend on this form.
  • domain assumption All ASPs deploy an identical AIGC model.
    Stated in Section III-C. If models differ, the quality distributions and cost structures are not comparable across ASPs.
  • standard math Strong duality holds for the Wasserstein DRO reformulation (interchange of inf and sup in Proposition 2).
    Standard result for Wasserstein DRO when the support is compact and the cost is continuous. The paper invokes this without proof, relying on [25], [29].
  • domain assumption The empirical distribution from 200 samples approximates the true quality distribution within the ambiguity ball.
    The DRO radius (9) is a statistical confidence bound; the actual guarantee depends on the sample size and the true data generating process.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributionally Robust Contract Theory for Edge AIGC Services in Teleoperation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JP3YNFHC

@misc{pith2026250506678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributionally Robust Contract Theory for Edge AIGC Services in Teleoperation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JP3YNFHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06678}
}
read the original abstract

Advanced AI-Generated Content (AIGC) technologies have injected new impetus into teleoperation, further enhancing its security and efficiency. Edge AIGC networks have been introduced to meet the stringent low-latency requirements of teleoperation. However, the inherent uncertainty of AIGC service quality and the need to incentivize AIGC service providers (ASPs) make the design of a robust incentive mechanism essential. This design is particularly challenging due to both uncertainty and information asymmetry, as teleoperators have limited knowledge of the remaining resource capacities of ASPs. To this end, we propose a distributionally robust optimization (DRO)-based contract theory to design robust reward schemes for AIGC task offloading. Notably, our work extends the contract theory by integrating DRO, addressing the fundamental challenge of contract design under uncertainty. In this paper, contract theory is employed to model the information asymmetry, while DRO is utilized to capture the uncertainty in AIGC service quality. Given the inherent complexity of the original DRO-based contract theory problem, we reformulate it into an equivalent, tractable bi-level optimization problem. To efficiently solve this problem, we develop a Block Coordinate Descent (BCD)-based algorithm to derive robust reward schemes. Simulation results on our unity-based teleoperation platform demonstrate that the proposed method improves teleoperator utility by 2.7\% to 10.74\% under varying degrees of AIGC service quality shifts and increases ASP utility by 60.02\% compared to the SOTA method, i.e., Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL)-based contract theory. The code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Zijun0819/DRO-Contract-Theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06678 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This variability directly impacts the utility of teleoper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The potential challenges of AIGC-empowered edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of the distributional robust optimization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Teleoperator utility versus the magnitude of evaluation data distribution shifts under varying confidence levels τ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 20 40 60 80 1 00 A S P u t i l i t y Contract items [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ASP utility versus the type of contract items under varying latency up￾dating steps ηL. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 20 40 60 80 1 00 A S P u t i l i t y Contract items [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of teleoperator utility under different magnitudes of evaluation data distribution shifts with 0 extreme points. 0 1 0 20 3 0 40 50 60 3. 6 3.8 4. 0 4. 2 4. 4 4. 6 T e l e o p e r a t o r u t i l i t y Magnitude of distributional shifts DRO_Contract SP_Contr…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of ASP utility un￾der different contract item types with 0 extreme points. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 25 50 75 1 00 1 25 1 50 1 75 A S P u t i l i t y Contract items DRO_Contract SP_Contract RO_Contract DRL_Contract [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Convergence curve of contract bundles with 0 extreme points. 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Latency value Iteration rounds Type-1 Type-2 Type-3 Type-4 Type-5 Type-6 Type-7 Type-8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Joint Sensing and Bi-Directional Communication with Dynamic TDD Enabled Cell-Free MIMO

    eess.SP 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The provided full text is a different paper than the claimed ISAC work, so no result can be verified.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Teleoperation of humanoid robots: A survey,

    K. Darvish, L. Penco, J. Ramos, R. Cisneros, J. Pratt, E. Yoshida, S. Ivaldi, and D. Pucci, “Teleoperation of humanoid robots: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Robotics , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1706–1727, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    State-of-the-art and future research challenges in uav swarms,

    S. Javed, A. Hassan, R. Ahmad, W. Ahmed, R. Ahmed, A. Saadat, and M. Guizani, “State-of-the-art and future research challenges in uav swarms,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 19 023–19 045, Jun. 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Intelligent reflecting surface aided vehicular optical wireless communication systems using higher-order mode in underwater channel,

    Y . Ata, M. C. G ¨okc ¸e, and Y . Baykal, “Intelligent reflecting surface aided vehicular optical wireless communication systems using higher-order mode in underwater channel,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 11 196–11 208, Aug. 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Challenges, tasks, and opportunities in teleoperation of excavator toward human-in-the-loop construction automation,

    J. S. Lee, Y . Ham, H. Park, and J. Kim, “Challenges, tasks, and opportunities in teleoperation of excavator toward human-in-the-loop construction automation,” Autom. Constr. , vol. 135, p. 104119, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A new telesurgery generation supported by 5g technology: benefits and future trends,

    E. M. Navarro, A. N. R. ´Alvarez, and F. I. S. Anguiano, “A new telesurgery generation supported by 5g technology: benefits and future trends,” Procedia Comput. Sci. , vol. 200, pp. 31–38, Jan. 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    A survey of ai-generated content (aigc),

    Y . Cao, S. Li, Y . Liu, Z. Yan, Y . Dai, P. Yu, and L. Sun, “A survey of ai-generated content (aigc),” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1–38, Jan. 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Vision Language Model-Empowered Contract Theory for AIGC Task Allocation in Teleoperation

    Z. Zhan, Y . Dong, Y . Hu, S. Li, S. Cao, and Z. Han, “Vision language model-empowered contract theory for aigc task allocation in teleopera- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17428, vol. abs/2407.17428, Jul. 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Industrial metaverse: A proac- tive human-robot collaboration perspective,

    S. Li, H.-L. Xie, P. Zheng, and L. Wang, “Industrial metaverse: A proac- tive human-robot collaboration perspective,” J. Manuf. Syst., vol. 76, pp. 314–319, Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins (early version),

    Y . Mu, T. Chen, S. Peng, Z. Chen, Z. Gao, Y . Zou, L. Lin, Z. Xie, and P. Luo, “Robotwin: Dual-arm robot benchmark with generative digital twins (early version),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02920 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Network latency in teleoperation of connected and autonomous vehicles: A review of trends, challenges, and mitigation strategies,

    S. B. Kamtam, Q. Lu, F. Bouali, O. C. Haas, and S. Birrell, “Network latency in teleoperation of connected and autonomous vehicles: A review of trends, challenges, and mitigation strategies,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 12, p. 3957, Jun. 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Diffusion-based reinforcement learning for edge-enabled ai-generated content services,

    H. Du, Z. Li, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, H. Huang, and S. Mao, “Diffusion-based reinforcement learning for edge-enabled ai-generated content services,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 8902– 8918, Sep. 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Enabling ai-generated content services in wireless edge networks,

    H. Du, Z. Li, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, X. S. Shen, and D. I. Kim, “Enabling ai-generated content services in wireless edge networks,” IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 226–234, Feb. 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Multi-agent rl- based industrial aigc service offloading over wireless edge networks,

    S. Li, X. Lin, H. Xu, K. Hua, X. Jin, G. Li, and J. Li, “Multi-agent rl- based industrial aigc service offloading over wireless edge networks,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    J. Li, D. Niyato, and Z. Han, Cryptoeconomics: Economic Mechanisms behind Blockchains. Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,

    R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang, “The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT , Jun 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, Apr. 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    Optimizing aigc services by prompt engineering and edge computing: A generative diffusion model-based contract theory approach,

    D. Ye, S. Cai, H. Du, J. Kang, Y . Liu, R. Yu, and D. Niyato, “Optimizing aigc services by prompt engineering and edge computing: A generative diffusion model-based contract theory approach,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 571–586, Jan. 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Diffusion model-based incentive mechanism with prospect theory for edge aigc services in 6g iot,

    J. Wen, J. Nie, Y . Zhong, C. Yi, X. Li, J. Jin, Y . Zhang, and D. Niyato, “Diffusion model-based incentive mechanism with prospect theory for edge aigc services in 6g iot,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 11, no. 21, pp. 34 187–34 201, Nov. 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Freshness-aware incentive mechanism for mobile ai-generated content (aigc) networks,

    J. Wen, J. Kang, M. Xu, H. Du, Z. Xiong, Y . Zhang, and D. Niyato, “Freshness-aware incentive mechanism for mobile ai-generated content (aigc) networks,” in IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communi- cations in China (ICCC), Dalian, China , Aug 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Learning-based big data sharing incentive in mobile aigc networks,

    J. Wen, Y . Zhang, Y . Chen, W. Zhong, X. Huang, L. Liu, and D. Niyato, “Learning-based big data sharing incentive in mobile aigc networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10980 , vol. abs/2407.10980, Jun. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Prosecutor: Protecting mobile aigc services on two-layer blockchain via reputation and contract theoretic approaches,

    Y . Liu, H. Du, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, A. Jamalipour, and X. Shen, “Prosecutor: Protecting mobile aigc services on two-layer blockchain via reputation and contract theoretic approaches,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 10 966–10 983, Dec. 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Mitigate gender bias in construction: Fusion of deep reinforcement learning-based contract theory and blockchain,

    Z. Zhan, Y . Dong, D. M. Doe, Y . Hu, S. Li, S. Cao, W. Li, and Z. Han, “Mitigate gender bias in construction: Fusion of deep reinforcement learning-based contract theory and blockchain,” in IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain), Danzhou, China , Dec. 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Semantic infor- mation marketing in the metaverse: A learning-based contract theory framework,

    I. Lotfi, D. Niyato, S. Sun, D. I. Kim, and X. Shen, “Semantic infor- mation marketing in the metaverse: A learning-based contract theory framework,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 710–723, Mar. 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Deep learning and blockchain-driven contract theory: Alleviate gender bias in construction,

    Z. Zhan, Y . Dong, D. M. Doe, Y . Hu, S. Li, S. Cao, W. Li, and Z. Han, “Deep learning and blockchain-driven contract theory: Alleviate gender bias in construction,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 151, no. 3, p. 04024216, Mar. 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations,

    P. Mohajerin Esfahani and D. Kuhn, “Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations,” Math. Program., vol. 171, no. 1, pp. 115–166, Sep. 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Distributionally robust optimization: A review on theory and applications,

    F. Lin, X. Fang, and Z. Gao, “Distributionally robust optimization: A review on theory and applications,” Numer. Algebra Control Optim. , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 159–212, Mar. 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Schneider and S

    J. Schneider and S. Kirkpatrick, Stochastic optimization . Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    Theory and applications of robust optimization,

    D. Bertsimas, D. B. Brown, and C. Caramanis, “Theory and applications of robust optimization,” SIAM review, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 464–501, Sep. 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Distributionally robust optimization,

    D. Kuhn, S. Shafiee, and W. Wiesemann, “Distributionally robust optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02549 , vol. abs/2411.02549, Nov. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Distributionally robust bilevel opti- mization model for distribution network with demand response under uncertain renewables using wasserstein metrics,

    C. Yin, J. Dong, and Y . Zhang, “Distributionally robust bilevel opti- mization model for distribution network with demand response under uncertain renewables using wasserstein metrics,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, Dec. 2024, early Access

    2024

  23. [31]

    Preserving privacy in nested peer-to-peer energy trading in networked microgrids considering incomplete rationality,

    Y . Xia, Q. Xu, Y . Huang, Y . Liu, and F. Li, “Preserving privacy in nested peer-to-peer energy trading in networked microgrids considering incomplete rationality,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 606–622, Jul. 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Multi- objective distributionally robust optimization for hydrogen-involved total renewable energy cchp planning under source-load uncertainties,

    Y . Wang, M. Song, M. Jia, B. Li, H. Fei, Y . Zhang, and X. Wang, “Multi- objective distributionally robust optimization for hydrogen-involved total renewable energy cchp planning under source-load uncertainties,” Appl. Energy., vol. 342, p. 121212, Jul. 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Understanding con- trastive learning via distributionally robust optimization,

    J. Wu, J. Chen, J. Wu, W. Shi, X. Wang, and X. He, “Understanding con- trastive learning via distributionally robust optimization,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), New Orleans, LA , Dec 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Learning to solve routing problems via distributionally robust optimization,

    Y . Jiang, Y . Wu, Z. Cao, and J. Zhang, “Learning to solve routing problems via distributionally robust optimization,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Virtual Event , Feb-Mar. 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, virtual-only, Dec 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” in 9th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), virtual-only, May 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization: Theory and appli- cations in machine learning,

    D. Kuhn, P. M. Esfahani, V . A. Nguyen, and S. Shafieezadeh-Abadeh, “Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization: Theory and appli- cations in machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08729 , vol. abs/1908.08729, Nov. 2024

    1908 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Distributionally robust unit commitment with flexible generation resources considering renewable energy uncertainty,

    S. Wang, C. Zhao, L. Fan, and R. Bo, “Distributionally robust unit commitment with flexible generation resources considering renewable energy uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 4179– 4190, Nov. 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Distributionally ro- bust chance-constrained approximate AC-OPF with wasserstein metric,

    C. Duan, W. Fang, L. Jiang, L. Yao, and J. Liu, “Distributionally ro- bust chance-constrained approximate AC-OPF with wasserstein metric,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 4924–4936, Sep. 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Deep generative model and its applications in efficient wireless network management: A tutorial and case study,

    Y . Liu, H. Du, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, D. I. Kim, and A. Jamalipour, “Deep generative model and its applications in efficient wireless network management: A tutorial and case study,” IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 199–207, Aug. 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Spectrum trading in cognitive radio networks: A contract-theoretic modeling approach,

    L. Gao, X. Wang, Y . Xu, and Q. Zhang, “Spectrum trading in cognitive radio networks: A contract-theoretic modeling approach,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 843–855, Apr. 2011

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.