Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

A Novel Indicator for Quantifying and Minimizing Information Utility Loss of Robot Teams

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces LoIU, a metric multiplying update delay by normalized squared estimation error, and claims minimizing its time average with a semi-decentralized scheduler improves team information freshness and utility by up to 98%.

desk verdict A plausible robot-team scheduling metric with a fixable but load-bearing derivation error: Eq. (34) squares the posterior mean, which is zero under the paper's own Gaussian belief, so the stated path to the reward in Eq. (40) is invalid. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14237 v1 pith:WEW7I4GV submitted 2025-06-17 cs.DC cs.RO

Xiyu Zhao , Qimei Cui , Wei Ni , Quan Z. Sheng , Abbas Jamalipour , Guoshun Nan , Xiaofeng Tao , Ping Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCcs.RO
keywords LossofInformationUtilityrobotteamsD2Dcommunicationagemulti-agentdeepreinforcementlearningtransmissionschedulingbeliefdistributionresourceallocation
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

Robot teams depend on fresh and accurate status updates—position, velocity, intent—but wireless bandwidth is limited, so some updates wait and collaborators estimate instead. The paper proposes a single number, the Loss of Information Utility (LoIU), defined per robot as the product of a time-urgency factor (delay divided by its deadline) and a content-accuracy factor (the average squared estimation error normalized by its allowed bound). It argues that minimizing the team's time-average LoIU is the right objective for choosing which device-to-device transmissions to make and which resource blocks to use, because LoIU captures both how old and how wrong shared information is. The paper then shows how each robot can estimate its expected LoIU from a belief distribution of estimation errors, and designs a semi-decentralized multi-agent reinforcement learning scheduler to minimize it. If the claim holds, robot teams can keep shared knowledge fresh and accurate under bandwidth constraints, with task-reliability gains of roughly 33–44% over age-only or error-only metrics and up to 98% better information freshness and utility.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LoIU functional $F_m(t)$ of Eq. (13): a deadline-normalized age factor multiplied by a threshold-normalized mean squared estimation error. Its companion is the belief-distribution estimator of Eq. (40), which turns the unobservable estimation error into a Gaussian with variance $\tau_{n,m}^t \sigma_n^2$ whenever an update is missed, making the expected LoIU computable from local observations. The third mechanism is the semi-decentralized MADDPG architecture: each robot runs an actor network for discrete collaborator and resource-block selection (made differentiable by Gumbel-Softmax), while a central critic at the base station trains on intermittently uploaded experiences and sends action gradients back to the actors, avoiding per-slot upload of full observations.

What would settle it

Run the scheduler on a team whose statuses follow a different model—constant velocity with occasional sudden turns, or packet losses that leave residual error after a 'successful' reception—and compare the predicted expected LoIU from Eq. (40) with measured squared errors over many slots; a systematic mismatch that persists after retraining would show the central claim does not survive outside the Wiener-perfect-reception setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that one multiplicative indicator can rank the value of status updates for robot cooperation more usefully than age-only or error-only metrics. For robot $m$ at slot $t$, LoIU is $F_m(t) = (d_m^t / D_m^t) \cdot (1/|C_m|) \sum_{n \in C_m} (e_{n,m}^t / E_{n,m})^2$, where $d_m^t$ is the delay of the update, $D_m^t$ its deadline, $e_{n,m}^t$ the estimation error of collaborator $n$'s status at robot $m$, and $E_{n,m}$ the maximum allowed error. Because robot statuses are modeled as independent Wiener processes, the expected value of this metric has a closed form: each unreceived update contributes $\tau_{n,m}^t \sigma_n^2 / E_{n,m}^2$, where $\tau_{n,m}^t$ is the number of slots since the last successful reception and $\sigma_n^2$ is the per-slot variance of the status process. The paper claims that using this expected LoIU as the reward in a semi-decentralized MADDPG scheduler—actors on robots choose collaborators and resource blocks, a central critic periodically refines them—reduces time-average LoIU and raises task reliability compared with AoI, AoII, UoI, AoCI, and single-agent reinforcement-learning baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes a robot's status changes like a random walk with known, fixed step variance, and that a successfully received update is perfectly accurate; if statuses jump or updates arrive corrupted, the predicted information loss no longer matches reality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot using LoIU will prioritize a collaborator whose status is both old and likely to be far off, rather than one that is merely old, so limited bandwidth goes to updates that most affect decision quality.
  • Expected LoIU is computable from local reception history and known status variance, so the same reward can be evaluated without waiting for ground-truth statuses, enabling decentralized execution.
  • The semi-decentralized design cuts per-slot upload and download traffic compared with centralized MADDPG, keeping the scheduler feasible when the air interface is congested.
  • Task reliability, defined as receiving or estimating collaborator status within both latency and error bounds, improves under LoIU relative to AoI-, AoII-, UoI-, and AoCI-based schedulers in the simulated AGV scenarios.
  • The closed form gives a direct, auditable relationship between missing an update and expected loss, so scheduling decisions can be explained rather than treated as a black box.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The LoIU definition itself does not depend on the Wiener assumption; replacing the Gaussian belief with jump-diffusion or learned predictive distributions and re-deriving the expected loss is a natural extension to robots with sudden maneuvers or discrete state changes.
  • Because LoIU separates into per-collaborator error terms multiplied by a common delay factor, it can scale to larger swarms by computing each link's contribution incrementally and aggregating locally.
  • The same indicator could serve as a reward-shaping term for other multi-agent coordination settings—aerial coverage, connected driving, remote surgery—whenever one agent's decision depends on estimates of other agents' states.
  • A direct calibration test would compare the predicted expected LoIU from Eq. (40) with realized squared errors in deployment; systematic underprediction after long gaps would signal that the constant-variance Wiener model needs per-robot adaptation.
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. The paper proposes a new metric, Loss of Information Utility (LoIU), which combines a normalized delay term and a squared normalized estimation error to quantify the freshness and accuracy of status information shared among collaborating robots. The authors formulate a scheduling and resource-allocation problem that minimizes time-average LoIU under latency constraints, reformulate it as a Dec-POMDP, and solve it with a semi-decentralized MADDPG algorithm in which each robot runs a local actor while a central critic is trained at the base station. The belief-based derivation of expected LoIU under a Wiener-process model leads to a closed-form reward, and simulations are used to compare the proposed scheme against DDPG, DQN, A2C, SAC, TDM, and threshold/random/all-allocated baselines, as well as against AoI, AoII, UoI, and AoCI as alternative metrics.

Significance. If the derivation and empirical claims are corrected, LoIU is a genuinely useful composite freshness-and-accuracy metric for robot-team cooperation, and the proposed semi-decentralized training framework addresses a real communication-overhead concern in multi-agent scheduling. The paper's strengths include an explicit system model, a closed-form expected-LoIU expression under a stated Wiener-process assumption, a clear problem formulation, a complexity analysis, and a broad set of comparisons against both prior metrics and prior RL baselines. The central theoretical derivation, however, currently contains a load-bearing error, and the convergence analysis is a sketch rather than a proof; these issues must be fixed before the results can be fully credited.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-B, Eqs. (32)-(40)] The derivation of the belief-based expected LoIU is invalid as written. Eq. (33) defines the average estimation error as the posterior mean e_bar = ∫ b(e) e de. Under the paper's own belief model, Eq. (38)-(39) give a zero-mean Gaussian when ξ=0 and a point mass at zero when ξ=1, so e_bar = 0 in every case. Consequently Eq. (34), which squares e_bar, is identically zero for every action and provides no learning signal. Eq. (40) instead uses E_b[|e|^2] = τ σ^2, which is the posterior second moment, not the square of the posterior mean. The correct expression can be obtained directly by taking the expectation of |e|^2 under the belief in Eq. (13); the chain through Eq. (34) must be rewritten, or the paper must clarify that Eq. (34) is not the expression used to define the reward. If Eq. (40) is what was implemented in the simulations, the stated theoretical support for that reward is currently missing.
  2. [IV-D, Eqs. (50)-(57)] The convergence proof does not establish convergence of the proposed semi-decentralized MADDPG. Definition 1 in Eq. (52) uses a strict inequality and describes a strict Nash equilibrium, not the Nash equilibrium needed for the subsequent argument. Because all agents share the same reward, Eq. (55) makes the potential function Φ in Eq. (54) coincide with the common reward, so the potential-game condition is satisfied trivially and only yields existence of an equilibrium in the finite stage game. The step from Eq. (56) to the almost-sure convergence statement in Eq. (57) assumes standard stochastic approximation conditions and Lipschitz/bounded-parameter conditions without verifying them for the specific intermittent-upload, semi-decentralized update scheme. The section should be reframed as a heuristic justification, or the missing conditions should be stated and verified.
  3. [V, Figs. 3-5 and Tables IV-VI] The empirical validation is underreported. No error bars, confidence intervals, or numbers of independent seeds are given, and the abstract's claim of up to 98% improvement is not tied to a specific figure or table in Section V. Section V-D quotes one value (0.00506667) but does not show the 98% computation. Please report per-seed statistics, state the number of runs, and point to the exact comparison underlying the headline quantitative claims, or soften the claims accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV-B, Eqs. (34) and (40)] The symbol F_m(t) is used for both the true LoIU and the belief-expected LoIU; please use separate notation such as E[F_m(t)] or a bar accent for the expected quantity.
  2. [IV-D, Eq. (52)] In Definition 1, the condition should be rm(a*_m, a*_−m) ≥ rm(a_m, a*_−m) for all a_m, not the strict inequality written in Eq. (52), to match the verbal definition of Nash equilibrium.
  3. [Table III] Table III lists 'penalty coefficient Rs 1', but the penalty coefficient in Eq. (24) is denoted ε; please align the notation and value.
  4. [III-B, Eq. (12)] The delay d_t_m is defined as the maximum over transmitted collaborators; if no collaborator is selected for transmission, d_t_m is undefined. Please state an assumption that at least one collaborator is selected or define d_t_m for the no-transmission case.
  5. [Table II] Two different metrics are both abbreviated AoCI: Age of Changed Information [31] and Age of Critical Information [32]. Please disambiguate these abbreviations in the table and text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LoIU definition, belief-based expectation, and MADDPG reward form a self-contained derivation chain, and the main performance claims are checked against an independently defined task-reliability benchmark.

full rationale

The proposed metric LoIU in Eq. (13) is constructed directly from the model's variables, namely the delay ratio d_t_m/D_t_m and the squared normalized estimation errors. The belief-based expectation leading to the reward in Eq. (41) follows from the Wiener-process assumption in Eq. (9) and the error recursion in Eq. (11); the final expression E[|e|^2] = tau * sigma^2 is the second moment of the Gaussian belief in Eq. (39). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The only self-referential element is that the proposed scheduler is evaluated on the LoIU objective it optimizes, but the paper's task-reliability comparisons use an external threshold-based definition (delivery within D_t_m and error within E_n_m), so the reported gains are not forced by construction. One non-circular correctness concern should be noted: Eq. (34) squares the posterior mean e_bar, which is zero under the paper's own Gaussian belief in Eq. (39), whereas Eq. (40) uses the second moment; the jump from Eq. (34) to Eq. (40) is therefore mathematically invalid as written. This is a derivation error rather than a circularity, and it does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central machinery rests on the Wiener process model for statuses (Eq. 9), known variance, exact reception on success, and user-defined thresholds. These are stated, but they are domain assumptions rather than derived facts. No external benchmarks or datasets are used to validate the metric beyond the paper's own simulator.

free parameters (4)
  • Maximum allowed estimation error E_{n,m} = Random uniform in [0.2σ_n^2, 15σ_n^2] in simulations
    Appears in the LoIU denominator and in the task reliability definition; it is a user-specified threshold, not estimated from data.
  • Maximum allowed delay D_m^t = Random uniform in [2, 100] ms
    Normalizes the time utility loss and acts as a deadline in constraint C1; it is a user-specified threshold.
  • Wiener variance σ_n^2 = Random uniform in [0.001, 10] per slot
    Assumed known by each robot; the belief distribution and expected squared error scale linearly with it.
  • Penalty coefficient ϵ = 1 (Table III, listed as Rs)
    Scales the penalty for violating constraint C1; a standard reinforcement learning hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All robot operational statuses are independent Wiener processes with per-slot Gaussian increments of variance σ_n^2.
    Invoked in Section III-B Eq. (9); enables the closed-form belief distribution in Eq. (39) and the expected LoIU in Eq. (40).
  • domain assumption A successfully received status is exactly the actual status, so estimation error is zero when ξ=1.
    Used in Eq. (35)-(36); ignores packet loss, quantization, and semantic distortion on the received payload.
  • domain assumption D2D transmission success is determined solely by the SINR threshold and RB allocation.
    Section III-C defines ρ based on SINR threshold; this simplified model omits other link-level errors.
  • domain assumption Statuses are measured at the beginning of every slot and decisions complete within a slot.
    Section III-B discretization; needed to define d_m^t and the time utility loss.
invented entities (1)
  • LoIU (Loss of Information Utility)
    purpose: Composite scalar quantifying freshness and content utility loss for a robot's collaborators; serves as optimization objective and comparison metric.
    It is a new constructed metric, validated only through the paper's simulations; no external dataset or physical measurement confirms its superiority.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Novel Indicator for Quantifying and Minimizing Information Utility Loss of Robot Teams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEW7I4GV

@misc{pith2026250614237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Novel Indicator for Quantifying and Minimizing Information Utility Loss of Robot Teams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEW7I4GV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14237}
}
read the original abstract

The timely exchange of information among robots within a team is vital, but it can be constrained by limited wireless capacity. The inability to deliver information promptly can result in estimation errors that impact collaborative efforts among robots. In this paper, we propose a new metric termed Loss of Information Utility (LoIU) to quantify the freshness and utility of information critical for cooperation. The metric enables robots to prioritize information transmissions within bandwidth constraints. We also propose the estimation of LoIU using belief distributions and accordingly optimize both transmission schedule and resource allocation strategy for device-to-device transmissions to minimize the time-average LoIU within a robot team. A semi-decentralized Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient framework is developed, where each robot functions as an actor responsible for scheduling transmissions among its collaborators while a central critic periodically evaluates and refines the actors in response to mobility and interference. Simulations validate the effectiveness of our approach, demonstrating an enhancement of information freshness and utility by 98%, compared to alternative methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14237 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The comparison of the proposed semi-decentralized MADDPG vs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The convergence performance of the semi-decentralized resource [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. The task reliability of the semi-decentralized scheduling scheme vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deep reinforcement learning based computation offloading and trajectory planning for multi-UA V cooperative target search,

    Q. Luo, T. H. Luan, W. Shi et al. , “Deep reinforcement learning based computation offloading and trajectory planning for multi-UA V cooperative target search,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 504–520, 2022. 14

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced indoor robot path planning: A radio map-based approach,

    X. Mu, Y . Liu, L. Guo et al. , “Intelligent reflecting surface enhanced indoor robot path planning: A radio map-based approach,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4732–4747, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Multi-agent multi-armed bandit learn- ing for online management of edge-assisted computing,

    B. Wu, T. Chen, W. Ni et al. , “Multi-agent multi-armed bandit learn- ing for online management of edge-assisted computing,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 8188–8199, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Trajectory planning of cellular-connected UA V for communication-assisted radar sensing,

    S. Hu, X. Yuan, W. Ni et al., “Trajectory planning of cellular-connected UA V for communication-assisted radar sensing,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 6385–6396, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Survey on cooperative perception in an automotive context,

    A. Caillot, S. Ouerghi, P. Vasseur et al. , “Survey on cooperative perception in an automotive context,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 14 204–14 223, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Online anticipatory proactive network association in mobile edge computing for IoT,

    Q. Cui, J. Zhang, X. Zhang et al., “Online anticipatory proactive network association in mobile edge computing for IoT,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 4519–4534, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A survey of driving safety with sensing, vehicular communications, and artificial intelligence-based collision avoidance,

    Y . Fu, C. Li, F. R. Yu et al., “A survey of driving safety with sensing, vehicular communications, and artificial intelligence-based collision avoidance,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 6142– 6163, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Wireless networked multirobot systems in smart factories,

    K. Chen, S. Lin, J. Hsiao et al., “Wireless networked multirobot systems in smart factories,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 468–494, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Sum-rate maximization for multi- reconfigurable intelligent surface-assisted device-to-device communica- tions,

    Y . Cao, T. Lv, W. Ni et al. , “Sum-rate maximization for multi- reconfigurable intelligent surface-assisted device-to-device communica- tions,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 7283–7296, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Edge robotics: Edge-computing- accelerated multi-robot simultaneous localization and mapping,

    P. Huang, L. Zeng, X. Chen et al. , “Edge robotics: Edge-computing- accelerated multi-robot simultaneous localization and mapping,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 9, no. 15, pp. 14 087–14 102, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Age of information: An introduction and survey,

    R. D. Yates, Y . Sun, D. R. Brown et al. , “Age of information: An introduction and survey,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1183–1210, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Distributed and communication-aware coali- tion formation and task assignment in multi-robot systems,

    P. Mazdin and B. Rinner, “Distributed and communication-aware coali- tion formation and task assignment in multi-robot systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 35 088–35 100, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Ultra-reliable and low-latency communi- cations in 5G downlink: Physical layer aspects,

    H. Ji, S. Park, J. Yeo et al. , “Ultra-reliable and low-latency communi- cations in 5G downlink: Physical layer aspects,” IEEE Wirel. Commun., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 124–130, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Introduction to time-sensitive networking,

    N. Finn, “Introduction to time-sensitive networking,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 22–28, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Federated multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for resource allocation of vehicle-to-vehicle communications,

    X. Li, L. Lu, W. Ni et al. , “Federated multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for resource allocation of vehicle-to-vehicle communications,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 8810–8824, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Cooperative UA V trajectory design for disaster area emergency communications: A multiagent PPO method,

    Y . Guan, S. Zou, H. Peng et al., “Cooperative UA V trajectory design for disaster area emergency communications: A multiagent PPO method,” IEEE IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 8848–8859, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Privacy-preserving multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for effective resource auction in multi-access edge computing,

    F. You, X. Yuan, W. Ni et al. , “Privacy-preserving multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for effective resource auction in multi-access edge computing,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Optimal control-aware transmission for mission-critical M2M communications under bandwidth cost con- straints,

    Y . Wu, Q. Yang, H. Li et al. , “Optimal control-aware transmission for mission-critical M2M communications under bandwidth cost con- straints,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. , vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 5924–5937, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Control-aware uplink resource allocation for cyber-physical systems in wireless networks,

    M. Vilgelm, O. Ayan, S. Zoppi et al. , “Control-aware uplink resource allocation for cyber-physical systems in wireless networks,” in Proc. 23th Eur. Wireless Conf, 2017, pp. 1–7

    2017

  12. [20]

    Control performance aware cooperative transmission in multiloop wireless control systems for industrial IoT applications,

    L. Lyu, C. Chen, S. Zhu et al., “Control performance aware cooperative transmission in multiloop wireless control systems for industrial IoT applications,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 3954–3966, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Modulation-free M2M communications for mission-critical applications,

    S. Cai and V . K. Lau, “Modulation-free M2M communications for mission-critical applications,” IEEE Trans. Signal Inf. Process. Netw. , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 248–263, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Access control and resource allocation for M2M communications in industrial automation,

    Z. Zhou, Y . Guo, Y . He et al., “Access control and resource allocation for M2M communications in industrial automation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 3093–3103, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    A hybrid computing solution and re- source scheduling strategy for edge computing in smart manufacturing,

    X. Li, J. Wan, H.-N. Dai et al. , “A hybrid computing solution and re- source scheduling strategy for edge computing in smart manufacturing,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. , vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4225–4234, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Augmented deep reinforcement learning for online energy minimization of wireless powered mobile edge com- puting,

    X. Chen, W. Dai, W. Ni et al., “Augmented deep reinforcement learning for online energy minimization of wireless powered mobile edge com- puting,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 2698–2710, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Delay minimization for NOMA-enabled mobile edge computing in industrial Internet of Things,

    W. Noh, S. Cho, and S. Cho, “Delay minimization for NOMA-enabled mobile edge computing in industrial Internet of Things,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 7321–7331, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning- based interdependent computing for mobile edge computing-assisted robot teams,

    Q. Cui, X. Zhao, W. Ni et al., “Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning- based interdependent computing for mobile edge computing-assisted robot teams,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 6599–6610, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Real-time status: How often should one update?

    S. Kaul, R. Yates, and M. Gruteser, “Real-time status: How often should one update?” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM , 2012, pp. 2731–2735

    2012

  20. [28]

    Two freshness metrics for local cache refresh,

    J. Zhong, R. D. Yates, and E. Soljanin, “Two freshness metrics for local cache refresh,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT) , 2018, pp. 1924–1928

    2018

  21. [29]

    The age of incorrect information: A new performance metric for status updates,

    A. Maatouk, S. Kriouile, M. Assaad et al. , “The age of incorrect information: A new performance metric for status updates,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2215–2228, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Urgency of information for context- aware timely status updates in remote control systems,

    X. Zheng, S. Zhou, and Z. Niu, “Urgency of information for context- aware timely status updates in remote control systems,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 7237–7250, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Age of changed information: Content- aware status updating in the internet of things,

    X. Wang, W. Lin, C. Xu et al., “Age of changed information: Content- aware status updating in the internet of things,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 578–591, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Minimizing the age-of-critical- information: an imitation learning-based scheduling approach under partial observations,

    X. Wang, Z. Ning, S. Guo et al. , “Minimizing the age-of-critical- information: an imitation learning-based scheduling approach under partial observations,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. , vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 3225–3238, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Scheduling status update for optimizing age of information in the context of industrial cyber-physical system,

    D. Sinha and R. Roy, “Scheduling status update for optimizing age of information in the context of industrial cyber-physical system,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 95 677–95 695, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Learning-based autonomous scheduling for AoI-aware industrial wireless networks,

    M. Li, C. Chen, C. Hua et al., “Learning-based autonomous scheduling for AoI-aware industrial wireless networks,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 9175–9188, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Age of information aware channel allocation for wireless industrial networks,

    B. Liu, C. Hua, and P. Gu, “Age of information aware channel allocation for wireless industrial networks,” in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Wireless Commun. Signal Process. (WCSP) , 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  28. [36]

    Age of information in energy harvesting aided massive multiple access networks,

    Z. Fang, J. Wang, Y . Ren et al., “Age of information in energy harvesting aided massive multiple access networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1441–1456, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    On the age of information in multi-source multi-hop wireless status update networks,

    S. Farazi, A. G. Klein, J. A. McNeill et al., “On the age of information in multi-source multi-hop wireless status update networks,” in Proc. IEEE 19th Int. Workshop on Signal Process. Adv. Wireless Commun. (SPAWC). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–5

    2018

  30. [38]

    Age of information in multi- hop networks with priorities,

    O. Vikhrova, F. Chiariotti, B. Soret et al., “Age of information in multi- hop networks with priorities,” in IEEE Global Commun. Conf. IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  31. [39]

    Sampling of the Wiener process for remote estimation over a channel with random delay,

    Y . Sun, Y . Polyanskiy, and E. Uysal, “Sampling of the Wiener process for remote estimation over a channel with random delay,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 1118–1135, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Sampling and remote estimation for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process through queues: Age of information and beyond,

    T. Z. Ornee and Y . Sun, “Sampling and remote estimation for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process through queues: Age of information and beyond,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1962–1975, 2021

    1962

  33. [41]

    The age of incorrect in- formation: An enabler of semantics-empowered communication,

    A. Maatouk, M. Assaad, and A. Ephremides, “The age of incorrect in- formation: An enabler of semantics-empowered communication,” IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2621–2635, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Stochastic robust team tracking control of multi-UA V networked system under Wiener and Poisson random fluctuations,

    B.-S. Chen, C.-P. Wang, and M.-Y . Lee, “Stochastic robust team tracking control of multi-UA V networked system under Wiener and Poisson random fluctuations,” IEEE Trans. Cybern. , vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 5786– 5799, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    On the design of sidelink for cellular V2X: A literature review and outlook for future,

    A. Bazzi, A. O. Berthet, C. Campolo et al., “On the design of sidelink for cellular V2X: A literature review and outlook for future,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 97 953–97 980, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Towards 6G V2X sidelink: Survey of resource allocation-mathematical formulations, challenges, and proposed solu- tions,

    P. Rajalakshmi et al. , “Towards 6G V2X sidelink: Survey of resource allocation-mathematical formulations, challenges, and proposed solu- tions,” IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology , 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    R. M. Karp, Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems . Springer, 2010

    2010

  38. [46]

    The complexity of approximating a nonlinear program,

    M. Bellare and P. Rogaway, “The complexity of approximating a nonlinear program,” Math. Program., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 429–441, 1995

    1995

  39. [47]

    Chen, Artificial Intelligence in Wireless Robotics

    K. Chen, Artificial Intelligence in Wireless Robotics . River, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Thrun, W

    S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox, Probabilistic robotics. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2005

    2005

  41. [49]

    Categorical reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmax,

    E. Jang, S. Gu, and B. Poole, “Categorical reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmax,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Representations (ICLR) , 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Balancing performance and cost for two-hop cooperative communications: Stackelberg game and distributed multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    Y . Geng, E. Liu, W. Ni et al. , “Balancing performance and cost for two-hop cooperative communications: Stackelberg game and distributed multi-agent reinforcement learning,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., 2024, to appear

    2024

  43. [51]

    A stochastic approximation method,

    H. Robbins and S. Monro, “A stochastic approximation method,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics , vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 400–407, 1951

    1951

  44. [52]

    Actor-critic algorithms,

    V . R. Konda and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Actor-critic algorithms,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 12, 2000, pp. 1008–1014

    2000

  45. [53]

    Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning based spectrum allocation for D2D underlay communications,

    Z. Li and C. Guo, “Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning based spectrum allocation for D2D underlay communications,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 1828–1840, 2019. 15

    2019

  46. [54]

    EMM: Energy-aware mobility management for mobile edge computing in ultra dense networks,

    Y . Sun, S. Zhou, and J. Xu, “EMM: Energy-aware mobility management for mobile edge computing in ultra dense networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 2637–2646, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Multiagent DDPG-based deep learning for smart ocean federated learning IoT networks,

    D. Kwon, J. Jeon, S. Park et al., “Multiagent DDPG-based deep learning for smart ocean federated learning IoT networks,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 9895–9903, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning,

    V . Mnih, “Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.01783 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,

    T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel et al. , “Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” in Proc. ICML, 2018, pp. 1861–1870

    2018

  50. [58]

    Vaezi, Z

    M. Vaezi, Z. Ding, and H. V . Poor, Multiple Access Techniques for 5G Wireless Networks and Beyond . Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.