pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.15384 · v4 · submitted 2025-10-17 · 💻 cs.GT

Co-Investment in Mobile Edge Computing with Infrastructure Update and Dynamic Participation

Amal Sakr , Andrea Araldo , Tijani Chahed , Daniel Kofman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.GT
keywords mobile edge computingco-investmentcoalitional gamedynamic participationresource updatecompensation schemenetwork operatorservice provider
0
0 comments X

The pith

Co-investment with resource updates and dynamic participation raises total payoffs and strengthens the network operator's incentive to build mobile edge computing infrastructure.

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

Network operators must pay for mobile edge computing equipment while service providers keep most of the revenue from low-latency apps. This paper models a joint investment arrangement in which one operator and several providers plan, build, and share the infrastructure together across repeated decision periods. The arrangement is cast as a coalitional game that decides how much capacity to add, how to divide it, and how to split the resulting costs and revenues. To cope with changing demand and players that may join or leave, the game includes an update rule for resources and a compensation payment that keeps the group stable. Readers would care because the model suggests a practical way to overcome the current cost-revenue mismatch that now discourages operators from deploying the needed equipment.

Core claim

The paper shows that a coalitional game capturing resource planning, allocation, and cost-revenue sharing, augmented by a mechanism that updates resources and permits dynamic player entry and exit over multiple epochs, sustains cooperation through compensation and produces higher total payoffs while strengthening the network operator's incentive to invest.

What carries the argument

Coalitional game that plans resources, allocates them among players, shares costs and revenues, and incorporates updates plus compensation to maintain cooperation under changing demand and participation.

If this is right

  • Total payoff for the group increases when resource updates are combined with dynamic participation.
  • The network operator's incentive to invest in infrastructure strengthens.
  • Cooperation persists across multiple decision epochs even as user demand fluctuates.
  • Resource allocation and sharing improve through the game's planning rules.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same update-and-compensation logic could apply to sharing other variable-demand infrastructures such as small-cell networks.
  • If the compensation rule works in simulation, real operators might launch MEC sites in markets with high user churn without waiting for subsidies.
  • Extending the model to include uncertainty in future demand forecasts would test how robust the incentive gains remain.

Load-bearing premise

A compensation scheme can sustain cooperation among players despite fluctuating user demand and evolving participation incentives over multiple decision epochs.

What would settle it

Numerical trials in which removing the compensation causes players to defect when demand varies, producing measurably lower total payoff and weaker operator investment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15384 by Amal Sakr, Andrea Araldo, Daniel Kofman, Tijani Chahed.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Infrastructure capacity evolution across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Per-player payoff 𝑥 S𝑘 𝑖,𝑘 across intervals, for the case of moderate opportunity cost and for one simulation run 4.3.3 Player Participation and Transfer Rules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Participation evolution across intervals, for the case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Player presence probabilities across inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per-player payoff 𝑥 S𝑘 𝑖,𝑘 across intervals, for the case of high opportunity cost and for a single simulation run 10 0 10 1 InP SP1 10 0 10 1 SP2 SP3 1 2 3 4 5 10 0 10 1 SP4 1 2 3 4 5 SP5 Player Payoff (k$) Decision Interval Static Update Dynamic Opp.cost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Per-player payoff 𝑥 S𝑘 𝑖,𝑘 across intervals, for the case of very high opportunity cost and for a single simulation run , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Mobile Edge Computing (MEC) requires Network Operators (NOs) to undertake substantial infrastructure investments, while most revenues are captured by Service Providers (SPs) offering end-user applications. This cost-revenue imbalance discourages NOs from investing in MEC deployment, despite increasing demand for low-latency and bandwidth-intensive services. This paper proposes a co-investment scheme in which players, i.e., one NO and multiple SPs, jointly deploy, maintain, and share MEC infrastructure over multiple decision epochs. We devise a new coalitional game model that captures the planning of resources, their allocation among players, and cost and revenue sharing. To address fluctuating user demand and evolving participation incentives, we design a mechanism that updates resources and allows the dynamic entrance and exit of players over time. We sustain cooperation through a compensation scheme. Numerical results show that combining resource updates with dynamic participation increases the total payoff and strengthens the NO's incentive to invest.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a co-investment scheme for Mobile Edge Computing in which one Network Operator and multiple Service Providers jointly deploy and share MEC infrastructure over multiple decision epochs. It introduces a new coalitional game that incorporates resource planning, allocation, cost/revenue sharing, and a compensation scheme to sustain cooperation. A mechanism is designed to update resources and permit dynamic player entry/exit in response to fluctuating demand. Numerical results are claimed to show that the combination of resource updates and dynamic participation increases total payoff and strengthens the NO's incentive to invest.

Significance. If the compensation scheme can be shown to maintain stability across epochs, the framework would address a practical cost-revenue imbalance in MEC deployments and provide a mechanism for encouraging NO infrastructure investment. The explicit treatment of dynamic participation and resource updates is a constructive contribution to coalitional models in network economics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Mechanism for dynamic participation and compensation scheme] The central claim that the compensation scheme sustains cooperation under dynamic participation rests on the assertion that individual rationality and no-profitable-deviation conditions continue to hold when the grand-coalition value changes across epochs. No explicit recursive stability condition (e.g., subgame-perfect core membership or recursive individual-rationality constraint) is stated for the recalculated compensation rule when demand realizations produce negative marginal contributions for some SP. This is load-bearing for the multi-epoch numerical results.
  2. [Numerical results] Numerical results section: the reported increases in total payoff and NO investment incentive are presented without visible baseline comparisons, error bars, or sensitivity analysis over the cost/revenue sharing parameters. Because the central claim is supported solely by these simulations, the absence of these controls makes it impossible to judge whether the gains are robust or arise from particular parameter choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model formulation] Notation for the time-varying player set and the per-epoch value function should be introduced earlier and used consistently to improve readability of the dynamic game formulation.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a one-sentence statement of the precise stability notion used for the compensation scheme.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will incorporate to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Mechanism for dynamic participation and compensation scheme] The central claim that the compensation scheme sustains cooperation under dynamic participation rests on the assertion that individual rationality and no-profitable-deviation conditions continue to hold when the grand-coalition value changes across epochs. No explicit recursive stability condition (e.g., subgame-perfect core membership or recursive individual-rationality constraint) is stated for the recalculated compensation rule when demand realizations produce negative marginal contributions for some SP. This is load-bearing for the multi-epoch numerical results.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from an explicit recursive stability condition. The current compensation scheme recalculates payments at each epoch to restore individual rationality and core membership based on the updated grand-coalition value. However, we acknowledge that a formal recursive definition is not stated. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that defines recursive core membership for the dynamic setting and includes a proposition establishing that the compensation rule preserves stability across epochs even when some marginal contributions are negative. This will be illustrated with a short proof sketch and tied directly to the numerical experiments. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical results] Numerical results section: the reported increases in total payoff and NO investment incentive are presented without visible baseline comparisons, error bars, or sensitivity analysis over the cost/revenue sharing parameters. Because the central claim is supported solely by these simulations, the absence of these controls makes it impossible to judge whether the gains are robust or arise from particular parameter choices.

    Authors: We accept that the numerical section requires additional controls to demonstrate robustness. The existing experiments compare the proposed mechanism against a static no-update baseline, but we will expand the revised version to include (i) explicit comparisons with fixed-participation and no-resource-update scenarios, (ii) error bars obtained from 100 independent Monte-Carlo runs, and (iii) sensitivity plots varying the cost-sharing ratio over [0.2, 0.8] and revenue-sharing parameters. These additions will confirm that the reported gains in total payoff and NO investment incentive are not artifacts of specific parameter choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: new coalitional game formulation and numerical results are self-contained

full rationale

The paper presents a novel coalitional game capturing resource planning, allocation, cost/revenue sharing, and a compensation mechanism for dynamic participation across epochs. Numerical results are reported to show payoff gains from resource updates plus entry/exit, without any indication that these outcomes are obtained by fitting parameters to the target quantities or by renaming prior results. The derivation chain relies on the introduced model and mechanism rather than reducing to self-definitional inputs, fitted predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The central claims therefore remain independent of the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Based on abstract only: standard rational-player assumptions from game theory plus likely cost/revenue parameters and a new compensation mechanism whose independent validation is absent.

free parameters (1)
  • cost and revenue sharing parameters
    Model requires values for infrastructure costs, revenues, and demand fluctuations that are typically calibrated to data or chosen to illustrate results.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Players are rational payoff maximizers who form and maintain coalitions when beneficial.
    Invoked by the coalitional game model to sustain cooperation via compensation.
invented entities (1)
  • compensation scheme no independent evidence
    purpose: To sustain cooperation under dynamic participation and demand changes
    Introduced in the abstract as the mechanism that keeps players cooperating over time; no external falsifiable test provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5698 in / 1256 out tokens · 41759 ms · 2026-05-18T06:32:39.925242+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. The repository will be provided upon acceptance (for anonymity reasons)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Amazon Web Services. 2024. AWS Lambda Pricing. https://aws.amazon.com/fr/lambda/pricing/. Accessed: 2024-07-18

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Mark Armstrong. 2001. The Theory of Access Pricing and Interconnection.MPRA Paper, University Library of Munich, Germany1 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Tone Arnold and Ulrich Schwalbe. 2002. Dynamic coalition formation and the core.Journal of economic behavior & organization49, 3 (2002), 363–380

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Yoram Bachrach, Edith Elkind, Reshef Meir, Dmitrii Pasechnik, Michael Zuckerman, Jörg Rothe, and Jeffrey S Rosen- schein. 2009. The cost of stability in coalitional games. InInternational Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory. Springer, 122–134

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Brendan Badia, Randall A Berry, and Ermin Wei. 2019. Investment in EV charging spots for parking.IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering7, 2 (2019), 650–661

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Dario Bauso and Judith Timmer. 2009. Robust dynamic cooperative games.International Journal of Game Theory38, 1 (2009), 23–36

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    EF Beckenbach. 1948. Convex functions.Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.54, 5 (1948), 439–460

    work page 1948

  9. [9]

    Elisa Jayne Bienenstock and Phillip Bonacich. 1992. The core as a solution to exclusionary networks.Social Networks 14, 3-4 (1992), 231–243

    work page 1992

  10. [10]

    Francis Bloch. 1996. Sequential formation of coalitions in games with externalities and fixed payoff division.Games and economic behavior14, 1 (1996), 90–123

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    Bloomberg News. 2024. Meta and Deutsche Telekom’s Fight Over Data Costs Is Only Going to Get Worse. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-10-01/meta-and-deutsche-telekom-s-fight-over-data- cost-is-only-going-to-get-worse. Accessed: 18 July 2025

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Boston Consulting Group. 2021. What It Takes to Win the Edge Computing Battle. https://www.bcg.com/publications/ 2021/what-it-takes-to-win-the-edge-computing-battle. Accessed: 18 July 2025. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025. Co-Investment with Dynamic Participation under Unforeseeable Opportunity Costs: A Coalitional Game Approach 17

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    2020.Implementing co-investment and network sharing

    Marc Bourreau, Steffen Hoernig, and Winston Maxwell. 2020.Implementing co-investment and network sharing. Centre on Regulation in Europe asbl (CERRE)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    2004.Convex optimization

    Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. 2004.Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, Cambridge

    work page 2004

  15. [15]

    Martin Bullinger and René Romen. 2025. Stability in online coalition formation.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research82 (2025), 2423–2452

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Business Research Insights. 2024. Edge Computing Market Size, Share and Growth Report (2024–2031). https: //www.businessresearchinsights.com/market-reports/edge-computing-market-124881. Accessed: 18 July 2025

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Lorela Cano, Antonio Capone, Giuliana Carello, Matteo Cesana, and Mauro Passacantando. 2017. On optimal in- frastructure sharing strategies in mobile radio networks.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications16, 5 (2017), 3003–3016

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Claudia-Melania Chituc and Shimon Y Nof. 2007. The Join/Leave/Remain (JLR) decision in collaborative networked organizations.Computers & Industrial Engineering53, 1 (2007), 173–195

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    Fortune Business Insights. 2024. Edge Computing Market Size, Share, Growth (2024–2032). https://www. fortunebusinessinsights.com/edge-computing-market-103760. Accessed: 18 July 2025

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Jerry A Hausman. 2003. Regulated costs and prices in telecommunications. InEmerging Telecommunications Networks. Edward Elgar Publishing

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    Mingjia He, Andrea Censi, Emilio Frazzoli, and Gioele Zardini. 2024. Co-investment with Payoff Sharing Benefit Operators and Users in Network Design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19409(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Siew-Lee Hew and Langford B White. 2008. Cooperative resource allocation games in shared networks: Symmetric and asymmetric fair bargaining models.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications7, 11 (2008), 4166–4175

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    Iordanis Koutsopoulos, Angeliki Anastopoulou, and Merkourios Karaliopoulos. 2019. Economics of investment and use of shared network infrastructures. InIEEE INFOCOM 2019-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS). IEEE, 20–25

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Ehud Lehrer and Marco Scarsini. 2013. On the core of dynamic cooperative games.Dynamic Games and Applications3, 3 (2013), 359–373

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Djamal-Eddine Meddour, Tinku Rasheed, and Yvon Gourhant. 2011. On the role of infrastructure sharing for mobile network operators in emerging markets.Computer networks55, 7 (2011), 1576–1591

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    Microsoft Azure. [n. d.]. Pricing - Azure Stack Edge. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/azure-stack/ edge/. Accessed: 2025-01-09

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Angelia Nedić and Dario Bauso. 2012. Dynamic coalitional TU games: Distributed bargaining among players’ neighbors. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control58, 6 (2012), 1363–1376

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Rosario Patanè, Andrea Araldo, Tijani Chahed, Diego Kiedanski, and Daniel Kofman. 2023. Coalitional Game-Theoretical Approach to Coinvestment with Application to Edge Computing. In2023 IEEE 20th Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 517–522

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Ana Peleteiro, Juan C Burguillo, Josep Ll Arcos, and Juan A Rodriguez-Aguilar. 2014. Fostering cooperation through dynamic coalition formation and partner switching.ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS)9, 1 (2014), 1–31

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Robert S Pindyck. 1993. A note on competitive investment under uncertainty.The American Economic Review83, 1 (1993), 273–277

    work page 1993

  31. [31]

    2014.Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming

    Martin L Puterman. 2014.Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Aitazaz Ali Raja and Sergio Grammatico. 2021. Payoff distribution in robust coalitional games on time-varying networks.IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems9, 1 (2021), 511–520

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    1974.Convex Functions: Convex Functions

    A Wayne Roberts and Dale E Varberg. 1974.Convex Functions: Convex Functions. Vol. 57. Academic Press, New York

    work page 1974

  34. [34]

    Walid Saad, Zhu Han, Mérouane Debbah, Are Hjorungnes, and Tamer Basar. 2009. Coalitional game theory for communication networks.Ieee signal processing magazine26, 5 (2009), 77–97

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Amal Sakr, Andrea Araldo, Tijani Chahed, Rosario Patanè, and Daniel Kofman. 2025. Co-investment Under Uncertainty: Coalitional Game Formulation and Application to Edge Computing. InIEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Alejandro Santoyo-González and Cristina Cervelló-Pastor. 2018. Edge nodes infrastructure placement parameters for 5G networks. In2018 IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN). IEEE, 1–6

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Mahadev Satyanarayanan. 2017. The emergence of edge computing.Computer50, 1 (2017), 30–39

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    David Schmeidler. 1969. The nucleolus of a characteristic function game.SIAM Journal on applied mathematics17, 6 (1969), 1163–1170

    work page 1969

  39. [39]

    Lloyd S Shapley. 1971. Cores of convex games.International journal of game theory1 (1971), 11–26

    work page 1971

  40. [40]

    Hongzhi Shi and Yong Li. 2018. Discovering periodic patterns for large scale mobile traffic data: Method and applications. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing17, 10 (2018), 2266–2278. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025. 18 Sakr et al

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Gerard Van der Laan and René Van den Brink. 2002. A Banzhaf Share Function for Cooperative Games in Coalition Structure.Theory and Decision53 (2002), 61–86

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    Alba P Vela, Anna Vía, Fernando Morales, Marc Ruiz, and Luis Velasco. 2016. Traffic generation for telecom cloud-based simulation. In2016 18th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON). IEEE, 1–4

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Rui Wu, Guoming Tang, Tao Chen, Deke Guo, Lailong Luo, and Wenjie Kang. 2021. A profit-aware coalition game for cooperative content caching at the network edge.IEEE Internet of Things Journal9, 2 (2021), 1361–1373

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Fanglin Ye, Nicholas Paulson, and Madhu Khanna. 2024. Strategic innovation and technology adoption under techno- logical uncertainty.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control165 (2024), 104879

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Faheem Zafari, Kin K Leung, Don Towsley, Prithwish Basu, and Ananthram Swami. 2019. A game-theoretic framework for resource sharing in clouds. In2019 12th IFIP Wireless and Mobile Networking Conference (WMNC). IEEE, 8–15

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Faheem Zafari, Jian Li, Kin K Leung, Don Towsley, and Ananthram Swami. 2018. A game-theoretic approach to multi-objective resource sharing and allocation in mobile edge. InProceedings of the 2018 on Technologies for the Wireless Edge Workshop. 9–13

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Wei Zhao, Wen Qiu, Chuanhua Zhou, Zhi Liu, and Takahiro Hara. 2018. Edge-node assisted live video streaming: A coalition formation game approach. In2018 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). IEEE, 1–6. A Proof of Proposition 4.1 Let 𝐶𝑘 ∈R + be the variable of interest, and let 𝐶𝑘−1 ∈R + be a fixed reference point. Define the function: 𝑓(𝐶 𝑘 )=Cost(𝐶 𝑘, 𝐶𝑘−...

    work page 2018