The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2606.24340 · v1 · pith:NGJVJCOE · submitted 2026-06-23 · cs.LG

Managing Task Execution for Unknown Workloads in Batteryless IoT: A Hardware-Agnostic Evaluation

Samer Nasser , Henrique Duarte Moura , Ritesh Kumar Singh , Maarten Weyn , Jeroen Famaey This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-06-26 00:30 UTCgrok-4.3pith:NGJVJCOEopen to challenge →

classification cs.LG
keywords batteryless IoTenergy harvestingtask schedulingreinforcement learningapproximated predictionhardware-agnosticblack-box workloadsLoRa transmission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hardware-agnostic dynamic schedulers let batteryless IoT devices execute unknown workloads without prior energy profiles.

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

The paper evaluates two new methods for scheduling tasks in batteryless IoT devices that harvest energy from the environment, where workloads are unpredictable and no prior energy data is available. It introduces a reinforcement learning agent and an approximated prediction approach that treat applications as black boxes. These are compared to existing methods like AsTAR and static thresholds using simulations based on real solar data. The analysis shows distinct strengths: the prediction method achieves high throughput with low overhead, the RL agent allows tuning between survival and execution, and AsTAR handles long gaps well. It also finds that simpler static policies suffice when devices have larger energy storage.

Core claim

By treating workloads as black boxes with no prior energy information, the approximated prediction method delivers lightweight near-oracle task throughput, the reinforcement learning agent provides tunable survival-execution balancing, and AsTAR excels at execution pacing across long energy gaps, while static policies are efficient for devices with larger energy buffers.

What carries the argument

Model-free reinforcement learning agent and on-the-fly approximated prediction method for dynamic scheduling without hardware-specific profiles or workload energy data.

If this is right

  • The AP approach achieves near-oracle task throughput with low computational cost.
  • The RL agent allows balancing between device survival and task execution via tunable parameters.
  • AsTAR provides effective execution pacing during extended periods of low energy availability.
  • Advanced dynamic strategies become necessary only for systems with small capacitors, while larger energy buffers can rely on static policies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The black-box treatment of workloads could apply to other energy-harvesting systems that lack pre-measured task profiles.
  • A hybrid scheduler combining AP for throughput with RL for survival tuning might reduce the need to choose one method exclusively.
  • If the simulation matches real hardware, the results imply that static policies can be deployed immediately on devices with larger buffers to save computation.

Load-bearing premise

The custom simulation framework driven by real-world solar data accurately captures the dynamics of real batteryless IoT hardware when workloads are treated as black boxes.

What would settle it

Direct experiments on physical batteryless IoT hardware under real solar conditions that compare actual task throughput and survival rates against the simulation results for the AP and RL schedulers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24340 by Henrique Duarte Moura, Jeroen Famaey, Maarten Weyn, Ritesh Kumar Singh, Samer Nasser.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: General system overview of a batteryless ambient IoT system. Harvested solar energy gets transformed to electrical energy through a solar panel, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Equivalent circuit of a batteryless IoT device with harvester current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An overview of the possible evolutions of the system’s state transitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the solar harvesting validation data used in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean daily successful executions by approach for capacitor sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Median time between off-states by approach for capacitor sizes 0.5-10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean time between successful executions by approach for capacitor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Median of the daily maximum time between executions by approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In recent years, the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm has been shifting toward batteryless, energy-harvesting architectures. Sustaining reliable operation in these systems requires intelligent management of highly volatile stored energy. As edge applications grow in complexity, traditional energy-aware schedulers struggle with unpredictable workloads due to their reliance on static execution thresholds or pre-measured, hardware-specific task profiles. To overcome this, we propose two novel, hardware-agnostic dynamic scheduling strategies treating applications as a "black box," requiring no prior energy information: a model-free Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent and an on-the-fly Approximated Prediction (AP) method. We evaluate these methods against an adaptive task rate approach (AsTAR) and optimized static thresholds using a custom-built, physically accurate simulation framework driven by real-world solar data and dynamic LoRa transmission profiles. Rather than claiming universal superiority, our analysis exposes the distinct operational trade-offs of each method: the AP approach delivers lightweight, near-oracle task throughput; the RL agent provides tunable survival-execution balancing; and AsTAR excels at execution pacing across long energy gaps. Finally, we demonstrate that while these advanced strategies provide critical resilience for severely constrained systems with small capacitors, devices with larger energy buffers can efficiently rely on simpler, less computationally expensive static policies.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two hardware-agnostic dynamic scheduling strategies for batteryless IoT with unknown (black-box) workloads: a model-free RL agent and an on-the-fly Approximated Prediction (AP) method. These are compared in a custom simulation driven by real solar traces and dynamic LoRa profiles against AsTAR and optimized static thresholds; the analysis highlights distinct trade-offs (AP near-oracle throughput, RL tunable survival-execution balance, AsTAR pacing across gaps) and concludes that advanced methods are needed only for small capacitors while static policies suffice for larger buffers.

Significance. If the simulation framework is shown to be faithful to hardware, the work would usefully inform policy selection by energy-buffer size in energy-harvesting IoT and demonstrate that hardware-agnostic methods can be lightweight. The explicit focus on operational trade-offs rather than universal superiority is a constructive framing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Evaluation section] Abstract and Evaluation section: the repeated claim that the simulation is 'physically accurate' is not supported by any hardware-in-the-loop validation, sensitivity analysis to capacitor leakage, DC-DC conversion losses, or direct comparison against measured voltage traces. Because all quantitative trade-offs and the capacitor-size recommendation rest on this unvalidated simulator, the central claims cannot be assessed.
  2. [Methods and Evaluation sections] Methods and Evaluation sections: the black-box workload assumption (no prior energy profiles) is load-bearing for the hardware-agnostic claim, yet the paper provides no ablation or sensitivity test showing how mismatches between the simulated LoRa transmission energy model and real hardware would affect the reported AP/RL/AsTAR rankings.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the RL reward function and the AP prediction horizon should be defined once in a single location rather than re-introduced in multiple places.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which help improve the clarity and rigor of our work. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Evaluation section] Abstract and Evaluation section: the repeated claim that the simulation is 'physically accurate' is not supported by any hardware-in-the-loop validation, sensitivity analysis to capacitor leakage, DC-DC conversion losses, or direct comparison against measured voltage traces. Because all quantitative trade-offs and the capacitor-size recommendation rest on this unvalidated simulator, the central claims cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We concur that the simulation lacks explicit hardware validation. The 'physically accurate' phrasing is not backed by HIL tests or sensitivity to leakage and losses. We will revise the abstract and evaluation sections to replace 'physically accurate' with 'trace-driven' and include a new paragraph on simulator limitations, including the lack of direct voltage trace comparisons. This will ensure the capacitor-size recommendations are presented with appropriate caveats. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods and Evaluation sections] Methods and Evaluation sections: the black-box workload assumption (no prior energy profiles) is load-bearing for the hardware-agnostic claim, yet the paper provides no ablation or sensitivity test showing how mismatches between the simulated LoRa transmission energy model and real hardware would affect the reported AP/RL/AsTAR rankings.

    Authors: The black-box assumption underpins the hardware-agnostic methods. While the LoRa profiles are dynamic and based on real measurements, we did not conduct sensitivity tests for model mismatches. We will perform and include such an ablation in the revised evaluation section by introducing controlled perturbations to the energy model and reporting the impact on method rankings, thereby strengthening the hardware-agnostic claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on comparative simulation of proposed schedulers

full rationale

The paper proposes RL and AP schedulers for black-box workloads and evaluates them via simulation against baselines. No derivation chain, equations, or fitted parameters are presented that reduce to the inputs by construction. The evaluation framework is external to the methods themselves and is not claimed to be derived from the results. No self-citation load-bearing steps or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text. The central claims are empirical performance comparisons, which are self-contained against the simulation benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The methods appear to rely on standard RL techniques and simulation assumptions whose details are not stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5781 in / 1210 out tokens · 28690 ms · 2026-06-26T00:30:29.327853+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

25 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    (2024) State of iot 2024: Number of connected iot devices growing 13% to 18.8 billion globally

    IoT Analytics. (2024) State of iot 2024: Number of connected iot devices growing 13% to 18.8 billion globally. Accessed on 22 August 2025. [Online]. Available: https://iot-analytics.com/number-connected-iot-devices/

    2024

  2. [2]

    A review on battery market trends, second-life reuse, and recycling,

    Y . Zhao, O. Pohl, A. I. Bhatt, G. E. Collis, P. J. Mahon, T. Rüther, and A. F. Hollenkamp, “A review on battery market trends, second-life reuse, and recycling,”Sustainable Chemistry, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 11, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Ambient iot: Redefining wireless communication for industry 4.0,

    3GPP, “Ambient iot: Redefining wireless communication for industry 4.0,” https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/anbient-iot-tsdsi, 3rd Genera- tion Partnership Project (3GPP), Tech. Rep., 2025, accessed on 22 August 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    A comparative review of lead-acid, lithium-ion and ultra-capacitor technologies and their degradation mech- anisms,

    A. Townsend and R. Gouws, “A comparative review of lead-acid, lithium-ion and ultra-capacitor technologies and their degradation mech- anisms,”Energies, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 4930, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Astar: Sustainable energy harvesting for the internet of things through adaptive task scheduling,

    F. Yang, A. S. Thangarajan, G. S. Ramachandran, W. Joosen, and D. Hughes, “Astar: Sustainable energy harvesting for the internet of things through adaptive task scheduling,”ACM Trans. Sen. Netw., vol. 18, no. 1, Oct. 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/3467894

    work page doi:10.1145/3467894 2021

  6. [6]

    Mementos: System Support for Long-Running Computation on RFID-Scale Devices,

    B. Ransford, J. Sorber, and K. Fu, “Mementos: System Support for Long-Running Computation on RFID-Scale Devices,” inProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS). ACM, 2011, pp. 159–170

    2011

  7. [7]

    Alpaca: intermittent execution without checkpoints,

    K. Maeng, A. Colin, and B. Lucia, “Alpaca: intermittent execution without checkpoints,”Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 1, no. OOPSLA, Oct. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3133920

    work page doi:10.1145/3133920 2017

  8. [8]

    A Reconfigurable Energy Storage Architecture for Energy-Harvesting Devices,

    A. Colin, E. Ruppel, and B. Lucia, “A Reconfigurable Energy Storage Architecture for Energy-Harvesting Devices,” inProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS). ACM, 2018, pp. 767– 781

    2018

  9. [9]

    Ink: Reactive kernel for tiny batteryless sensors,

    K. S. Yıldırım, A. Y . Majid, D. Patoukas, K. Schaper, P. Pawelczak, and J. Hester, “Ink: Reactive kernel for tiny batteryless sensors,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, ser. SenSys ’18. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018, p. 41–53. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/32747...

    work page doi:10.1145/3274783.3274837 2018

  10. [10]

    Power Manage- ment in Energy Harvesting Sensor Networks,

    A. Kansal, J. Hsu, S. Zahedi, and M. B. Srivastava, “Power Manage- ment in Energy Harvesting Sensor Networks,”ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 32–es, 2007

    2007

  11. [11]

    Pro-energy: A novel energy prediction model for solar and wind energy-harvesting wireless sensor networks,

    A. Cammarano, C. Petrioli, and D. Spenza, “Pro-energy: A novel energy prediction model for solar and wind energy-harvesting wireless sensor networks,” inProceedings of the 2012 IEEE 9th International Conference on Mobile Ad-Hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS), ser. MASS ’12. USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2012, p. 75–83. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.110...

    work page doi:10.1109/mass.2012.6502504 2012

  12. [12]

    Adaptive power management in energy harvesting systems,

    C. Moser, L. Thiele, D. Brunelli, and L. Benini, “Adaptive power management in energy harvesting systems,” in2007 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, 2007, pp. 1–6

    2007

  13. [13]

    Foundations for energy-aware zero-energy devices: From energy sensing to adaptive protocols,

    O. L. A. López, M. Ashraf, S. Nasser, G. M. de Jesus, R. K. Singh, M. C. Filippou, and J. Famaey, “Foundations for energy-aware zero-energy devices: From energy sensing to adaptive protocols,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22740

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    An Energy-Aware Task Scheduler for Energy-Harvesting Batteryless IoT Devices,

    A. Sabovic, A. K. Sultania, C. Delgado, L. D. Roeck, and J. Famaey, “An Energy-Aware Task Scheduler for Energy-Harvesting Batteryless IoT Devices,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 22, pp. 23 097–23 114, Nov. 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9803046/

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    A new energy prediction algorithm for energy-harvesting wireless sensor networks with q-learning,

    S. Kosunalp, “A new energy prediction algorithm for energy-harvesting wireless sensor networks with q-learning,”IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 5755–5763, 2016

    2016

  16. [16]

    Reinforcement learning- based dynamic power management for energy harvesting wireless sensor network,

    R. Chaoming Hsu, C.-T. Liu, and W.-M. Lee, “Reinforcement learning- based dynamic power management for energy harvesting wireless sensor network,” inNext-Generation Applied Intelligence, B.-C. Chien, T.-P. Hong, S.-M. Chen, and M. Ali, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 399–408

    2009

  17. [17]

    Rlman: An energy manager based on reinforcement learning for energy harvesting wireless sensor networks,

    F. Ait Aoudia, M. Gautier, and O. Berder, “Rlman: An energy manager based on reinforcement learning for energy harvesting wireless sensor networks,”IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Network- ing, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 408–417, 2018

    2018

  18. [18]

    Deep reinforcement learning resource allocation in wireless sensor networks with energy harvesting and relay,

    B. Zhao and X. Zhao, “Deep reinforcement learning resource allocation in wireless sensor networks with energy harvesting and relay,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2330–2345, 2022

    2022

  19. [20]

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [21]

    SMPS, STMicroelectronics, 2022, rev 9, Accessed: March 10, 2026

    STMicroelectronics,STM32L412xx Datasheet: Ultra-low-power Arm Cortex-M4 32-bit MCU+FPU, 100DMIPS, up to 128KB flash, 40KB SRAM, analog, ext. SMPS, STMicroelectronics, 2022, rev 9, Accessed: March 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.st.com/resource/en/ datasheet/stm32l412kb.pdf

    2022

  21. [22]

    [Online]

    Sensirion AG,Datasheet SHT3x-DIS: Humidity and Temperature Sensor, Sensirion AG, December 2022, version 7, Accessed: March 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://sensirion.com/media/documents/ 213E6A3B/63A5A569/Datasheet_SHT3x_DIS.pdf

    2022

  22. [23]

    [Online]

    Semtech Corporation,SX1261/2 Datasheet: Long Range, Low Power, sub-GHz RF Transceiver, Semtech Corporation, 2020, accessed: March 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.semtech.com/products/ wireless-rf/lora-connect/sx1262

    2020

  23. [24]

    Adaptive data rate (ADR),

    The Things Network, “Adaptive data rate (ADR),” 2026, accessed: March 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/ docs/lorawan/adaptive-data-rate/

    2026

  24. [25]

    DGH Series Supercapacitor Datasheet,

    Cornell Dubilier Electronics, “DGH Series Supercapacitor Datasheet,” Cornell Dubilier Electronics, Datasheet, 2024, accessed: 2026-03-16. [Online]. Available: https://www.cde.com/resources/catalogs/DGH.pdf 13

    2024

  25. [26]

    Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations,

    A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dormann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 22, no. 268, pp. 1–8, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v22/ 20-1364.html Samer NasserReceived his B.Sc. and M.Sc degrees in Electronics and ICT Engineeri...

    2021