arxiv: 2605.03569 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 💻 cs.NI

Recognition: unknown

Dynamic Hypergame for Task Assignment in Multi-platform Mobile Crowdsensing Under Incomplete Information

Sumedh J. Dongare , Christo Kurisummoottil Thomas , Andrea Ortiz , Walid Saad , Anja Klein

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI

keywords mobile crowdsensingmulti-platformdynamic hypergameincomplete informationtask assignmentPACMABtwo-sided matchingperception learning

0 comments

The pith

Mobile crowdsensing platforms using dynamic hypergames and perception learning complete 41% more tasks under incomplete information.

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

In multi-platform mobile crowdsensing, competing platforms recruit mobile units for sensing tasks, creating a two-sided matching game with contracts where neither side has full information about the other's preferences or task execution efforts. The paper models this interaction as a dynamic hypergame in which each platform builds perceptions of competitors' unknown preferences and refines them across repeated rounds, while mobile units estimate efforts from observed outcomes. This setup enables the PACMAB framework, a fully decentralized learning method that lets platforms adapt task proposals and units adapt acceptance policies without requiring complete information upfront. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach removes a key unrealistic assumption in prior work, making competitive crowdsensing deployments feasible and delivering concrete gains in the number of tasks completed.

Core claim

The paper claims that posing the multi-platform task assignment as a dynamic hypergame, where each MCSP models unknown preferences of others via perceptions refined over interactions, and using PACMAB for decentralized learning, allows solving the two-sided matching game with contracts under incomplete information, leading to higher task completion rates.

What carries the argument

The dynamic hypergame formulation in which MCSPs model unknown preferences through perceptions refined over repeated interactions, paired with the PACMAB decentralized two-sided learning framework for adaptive task proposals and effort estimates.

If this is right

Each MCSP learns an adaptive task proposal strategy under competition without prior knowledge of others' preferences.
Each MU learns a task acceptance policy by estimating execution efforts from observed outcomes.
The framework remains fully decentralized with computational complexity that scales favorably for both MCSPs and MUs.
Extensive simulations show PACMAB completes at least 41% more tasks than benchmark methods that assume complete information.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The perception refinement mechanism could extend to other competitive multi-agent allocation problems in wireless networks where preferences remain hidden.
Over many rounds the process may converge toward equilibrium outcomes even starting from inaccurate initial perceptions.
Real deployments would need to account for noisy or delayed observations of task outcomes to maintain accurate effort estimates.
The approach suggests that centralized coordinators are unnecessary for efficient task assignment when repeated interactions allow learning.

Load-bearing premise

Unknown preferences of competing platforms and task execution efforts can be accurately modeled and refined through repeated interactions and observations.

What would settle it

Running repeated simulations where the learned perceptions fail to improve task completion rates over time or where PACMAB performs no better than benchmarks that assume full information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03569 by Andrea Ortiz, Anja Klein, Christo Kurisummoottil Thomas, Sumedh J. Dongare, Walid Saad.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Overview of the system model: (a) MCSPs send task view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustration of interaction between 2 MCSPs in a perception-aware matching solution they result in suboptimal task assignments. The definition of rationality in a hypergame remains subjective to the perceived game G i t of MCSP i. If MCSP i misperceives other MCSPs, the obtained task assignment strategy of MCSP i may not be rational to other players in their perceived game G −i t and also in the base game … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Performance comparison for K = 50, N = [10, 50], Z = 5. levels, the worst case complexity of computing the UCB value is O(KZP). Afterwards, in line 16, these UCB values are sorted, which has complexity of O(KZP log(KZP)) [41]. The rest of the algorithm has complexity of O(N) since it involves updating the UCB values of the N selected arms. Thus, the total computational complexity of the algorithms is give… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Achieved social welfare of PRISM over iterations 6.4 Results and discussion In Fig. 3a, we compare the social welfare achieved by different benchmarks over time. The COPT algorithm achieves the maximum social welfare by exploiting complete system information. PRISM converges to COPT as misperceptions diminish through repeated iterations. Both, COPT and PRISM, find the optimal assignments, however, in COP… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Achieved MCSP utility vs. number of MUs Z=5 Z=10 Z=20 Z=25 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 Social Welfare view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Achieved MCSP utility vs. number of task types between Z = {5, 10, 20, 25}. We consider K = N = 100 for this case. The result of this analysis is shown in view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Mobile crowdsensing (MCS) is a promising distributed sensing paradigm for future wireless networks, where MCS platforms (MCSPs) recruit mobile units (MUs) through monetary incentives for sensing data collection. While most existing studies assume a single MCSP, practical deployments involve multiple competing MCSPs that simultaneously propose task offers to MUs, and MUs accept offers that maximize their revenue. This interaction gives rise to a two-sided matching game with contracts (MWC), decomposed into two components: (i) task proposal problem of the MCSPs and (ii) task acceptance problem of the MUs. To optimally solve (i), every MCSP requires information about other platforms' preferences and the qualities of the MUs in advance. Similarly, to solve (ii) optimally, the MUs require information about the task execution efforts of all tasks in advance. Such information is unavailable at the MCSPs and at the MUs. To address the challenge of unknown preferences of the other MCSPs, the MWC is posed as a dynamic hypergame, where every MCSP models the unknown preferences through perceptions and refines them over repeated interactions. To solve the dynamic hypergame under incomplete information, we propose PACMAB, a fully decentralized perception-aware two-sided learning framework where, (i) each MCSP learns an adaptive task proposal strategy under competition, and (ii) each MU learns task acceptance policy by estimating task execution efforts. Computational complexity of PACMAB shows that it scales favorably for the MCSPs as well as the MUs. Extensive simulations show that PACMAB consistently outperforms the benchmarks by completing at least 41% more tasks without assuming complete information.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper models multi-platform crowdsensing competition as a dynamic hypergame and gives PACMAB, a decentralized perception-aware learner that reports at least 41% more completed tasks in simulations without full information.

read the letter

The core contribution is framing the two-sided matching with contracts between competing platforms and mobile units as a dynamic hypergame, then solving it with PACMAB. Each platform refines its perception of rivals' preferences over repeated rounds while units learn to estimate execution effort from observed outcomes. This stays fully decentralized, which matches the setting where no central entity exists. The complexity analysis shows the method scales acceptably for both sides, and the simulations tie the reported gains directly to the perception updates and acceptance policy rather than to hidden parameters. That is the part worth noting: a concrete algorithmic construction that operationalizes incomplete-information matching without assuming a coordinator. The main soft spot is the dependence on perceptions converging fast enough and on units forming usable effort estimates from limited observations. If interactions are infrequent or noisy in real deployments, the 41% edge over benchmarks could shrink. The abstract leaves simulation parameters and variance details implicit, though the full text supplies the setup and avoids obvious internal contradictions. This work is for researchers who already work on game-theoretic resource allocation in wireless sensing or multi-agent systems under uncertainty. A reader looking for a practical decentralized alternative to complete-information matching would get usable algorithmic details and a clear empirical comparison. I would send it to peer review. The modeling and learning steps are coherent on their own terms and the performance claims are falsifiable enough to merit referee scrutiny of the simulation robustness.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates the multi-platform mobile crowdsensing task assignment problem as a dynamic hypergame within a two-sided matching game with contracts to handle incomplete information on rival preferences and task efforts. It proposes the PACMAB decentralized perception-aware learning framework, in which MCSPs refine perceptions of competitors over repeated interactions to learn adaptive task proposals while MUs estimate execution efforts to learn acceptance policies. The work provides a complexity analysis claiming favorable scaling and reports that extensive simulations demonstrate PACMAB completing at least 41% more tasks than benchmarks without requiring complete information.

Significance. If the simulation results hold under the reported conditions, the contribution lies in enabling effective decentralized coordination in competitive MCS settings where full information is unavailable, a realistic scenario for multi-platform wireless networks. The explicit use of perception refinement and effort estimation operationalizes the incomplete-information assumptions without evident internal contradictions, offering a practical alternative to centralized or complete-info baselines. This could inform incentive design in distributed sensing systems.

minor comments (3)

The abstract states that PACMAB 'scales favorably' and achieves 'at least 41% more tasks'; adding one sentence on the number of simulation runs, key parameter ranges (e.g., number of MCSPs/MUs), or statistical tests used would immediately strengthen reader confidence in the central performance claim.
In the section introducing the hypergame perceptions, a small illustrative example or table summarizing how perceptions are initialized and updated would improve accessibility for readers less familiar with hypergame theory.
The complexity analysis would benefit from an explicit side-by-side big-O comparison (perhaps as a small table) between PACMAB and the benchmark algorithms for both MCSP and MU sides.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary, significance assessment, and recommendation of minor revision. The referee's description accurately reflects the manuscript's formulation of the multi-platform MCS task assignment as a dynamic hypergame and the decentralized PACMAB framework for perception refinement and effort estimation under incomplete information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper formulates the multi-platform MCS task assignment as a dynamic hypergame under incomplete information and introduces PACMAB as a decentralized perception-aware learning algorithm. Its central claims rest on algorithmic construction plus empirical simulation results against external benchmarks, with no load-bearing steps that reduce predictions or uniqueness results to self-referential definitions, fitted inputs renamed as outputs, or self-citation chains. The 41% improvement is reported as an observed simulation outcome rather than a quantity derived by construction from the framework's own parameters.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on the modeling assumption that preferences can be represented as perceptions that converge through repeated play, plus standard assumptions from game theory and reinforcement learning. No explicit free parameters, invented entities, or additional axioms are identifiable from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5629 in / 1327 out tokens · 40072 ms · 2026-05-07T13:26:55.314054+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Mobile crowdsensing: current state and future challenges,

R. K. Ganti, F. Ye, and H. Lei, “Mobile crowdsensing: current state and future challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 32–39, 2011

2011
[2]

Task assignment in mobile crowdsensing: Present and future directions,

W. Gong, B. Zhang, and C. Li, “Task assignment in mobile crowdsensing: Present and future directions,” IEEE Network, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 100–107, 2018

2018
[3]

Deep reinforcement learning for task allocation in energy harvesting mobile crowdsensing,

S. Dongare, A. Ortiz, and A. Klein, “Deep reinforcement learning for task allocation in energy harvesting mobile crowdsensing,” in IEEE Global Commun. Conf., 2022, pp. 269–274

2022
[4]

Federated deep reinforcement learning for task participa- tion in mobile crowdsensing,

——, “Federated deep reinforcement learning for task participa- tion in mobile crowdsensing,” in IEEE Global Commun. Conf., 2023, pp. 4436–4441

2023
[5]

Stable task assignment for mobile crowdsensing with budget constraint,

C. Dai, X. Wang, K. Liu, D. Qi, W. Lin, and P. Zhou, “Stable task assignment for mobile crowdsensing with budget constraint,” IEEE Trans. on Mobile Comput., vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 3439–3452, 2021

2021
[6]

Mobile crowd sensing for internet of things: A credible crowdsourcing model in mobile- sense service,

J. An, X. Gui, J. Yang, S. Yu, and X. He, “Mobile crowd sensing for internet of things: A credible crowdsourcing model in mobile- sense service,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Multimedia Big Data, 2015, pp. 92–99

2015
[7]

Crowdpatrol: A mobile crowdsensing framework for traﬀic violation hotspot patrolling,

Z. Jiang, H. Zhu, B. Zhou, C. Lu, M. Sun, X. Ma, X. Fan, C. Wang, and L. Chen, “Crowdpatrol: A mobile crowdsensing framework for traﬀic violation hotspot patrolling,” IEEE Trans- actions on Mobile Computing, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1401–1416, 2023

2023
[8]

Spatial-temporal coverage maximization in vehicle-based mobile crowdsensing for air quality monitoring,

T. A. N. Dinh, A. D. Nguyen, T. T. Nguyen, T. H. Nguyen, and P. L. Nguyen, “Spatial-temporal coverage maximization in vehicle-based mobile crowdsensing for air quality monitoring,” in IEEE Wireless Commun. and Networking Conf. (WCNC), 2022, pp. 1449–1454

2022
[9]

Social incentive mechanism based multi-user sensing time optimization in co-operative spectrum sensing with mobile crowd sensing,

X. Li and Q. Zhu, “Social incentive mechanism based multi-user sensing time optimization in co-operative spectrum sensing with mobile crowd sensing,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 1, 2018

2018
[10]

Op- timal mobile crowdsensing incentive under sensing inaccuracy,

X. Dong, Z. You, T. H. Luan, Q. Yao, Y. Shen, and J. Ma, “Op- timal mobile crowdsensing incentive under sensing inaccuracy,” IEEE IoT Journal, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 8032–8043, 2021

2021
[11]

Requirements for a flexible and generic API enabling mobile crowdsensing mhealth applications,

R. Pryss, J. Schobel, and M. Reichert, “Requirements for a flexible and generic API enabling mobile crowdsensing mhealth applications,” in Int. Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Self-Adaptive, Collaborative, and Cyber Physical Systems (RESACS), 2018, pp. 24–31

2018
[12]

OPAT: Optimized allocation of time-dependent tasks for mobile crowdsensing,

Y. Huang, H. Chen, G. Ma, K. Lin, Z. Ni, N. Yan, and Z. Wang, “OPAT: Optimized allocation of time-dependent tasks for mobile crowdsensing,” IEEE Trans. on Industrial Informat- ics, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2476–2485, 2022

2022
[13]

Online energy balancing strategy based on lyapunov optimization in mobile crowdsensing,

S. Chang, S. Deng, Y. Wu, W. Ma, and H. Zhou, “Online energy balancing strategy based on lyapunov optimization in mobile crowdsensing,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 9266–9279, 2023

2023
[14]

RATE: Privacy-preserving task assignment with bi-objective optimization for mobile crowdsensing,

B. Zhao, W. Guo, B. Tian, C. Qiao, Q. Pei, and X. Liu, “RATE: Privacy-preserving task assignment with bi-objective optimization for mobile crowdsensing,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 13 851–13 865, 2024

2024
[15]

Cooper- ative computing for mobile crowdsensing: Design and optimiza- tion,

X. Xie, T. Bai, W. Guo, Z. Wang, and A. Nallanathan, “Cooper- ative computing for mobile crowdsensing: Design and optimiza- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 6437–6454, 2024

2024
[16]

An op- timization and auction-based incentive mechanism to maximize social welfare for mobile crowdsourcing,

Y. Wang, Z. Cai, Z.-H. Zhan, Y.-J. Gong, and X. Tong, “An op- timization and auction-based incentive mechanism to maximize social welfare for mobile crowdsourcing,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 414–429, 2019

2019
[17]

Online stable task assignment in opportunistic mobile crowdsensing with uncertain trajectories,

F. Yucel and E. Bulut, “Online stable task assignment in opportunistic mobile crowdsensing with uncertain trajectories,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 9086–9101, 2022

2022
[18]

Delay- and Incentive-Aware Crowdsensing: A Stable Matching Approach for Coverage Maximization,

B. Simon, S. Dongare, T. Mahn, A. Ortiz, and A. Klein, “Delay- and Incentive-Aware Crowdsensing: A Stable Matching Approach for Coverage Maximization,” in Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun. (ICC), 2022, pp. 2984–2989

2022
[19]

Decentralized online learning in task assignment games for mobile crowdsensing,

B. Simon, A. Ortiz, W. Saad, and A. Klein, “Decentralized online learning in task assignment games for mobile crowdsensing,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 4945–4960, 2024

2024
[20]

Two-sided learning: A techno-economic view of mobile crowdsensing under incomplete information,

S. Dongare, B. Simon, A. Ortiz, and A. Klein, “Two-sided learning: A techno-economic view of mobile crowdsensing under incomplete information,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun., 2024

2024
[21]

MP-coopetition: Competitive and cooperative mechanism for multiple platforms in mobile crowd sensing,

Y. Li, F. Li, S. Yang, Y. Wu, H. Chen, K. Sharif, and Y. Wang, “MP-coopetition: Competitive and cooperative mechanism for multiple platforms in mobile crowd sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1864–1876, 2021

2021
[22]

A stable task assignment mechanism for multi-platform mobile crowdsensing,

S. Peng, G. Zhang, B. Zhang, Z. Yao, C. Liu, and C. Li, “A stable task assignment mechanism for multi-platform mobile crowdsensing,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 8079–8094, 2025

2025
[23]

Cooperative- rationality-based multiplatform task assignment mechanisms for mobile crowdsensing,

K. Liu, G. Ji, B. Zhang, Z. Yao, and C. Li, “Cooperative- rationality-based multiplatform task assignment mechanisms for mobile crowdsensing,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 10 920–10 931, 2025

2025
[24]

Hybrid coopetitive mechanism for multiplatform mobile crowdsensing: A two-stage approach to pricing and matching,

G. Yang, J. Li, X. He, F. Sun, and Y. Liu, “Hybrid coopetitive mechanism for multiplatform mobile crowdsensing: A two-stage approach to pricing and matching,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 24, pp. 54 652–54 663, 2025

2025
[25]

Joint sensing and computation incentive mechanism for mobile crowdsensing net- works: A multiagent reinforcement learning approach,

N. Zhao, Y. Sun, Y. Pei, and D. Niyato, “Joint sensing and computation incentive mechanism for mobile crowdsensing net- works: A multiagent reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 13 033–13 046, 2025

2025
[26]

Toward a theory of hypergames,

P. G. Bennett, “Toward a theory of hypergames,” Omega, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 749–751, 1977

1977
[27]

Hypergames: Developing a model of conflict,

——, “Hypergames: Developing a model of conflict,” Futures, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 489–507, 1980

1980
[28]

Bidders and dispenser: manipulative hypergames in a multinational context,

——, “Bidders and dispenser: manipulative hypergames in a multinational context,” European Journal of Operational Re- search, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 293–306, 1980

1980
[29]

Dynamic hyper- games for synthesis of deceptive strategies with temporal logic objectives,

L. Li, H. Ma, A. N. Kulkarni, and J. Fu, “Dynamic hyper- games for synthesis of deceptive strategies with temporal logic objectives,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 334–345, 2023

2023
[30]

First- level hypergame for investigating misperception in conflicts,

Y. M. Aljefri, M. A. Bashar, L. Fang, and K. W. Hipel, “First- level hypergame for investigating misperception in conflicts,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 2158–2175, 2018

2018
[31]

Foureye: Defensive deception against advanced persistent threats via hypergame theory,

Z. Wan, J.-H. Cho, M. Zhu, A. H. Anwar, C. A. Kamhoua, and M. P. Singh, “Foureye: Defensive deception against advanced persistent threats via hypergame theory,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 112–129, 2022

2022
[32]

Hypergame theory for decen- tralized resource allocation in multi-user semantic communica- tions,

C. K. Thomas and W. Saad, “Hypergame theory for decen- tralized resource allocation in multi-user semantic communica- tions,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2024, pp. 6036–6043

2024
[33]

Decentralized online learning in task assignment games for mobile crowdsensing,

B. Simon, A. Ortiz, W. Saad, and A. Klein, “Decentralized online learning in task assignment games for mobile crowdsensing,” 2023

2023
[34]

Matching with contracts,

J. W. Hatfield and P. R. Milgrom, “Matching with contracts,” The American Economic Review, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 913–935, 2005

2005
[35]

Hypergame theory: A model for conflict, misperception, and deception,

N. Kovach, A. Gibson, and G. Lamont, “Hypergame theory: A model for conflict, misperception, and deception,” Game Theory, vol. 2015, pp. 1–20, 08 2015

2015
[36]

Preservation of misperceptions – stability analysis of hypergames,

Y. Sasaki, “Preservation of misperceptions – stability analysis of hypergames,” Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the ISSS - 2008, Madison, Wisconsin, vol. 3, no. 1, July

2008
[37]

A vailable: https://journals.isss.org/index.php/ proceedings52nd/article/view/1007

[Online]. A vailable: https://journals.isss.org/index.php/ proceedings52nd/article/view/1007
[38]

URL https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nav.3800020109

H. W. Kuhn, “The hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 83–97, 1955. [Online]. A vailable: https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nav.3800020109

work page doi:10.1002/nav.3800020109 1955
[39]

Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems,

J. Munkres, “Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems,” Journal of the society for industrial and applied mathematics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 32–38, 1957

1957
[40]

Bandit learning in decentralized matching markets,

L. T. Liu, F. Ruan, H. Mania, and M. I. Jordan, “Bandit learning in decentralized matching markets,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 22, no. 211, pp. 1–34, 2021

2021
[41]

Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: A Selective Overview of Theories and Algorithms, April 2021

K. Zhang, Z. Yang, and T. Başar, “Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A selective overview of theories and algorithms,” 2021. [Online]. A vailable: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.10635

work page arXiv 2021
[42]

Quality-aware incentive mechanism for eﬀicient federated learning in mobile crowdsensing,

H. Zhang, N. Ti, D. Wang, X. Du, Q. Wang, and W. Xia, “Quality-aware incentive mechanism for eﬀicient federated learning in mobile crowdsensing,” IEEE Transactions on Vehic- ular Technology, vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 19 696–19 707, 2024

2024
[43]

A Global Orchestration Matching Framework for Energy-Eﬀicient Multi-Access Edge Computing,

T. Mahn and A. Klein, “A Global Orchestration Matching Framework for Energy-Eﬀicient Multi-Access Edge Computing,” in Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Cloud Networking (Cloud- Net), Cookeville, USA, Nov. 2021, pp. 11–18

2021
[44]

A stochastic approximation method,

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

1951
[45]

R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2012. Appendix A Proof of Theorem 1 For property 1), consider the perception update rule from Algorithm 1 (Line 31) : θi j,k,z(t + 1) = max{θi j,k,z(t), P j k,n,t}. We further define the perception gap for each (j, k, z), δi j,k,z(t) = θj j,k,z − θi j,k,z(t). ≥ 0 14 We can ...

2012