Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1905.13743

Age of Information in G/G/1/1 Systems: Age Expressions, Bounds, Special Cases, and Optimization

Alkan Soysal·Sennur Ulukus
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider the age of information in G/G/1/1 systems under two service discipline models. In the first model, if a new update arrives when the service is busy, it is blocked; in the second model, a new update preempts the current update in service. For the blocking model, we first derive an exact age expression, then we propose two simple to calculate upper bounds for the average age. The first upper bound assumes the interarrival times to have log-concave distribution. The second upper bound assumes both the interarrivals and service times to have log-concave distribution. Both upper bounds are tight in the case of M/M/1/1 systems. We show that deterministic interarrivals and service times are optimum for the blocking service model. In addition, using the age expression for G/G/1/1 systems, we calculate average age expressions for special cases, i.e., M/G/1/1 and G/M/1/1 systems. Next, for the preemption in service model, we first derive an exact average age expression for G/G/1/1 systems. Then, we propose a simple to calculate upper bound for the average age. In addition, similar to blocking discipline, using the age expression for G/G/1/1 systems, we calculate average age expressions for special cases, i.e., M/G/1/1 and G/M/1/1 systems. Average age for G/M/1/1 can be written as a summation of two terms, the first of which depends only on the first and second moments of interarrival times and the second of which depends only on the service rate. In other words, interarrival and service times are decoupled. We show that deterministic interarrivals are optimum for G/M/1/1 systems. On the other hand, we observe for non-exponential service times that the optimal distribution of interarrival times depends on the relative values of the mean interarrival time and the mean service time.

Explore related subjects

cs.ITcs.NIeess.SPmath.IT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alkan Soysal, Sennur Ulukus. 2019-05-31. Age of Information in G/G/1/1 Systems: Age Expressions, Bounds, Special Cases, and Optimization. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.13743

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Efficient and rate-optimal list-decoding in the presence of minimal feedback

Given a channel with length-$n$ inputs and outputs over the alphabet $\{0,1,\ldots,q-1\}$, and of which a fraction $\varrho \in (0,1-1/q)$ of symbols can be arbitrarily corrupted by an adversary, a fundamental problem is that of communicating at rates close to the information-theoretically optimal values, while ensuring the receiver can infer that the transmitter's message is from a ``small" set. While the existence of such codes is known, and constructions with computationally tractable encoding/decoding procedures are known for large $q$, we provide the first schemes that attain this performance for any $q \geq 2$, as long as low-rate feedback (asymptotically negligible relative to the number of transmissions) from the receiver to the transmitter is available. For any sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$ and $\varrho \in (1-{1}/{q}-Θ(\sqrt{\varepsilon}))$ our minimal feedback scheme has the following parameters: Rate $1-H_q(\varrho) - \varepsilon$ (i.e., $\varepsilon$-close to information-theoretically optimal -- here $H_q(\varrho)$ is the $q$-ary entropy function), list-size $\exp\left(\mathcal{O}\left(\varepsilon^{-3/2}\log^2(1/\varepsilon)\right)\right)$, computational complexity of encoding/decoding $n^{\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-1}\log(1/\varepsilon))}$, storage complexity $\mathcal{O}(n^{η+1}\log n)$ for a code design parameter $η>1$ that trades off storage complexity with the probability of error. The error probability is $\mathcal{O}(n^{-η})$, and the (vanishing) feedback rate is $\mathcal{O}({1}/{\sqrt{\log(n)}})$. Our full-feedback scheme has zero probability of error and minimal storage complexity, while the other parameters are the same as the vanishing rate feedback scheme.

cs.IT↗
arXiv2026

On Cost-Aware Designs for Sequential Hypothesis Testing

We introduce Cost-Aware (CA) Sequential Hypothesis Testing (CASHT), in which an active decision-maker selects sensing actions with different, random costs to identify the true hypothesis under an average-error constraint $δ$, while minimizing the expected total cost (rather than the number of samples). For fixed costs, we prove that the optimal expected total cost scales as $Θ(\log(1/δ))$, and is achievable by Multihypothesis Sequential Probability Ratio Test-based procedures. We show that the CA design principle is to maximize the ratio of expected information gain to expected cost under the policy-induced action distribution. Guided by this principle, we adapt two classic policies to the CA setting and establish their asymptotic optimality. We then treat random costs under two revelation models: ex-post, where costs are disclosed only after a sample is obtained, and the cost-error tradeoff coincides with the fixed-cost case, and ex-ante, where costs accrue before acquisition, and the decision maker may cancel an action mid-operation. For the ex-ante model, we characterize when cancellation lowers the total cost and analyze several cost distributions in detail. Simulations confirm our findings that the CA variants consistently reduce total cost relative to their classic counterparts, and when action cancellation helps or hurts.

cs.IT↗
arXiv2026

All you need is log

How different are several probability distributions from one another? For two distributions the standard answer is the family of Rényi divergences, singled out by two natural requirements: processing the data never makes distributions easier to tell apart, and independent repetitions add. Many problems in learning and statistics compare more than two distributions at once, such as testing among several hypotheses or bounding generalization against several priors. The same two requirements leave one kind of building block, built on a coincidence probability: how unlikely it is that independent samples, one from each distribution, all show the same empirical distribution. The logarithm is forced because repetitions add, which is already visible for a single experiment repeated. This characterization is known in greater generality, and this paper is about the meaning of its building blocks. On a finite alphabet, each building block indexed by a rational point of the simplex is the exponential rate of that coincidence as the samples grow in fixed proportions. Each is also the limiting free energy of Bayesian inference over distributions. At any amount of data, the free energy of the posterior is the coincidence measure plus two costs: the expected distance from a posterior draw to the most likely distribution, and the information gained per unit of data. Both costs vanish as data accumulate. When the comparison is conditioned on side information, every kind of building block has a conditional counterpart, and the coincidence ones alone do not suffice.

cs.IT↗