1

Joint Offloading and Computing Optimization in
Wireless Powered Mobile-Edge Computing Systems

arXiv:1702.00606v4 [] 18 Dec 2017

Feng Wang, Member, IEEE, Jie Xu, Member, IEEE, Xin Wang, Senior Member, IEEE,
and Shuguang Cui, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Mobile-edge computing (MEC) and wireless power
transfer (WPT) have been recognized as promising techniques
in the Internet of Things (IoT) era to provide massive lowpower wireless devices with enhanced computation capability
and sustainable energy supply. In this paper, we propose a
unified MEC-WPT design by considering a wireless powered
multiuser MEC system, where a multi-antenna access point (AP)
(integrated with an MEC server) broadcasts wireless power to
charge multiple users and each user node relies on the harvested
energy to execute computation tasks. With MEC, these users can
execute their respective tasks locally by themselves or offload all
or part of them to the AP based on a time division multiple access
(TDMA) protocol. Building on the proposed model, we develop
an innovative framework to improve the MEC performance, by
jointly optimizing the energy transmit beamforming at the AP,
the central processing unit (CPU) frequencies and the numbers of
offloaded bits at the users, as well as the time allocation among
users. Under this framework, we address a practical scenario
where latency-limited computation is required. In this case, we
develop an optimal resource allocation scheme that minimizes the
AP’s total energy consumption subject to the users’ individual
computation latency constraints. Leveraging the state-of-the-art
optimization techniques, we derive the optimal solution in a semiclosed form. Numerical results demonstrate the merits of the
proposed design over alternative benchmark schemes.
Index Terms—Mobile-edge computing, wireless power transfer,
computation offloading, energy beamforming, convex optimization.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The recent advancement of Internet of Things (IoT) has
motivated various new applications (e.g., autonomous driving, virtual reality, augmented reality, and tele-surgery) to
Manuscript received May 26, 2017; revised October 16, 2017; accepted December 12, 2017. This work was in part supported by the
National Key Research and Development Program of China grant no.
2017YFB0403402 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
grant no. 61671154, by DoD with grant HDTRA1-13-1-0029, by grant NSFC61328102/61629101, by Shenzhen Fundamental Research Fund under Grant
No. KQTD2015033114415450, and by NSF with grants DMS-1622433, AST1547436, ECCS-1508051/1659025, and CNS-1343155. Part of this paper was
presented in the IEEE International Conference on Communications, Paris,
France, May 21–25, 2017 [1]. The associate editor coordinating the review of
this paper and approving it for publication was T. Melodia. (Corresponding
author: Jie Xu.)
F. Wang and J. Xu are with the School of Information Engineering,
Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China (e-mail: fengwang13@gdut.edu.cn, jiexu@gdut.edu.cn).
X. Wang is with the Key Laboratory for Information Science of Electromagnetic Waves (MoE), the Shanghai Institute for Advanced Communication and
Data Science, the Department of Communication Science and Engineering,
Fudan University, Shanghai, China (e-mail: xwang11@fudan.edu.cn).
S. Cui is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA, and also affiliated with
Shenzhen Research Institute of Big Data (e-mail: sgcui@ucdavis.edu).

provide real-time machine-to-machine and machine-to-human
interactions [2]. These emerging latency-sensitive applications
critically rely on the real-time communication and computation of massive wireless devices. For example, smart wireless
sensors in IoT networks may need to perceive the physical
environment and then use the built-in computation resources
to preprocess the sensed data in real time before sending it to
the access point (AP) [2]. As extensive existing works focus on
improving their communication performance, how to provide
these devices with enhanced computation capability is a crucial
yet challenging task to be tackled, especially when they are of
small size and low power. To resolve this issue, mobile-edge
computing (MEC) has emerged as a promising technique by
providing cloud-like computing at the edge of mobile networks
via integrated MEC servers at wireless APs and base stations
(BSs) [3], [4]. Leveraging MEC, resource-limited wireless
devices can offload their computation tasks to APs/BSs; then
the integrated MEC servers can compute these tasks remotely.
In general, the computation offloading can be implemented
in two ways, namely binary and partial offloading [3]. In
the binary offloading case, the computation task is not partitionable and should be offloaded as a whole. In the partial
offloading case, the task can be partitioned into two parts, and
only one of them is offloaded. The MEC technique facilitates
the real-time implementation of computation-extensive tasks
at massive low-power devices, and thus has attracted growing
research interests in both academia and industry [3]–[7].
On the other hand, how to provide sustainable and costeffective energy supply to massive computation-heavy devices
is another challenge facing IoT. Radio-frequency (RF) signal
based wireless power transfer (WPT) provides a viable solution by deploying dedicated energy transmitters to broadcast
energy wirelessly [18]. Recently, emerging wireless powered
communication networks (WPCNs) and simultaneous wireless
information and power transfer (SWIPT) paradigms have been
proposed to achieve ubiquitous wireless communications in
a self-sustainable way [12]–[15], where WPT and wireless
communications are combined into a joint design. In order to
improve the WPT efficiency from the energy transmitter to one
or more energy receivers, transmit energy beamforming has
been proposed as a promising solution by deploying multiple
antennas at energy transmitters [9]. By properly adjusting
the transmit beamforming vectors, energy transmitters can
concentrate the radiative energy towards the intended receivers
for efficient WPT. Motivated by these approaches, it is expected that the transmit energy beamforming-enabled WPT
can also play an important role in facilitating self-sustainable

2

computing for a large number of IoT devices.

A. Related Works

To explore benefits of both MEC and WPT in ubiquitous
computing, this paper develops a joint MEC-WPT design
by considering a wireless powered multiuser MEC system
that consists of a multi-antenna AP and multiple singleantenna users. The AP employs energy transmit beamforming
to simultaneously charge the users, and each user relies on
its harvested energy to execute the respective computation
task. Suppose that partial offloading is allowed such that each
user can arbitrarily partition the computation task into two
independent parts for local computing and offloading, respectively. Furthermore, we assume that the downlink WPT and
the uplink wireless communication (for computation offloading) are operated simultaneously over orthogonal frequency
bands.1 In addition, a time division multiple access (TDMA)
protocol is employed to coordinate computation offloading,
where different users offload their respective tasks to the AP
over orthogonal time slots. The main results of this paper are
summarized as follows.

Transmit energy beamforming enabled WPT has been extensively studied in the literature (see, e.g., [9]–[24] and
references therein). By considering a linear energy harvesting
(EH) model, various prior works have investigated the optimal
design of energy beamforming under different setups with
SWIPT, e.g., in two-user multi-input multi-output (MIMO)
systems [9], secrecy communications systems [10], multiinput single-output (MISO) interference channels [11], and
multiuser MISO downlink channels [14]–[16]. Furthermore,
some recent works investigated the transmit power allocation
[23] and the transmit waveform optimization [24] for WPT
by taking into account the nonlinear nature of the rectifier in
EH [20], [21]. In addition, the benefit of energy beamforming
crucially relies on the channel state information (CSI) known
at the transmitter. The reverse-link channel training [17] and
the energy measurement and feedback methods [18], [19]
were proposed in WPT systems for the energy transmitter to
practically learn the CSI to users. Furthermore, [22] developed
a distributed energy beamforming system for multiple energy
transmitters to charge multiple energy receivers simultaneously, with the help of the energy measurement and feedback.
On the other hand, several existing works [25]–[33] investigated the energy-efficient multiuser MEC design, where
each user is powered by fixed energy sources such as battery,
and the objective is to minimize the energy consumption at
the users via joint computing and offloading optimization at
the demand side. For example, [25] provided an overview
on the applications and challenges of computation offloading.
[26] and [27] investigated the dynamic offloading for MEC
systems based on the techniques of Markov decision process
and Lyapunov optimization, respectively. [28], [29] considered
the joint computation and communication resource allocation
in single-user MEC systems, and such designs were extended
to multiuser MEC systems in [30]–[33]. Different from these
prior works that studied WPT and MEC separately, this paper
pursues a joint MEC-WPT design in a wireless powered
multiuser MEC system, by jointly optimizing the WPT supply
at the AP, as well as the local computing and offloading
demands at the users.
It is worth noting that a prior work [34] considered the
wireless powered single-user MEC system with binary offloading, where the user aims to maximize the probability of
successful computation, by deciding whether a task should
be fully offloaded or not, subject to the computation latency
constraint. By contrast, this paper considers a more general
case with more than one user, and allows for more flexible
partial offloading to improve the system performance in terms
of the energy efficiency (i.e., minimizing the total energy
consumption at the AP including the radiated energy for WPT
and the energy for computing the offloaded tasks).
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section
II presents the system model. Section III formulates the computation latency constrained energy consumption minimization
problem, and develops an efficient algorithm to obtain a wellstructured optimal solution. Section IV provides numerical
results to demonstrate the merits of the proposed design.

•

•

•

To improve the performance of such a wireless powered
multiuser MEC system, we develop an innovative design
framework by jointly optimizing the energy transmit
beamforming at the AP, the central processing unit (CPU)
frequencies2 and the numbers of offloaded bits at the
users, as well as the offloading time allocation among
users. Note that the number of offloaded bits at each user
corresponds to the multiplication of the offloading rate
and allocated offloading time in this block.
Targeting an energy-efficient wireless-powered MEC design, we minimize the AP’s total energy consumption
subject to the users’ individual computation latency
constraints. Leveraging the state-of-the-art optimization
techniques, we obtain the optimal solution in a semiclosed form. It is revealed that at the optimal solution,
the number of locally computed bits at each user should
be strictly positive; i.e., it is always beneficial for each
user to leave certain bits for local computing. It is also
shown that the optimal offloading rate (and equivalent
transmit power) at each user critically depends on the
channel power gain and the circuit power.
Extensive numerical results are provided to gauge the
performance of the proposed designs with joint WPT,
local computing, and offloading (i.e., task partition per
user and offloading time allocation among the users)
optimization, over benchmark schemes without such a
joint consideration. It is shown that the proposed design
can significantly reduce the energy consumption of the
wireless powered MEC systems.

1 The wireless energy harvesting in the downlink and the information
transmission (or offloading) in the uplink can be performed simultaneously
over orthogonal frequency bands in one single antenna with a duplexer, as
commonly used in conventional frequency-division-duplexing (FDD) wireless
communication transceivers.
2 The term CPU generally refers to the processing unit and control unit at
each user that takes charge of the local computing of computation tasks. The
CPU frequency, i.e., the frequency of the CPU’s clock pulses, determines the
rate at which a CPU executes instructions.

3

User 1

h1

WPT, the computation offloading, and the local computing for
the K users.

IoT sensor

…

g1

Duplexer

hi

Information
transceiver

RF
signal

Offloading

gi

input bits

Energy

Rectifier

DC
signal

Rechargeable
battery

Task

Energy

gK

User i

Local computing

input bits

…

AP with an MEC server
integrated

hK

User K

IoT sensor

Downlink WPT from the AP to the K users
Computation offloading based on TDMA

Fig. 1. A wireless powered multiuser MEC system with WPT in the downlink
and computation offloading in the uplink.

Finally, Section V concludes this paper.
Notations: Boldface letters refer to vectors (lower case) or
matrices (upper case). For a square matrix S, tr(S) denotes its
trace, while S  0 means that S is positive semidefinite. For
an arbitrary-size matrix M , rank(M ), M † , and M H denote
its rank, transpose, and conjugate transpose, respectively. I
and 0 denote an identity matrix and an all-zero vector/matrix,
respectively, with appropriate dimensions. Cx×y denotes the
space of x × y complex matrices; R denotes the set of real
numbers. E[·] denotes the statistical expectation. kxk denotes
the Euclidean norm of a vector x, |z| denotes the magnitude
of a complex number z, and [x]+ , max(x, 0).
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
As shown in Fig. 1, we consider a wireless powered multiuser MEC system consisting of an N-antenna AP (integrated
with an MEC server) and a set K , {1, . . . , K } of singleantenna users. In this system, the AP employs RF signal based
energy transmit beamforming to charge the K users. Each user
i ∈ K utilizes the harvested energy to execute its computation
task through local computing and offloading. Suppose that the
downlink WPT from the AP to the users and the uplink computation offloading are operated simultaneously over orthogonal
frequency bands, and the uplink for computation offloading
and the downlink for computation result downloading are
operated over the same frequency band. Assume a block-based
model, and we focus on one particular block with length T .
Here, T is chosen to be no larger than the latency of the
MEC application and also no larger than the channel coherence
time, such that the wireless channels remain unchanged during
this block. For simplifying the analysis and better capturing
the AP’s transmission energy for computation offloading, we
assume that the AP perfectly knows the CSI from/to the K
users,3 as well as their computation requirements. In accordance with such information, the AP coordinates the downlink
3 When the CSI at the AP is not perfect (e.g., subject to some CSI estimation
errors), the WPT and MEC performance may degrade. In this case, robust
optimization techniques (see, e.g., [10], [15]) may be applied to obtain the
energy beamforming vectors. However, the imperfect CSI scenario is out of
scope of this paper.

A. Energy Transmit Beamforming from AP to Users
Let s ∈ C N×1 denote the energy-bearing transmit signal
by the AP, which is assumed to be a random signal with
its power spectral density satisfying certain regulations on
RF radiation [18]. Let Q , E[ss H ]  0 denote the energy
transmit covariance matrix and E[ksk 2 ] = tr(Q) the transmit
power at the AP. In general, the AP can use multiple energy
beams to deliver the wireless energy, i.e., Q can be of any rank.
Supposing r = rank(Q) ≤ N, then a total of r energy beams
can be obtained via the eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) of
Q [18]. Let hi ∈ C N×1 denote the channel vector from
the AP to user i ∈ K, and define Hi , hi hiH , ∀i ∈ K.
Accordingly, the received RF power at each user i ∈ K is
given by |hiH s| 2 . In order to harvest such energy, each user
i first converts the received RF signal into a direct current
(DC) signal by a rectifier and then stores the energy of the
DC signal in its chargeable battery (cf. Fig. 1). Note that the
harvested DC power is generally nonlinear with respect to the
received RF power [20], due to the nonlinear devices such
as the diodes and diode-connected transistors. Moreover, the
nonlinear RF-to-DC conversion greatly depends on the input
power level and the transmit waveform. In the literature, there
have been a handful of recent works on analytic nonlinear EH
models, which characterize such nonlinear relations between
the harvested DC power and the input RF power [23] or
transmit waveform [24]. However, there still lacks a generic
EH model that captures all practical issues [21]. Therefore, for
simplicity, we assume that the input RF power is within the
linear regime of the rectifier, and consider a linear EH model
which has been commonly adopted in the WPT literature [9]–
[12], [14]–[22]. Accordingly, the harvested energy amount by
user i over this time block is
i
h
2
(1)
Ei = T ζE hiH s = T ζtr(QHi ),
where 0 < ζ ≤ 1 denotes the constant EH efficiency per user.
The harvested energy Ei is used by user i for both computation
offloading and local computing.
B. Energy Consumption at Users for Computation
For each user i ∈ K, the computation task with Ri > 0
computation input bits is partitioned into two parts with ℓi ≥ 0
and qi ≥ 0 bits, which are offloaded to the MEC server at the
AP or locally computed, respectively.4 We assume that such a
partition does not incur additional computation input bits, i.e.,
Ri = ℓi + qi , ∀i ∈ K.
1) Computation Offloading from Users to the AP: In order
for the K users to offload their respective bits to the AP for
computation, we adopt a TDMA protocol without interference
as shown in Fig. 2, where the block is divided into 2K time
slots each with a length of ti , ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , 2K }. In the first K
time slots, the K users offload their computation bits to the AP
4 Each input bit can be treated as the smallest task unit, which includes the
needed program codes and input parameters.

4

T

Offloading from
user 1 to the AP

…

t1

Offloading from
user K to the AP
tK

Downloading
Downloading
from the AP … from the AP
to user K
to user 1
tK+1 ≈ 0

t2K ≈ 0

Fig. 2. The TDMA protocol for multiuser computation offloading.

one by one. After the MEC server executes the computation
tasks on behalf of these users, the AP sends the computation
results to the K users in the last K time slots. Due to the
sufficient CPU capability at the MEC server, the computation
time consumed at the MEC server are relatively small and
negligible. Therefore, we assume that the users can download
the computation results immediately after the first K offloading
time slots. Furthermore, as the AP is usually with high transmit
power and the computed results are usually of small size, we
ignore the downloading time, i.e., ti ≈ 0, ∀i ∈ {K +1, . . . , 2K },
and also ignore the energy consumption for transmitting and
receiving the computation results in this paper.
For computation offloading in time slot i, let gi ∈ C N×1
denote the uplink channel vector from user i to the AP and
pi the transmit power for offloading. Assume further that the
AP employs the maximum ratio combining (MRC) receiver
to decode the information. The achievable offloading rate (in
bits/sec) for user i is given by


pi g̃i
, ∀i ∈ K,
(2)
ri = B log2 1 +
Γσ 2
where B denotes the spectrum bandwidth, g̃i , kgi k 2 denotes
the effective channel power gain from user i to the AP, σ 2
is the noise power at the receiver of the AP, and Γ ≥ 1 is a
constant accounting for the gap from the channel capacity due
to a practical coding and modulation scheme. For simplicity,
Γ = 1 is assumed throughout this paper. As a result, the
number of offloaded bits ℓi by user i to the AP can be
expressed as
ℓi = ri ti, ∀i ∈ K.

(3)

Computation offloading incurs energy consumption at both
the K users and the AP. Per user i ∈ K, in addition to
the transmit power pi , a constant circuit power pc,i (by the
digital-to-analog converter (DAC), filter, etc.) is consumed.
The offloading energy consumption at user i is then Eoffl,i =
(pi + pc,i )ti . With simple manipulations based on (2) and (3),

the transmit power pi can be expressed as pi = g̃1i β ℓtii ,
x

where β(x) , σ 2 (2 B − 1) is a monotonically increasing and
convex function with respect to x.5 Hence, the offloading
energy consumption at user i is
 
ti
ℓi
Eoffl,i = β
+ pc,i ti .
(4)
g̃i
ti

Remark 2.1: Note that in practice, in order for the AP to
acquire the CSI (to the K users) for the energy beamforming
design, each user needs to consume a certain amount of energy
5 Note

that to avoid the issue of dividing by zero, we define β
when either ℓi = 0 or ti = 0 holds.



ℓi
ti



= 0

(e.g., for CSI feedback), and there generally exists a tradeoff
between such energy consumption at the users versus the CSI
accuracy at the AP. However, with the technical advancements,
the user’s feedback overhead for CSI acquisition could be
made very small. Specifically, there are generally three types
of CSI acquisition methods in the literature, namely the channel estimation and feedback [8], reverse-link training based
on the channel reciprocity [17], and energy measurement and
feedback [18], [19]. In the energy measurement and feedback
method [18], each user only needs to measure its harvested
energy level over each block and send one feedback bit to the
AP per block; based on the feedback bits, the AP can sequentially improve the accuracy of CSI estimation; such a one-bit
feedback is negligible when compared to the user reverse-link
traffic for task offloading. Thus it is practically reasonable to
ignore the feedback overhead and energy consumption at each
user.
As for the AP, the energy is mainly consumed for executing
the offloaded computation tasks and transmitting the computation results back to the users [4]. As the AP and its integrated
MEC server generally have sufficient communication and
computation capacities6 , it can adopt a large transmit power
(accordingly high communication rate) and a high constant
CPU frequency to minimize the latency. In this case, the
AP’s energy consumption
ÍK is generally proportional to the
totally offloaded bits i=1
ℓi from the K users. Therefore, we
adopt a simplified linear energy consumption model for the
computation at the AP as
EMEC = α

K
Õ

ℓi,

(5)

i=1

where α denotes the energy consumption per offloaded bit at
the AP. In practice, α depends on the transceiver structure of
the AP, the chip structure of the MEC server, and its operated
CPU frequencies, etc. [4].
2) Local Computing at Users: Consider next the local
computing for executing qi input bits at each user i ∈ K. Let
Ci denote the number of CPU cycles required for computing
one input bit at user i. Then the total number of CPU cycles
required for the qi bits is Ci qi . By applying dynamic voltage
and frequency scaling (DVFS) techniques [3], [4], user i can
control the energy consumption for local task execution by
adjusting the CPU frequency fi,n for each cycle n, where
fi,n ∈ (0, fimax ], n ∈ {1, . . . , Ci qi }, and fimax denotes user i’s
maximum CPU frequency.7 With fi,n ’s, the execution time for
Í i qi 1
. As each user i ∈ K
local computing at user i is C
n=1 fi, n
6 In the case when the MEC server’s computing capacity is limited, the
computation offloading protocol needs to be redesigned, by taking into account
the computation time at the MEC server as well as the computation resource
sharing among these different users. Under such a scenario, how to jointly
design the WPT and MEC optimally is out of the scope of this paper. It is
an interesting direction to pursue in the future work.
7 Note that in practice, each CPU frequency f
i, n can only be an integer
chosen from a finite set. However, such an integer constraint may make the
design problem a mixed-integer one that is NP-hard in general. To avoid this,
we model fi, n as continuous variables to provide a performance upper-bound
for the practical cases with discrete CPU frequencies.

5

needs to accomplish the task execution within a block, the
execution time cannot exceed the block length T , i.e.,
C
i qi
Õ
n=1

1
≤ T, ∀i ∈ K.
fi,n

Eloc,i =

2
κi fi,n
,

(P1) :

(6)

Under the assumption of a low CPU voltage that normally
holds for low-power devices, the consumed energy for local
computing at user i ∈ K could be expressed as [35]
C
i qi
Õ

f , [ f1,1, . . . , fK,CK (RK −ℓK ) ]† . Mathematically, the latencyconstrained energy minimization problem is formulated as

s.t.

(7)

Eloc,i + Eoffl,i ≤ Ei .

(8)

III. C OMPUTATION L ATENCY C ONSTRAINED E NERGY
M INIMIZATION
A. Problem Formulation
Under the above setup, we pursue an energy-efficient MECWPT design by considering a computation latency constrained
energy minimization problem. Suppose that each user i ∈ K
has a computation task with Ri > 0 input bits, which needs
to be successfully executed before the end of the block. In
this case, the sum of the number of offloaded bits ℓi and the
number of locally computed bits qi should be equal to Ri , i.e.,
we have qi = Ri − ℓi , ∀i ∈ K.
We aim to minimize the energy Íconsumption at the AP
K
(including the energy consumption i=1
αℓi in (5) for computation and T tr(Q) for WPT) while ensuring the successful execution of the K users’ computation tasks per time
block. To this end, we jointly optimize the energy transmit
covariance matrix Q at the AP, the local CPU frequencies
{ fi,1, . . . , fi,Ci (Ri −ℓi ) }, and the numbers of offloaded bits ℓi ’s
at the users, as well as the time allocation ti ’s among different users. Let t , [t1, . . . , tK ]† , ℓ , [ℓ1, . . . , ℓK ]† , and
8 Note

that in (8) we consider that the totally consumed energy should not
exceed the totally harvested one, instead of the “energy causality” in conventional energy harvesting communications (see, e.g., [13]). This consideration
implies that at the beginning of the block each user has sufficiently large
energy storage, such that the stored energy will never be used up at any time
within each block and the energy storage level will be refilled via energy
harvesting by the end of each block.

Ci (R
i −ℓi )
Õ

K
Õ

(9a)

αℓi

i=1

1
≤ T, ∀i ∈ K
(9b)
fi,n
n=1
 
Ci (R
i −ℓi )
Õ
ti
ℓi
2
κi fi,n + β
+ pc,i ti − T ζtr(QHi ) ≤ 0,
g̃
ti
i
n=1
K
Õ

where κi is the effective capacitance coefficient that depends
on the chip architecture at user i.

As each user i ∈ K is powered by the WPT from the
AP to achieve self-sustainable operation, the so-called energy
harvesting constraint needs to be imposed such that the totally
consumed energy at the user cannot exceed the harvested
energy Ei in (1) per block. By combining the computation
offloading energy in (4) and the local computation energy in
(7), the total energy consumed by user i within the block is
Eoffl,i + Eloc,i . Therefore, we must have per user i ∈ K:8

Q  0, t, ℓ, f

T tr(Q) +

∀i ∈ K

n=1

C. Energy Harvesting Constraints at Users

min

ti ≤ T, ti ≥ 0, 0 ≤ ℓi ≤ Ri, ∀i ∈ K

(9c)

(9d)

i=1

0 ≤ fi,n ≤ fimax, ∀n, ∀i ∈ K.

(9e)

Here, the constraints in (9b) and (9c) represent the K users’
individual local computing latency and energy harvesting constraints, respectively. Note that due to the non-convex nature
of (9b) and (9c), problem (P1) is non-convex in the current
form. However, we can transform it into a convex form and
find the well-structured optimal solution, as will be shown in
the next subsection.
B. Optimal Solution to Problem (P1)
In this subsection, we provide the optimal solution to the
computation latency constrained energy minimization problem
(P1). To cope with the non-convex constraints in (9b) and (9c),
we first establish the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1: Given the number of offloaded bits ℓ, the
optimal solution of the local CPU frequencies fi,n ’s to problem
(P1) should satisfy
fi,1 = . . . = fi,Ci (Ri −ℓi ) = Ci (Ri − ℓi )/T, ∀i ∈ K.

(10)

Proof: See Appendix A.
Lemma 3.1 indicates that at each user i ∈ K, the local
CPU frequencies for different CPU cycles are identical at
the optimality. Hence, problem (P1) can be equivalently
reformulated as
K
Õ
(P1.1) : min T tr(Q) +
αℓi
(11a)
Q  0, t, ℓ

s.t.

K
Õ

ti ≤ T

i=1

(11b)

i=1

 
ti
ℓi
+ β
+ pc,i ti − T ζtr(QHi ) ≤ 0
g̃i
ti
T2
∀i ∈ K (11c)
0 ≤ ℓi ≤ Ri, ti ≥ 0, ∀i ∈ K.
(11d)
κi Ci3 (Ri − ℓi )3

As β(x) is convex
  as a function of x ≥ 0, its perspective
ti
function g̃i β ℓtii is jointly convex with respect to ti ≥ 0 and
ℓi ≥ 0 [37]. As a result, the energy harvesting constraints in
(11c) become convex. Furthermore, since the objective function in (11a) is affine and the other constraints are all convex,
problem (P1.1) is convex and can thus be optimally solved

6

by standard convex optimization techniques. Nevertheless, to
gain engineering insights, we derive its optimal solution in a
semi-closed form by leveraging the Lagrange duality method
[37].
Let µ ≥ 0 and λi ≥ 0 denote the dual variables associated
with the time-allocation constraint in (11b) and the i-th energy
harvesting constraint in (11c), ∀i ∈ K, respectively. Then the
partial Lagrangian of (P1.1) is expressed as
! !
K
Õ
L1 (Q, t, ℓ, λ, µ) =T tr I −
ζ λi Hi Q − µT
i=1

+

K
Õ

αℓi +

λi κi Ci3 (Ri − ℓi )3

T2

 
λi ti
ℓi
+
+ λi pc,i ti + µti ,
β
g̃i
ti
i=1

(12)

where λ , [λ1, . . . , λK ]† . Accordingly, the dual function is
given by

where each subproblem i in (16) is for the user i ∈ K. Under
the condition of F (λ)  0, it is evident that the optimal value
of problem (15) is zero and its optimal solution Q∗ can be
any positive semidefinite matrix in the null space of F (λ).
Without loss of optimality, we simply set Q∗ = 0 for the
purpose of obtaining the dual function Φ(λ, µ) and computing
the optimal dual solution.9 Note that Q∗ = 0 is generally
not the optimal primary solution to (P1.1). As a result, after
finding the optimal dual solution (λopt, µopt ), we need to use
an additional step to retrieve the optimal primary solution of
Qopt to (P1.1), as will be shown in Section IV-C.
For the i-th subproblem in (16), it is convex and satisfies the
Slater’s condition. Based on the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT)
conditions [37], one can obtain the optimal solution (ti∗, ℓi∗ ) to
(16) in a semi-closed form, as stated in the following lemma.
Lemma 3.2: For any given (λ, µ) ∈ S, the optimal solution
(t ∗, ℓi∗ ) to problem (16) can be obtained as follows.
•
•

Φ(λ, µ) = min

Q  0, t, ℓ

L (Q, t, ℓ, λ, µ)

(13)

s.t. 0 ≤ ℓi ≤ Ri, ti ≥ 0, ∀i ∈ K.
Consequently, the dual problem of (P1.1) is
(D1.1) :

max Φ(λ, µ)

s.t. F (λ) , I −

K
Õ

ti∗ = ℓi∗ /ri∗,
(14a)

λ, µ

ζ λi Hi  0

(14b)

i=1

µ ≥ 0, λi ≥ 0, ∀i ∈ K.

(14c)

Note that the constraint F (λ)  0 is necessary to ensure the
dual function Φ(λ, µ) to be bounded from below (as proved in
Appendix B). We denote the feasible set of (λ, µ) characterized
by (14b) and (14c) as S.
Since problem (P1.1) is convex and satisfies the Slater’s
condition, strong duality holds between (P1.1) and its dual
problem (D1.1) [37]. As a result, we can solve (P1.1) by
equivalently solving (D1.1). In the following, we first obtain
the dual function Φ(λ, µ) for any given (λ, µ) ∈ S, and
then find the optimal dual variables λ and µ to maximize
Φ(λ, µ) using the ellipsoid method [38]. For convenience of
presentation, let (Q∗, t∗, ℓ∗ ) denote the optimal solution to
problem (13) for given λ and µ, (Qopt, topt, ℓopt ) denote the
optimal primary solution to (P1.1), and (λopt, µopt ) denote the
optimal dual solution to (D1.1).
1) Evaluating the Dual Function Φ(λ, µ): First, we obtain
the dual function Φ(λ, µ) in (13) for any given (λ, µ) ∈ S.
To this end, problem (13) can be decomposed into (K + 1)
subproblems as follows, one for optimizing Q and the other
K for jointly optimizing ti ’s and ℓi ’s.
min tr (QF (λ))
Q

min αℓi +
ti ,ℓi

λi κi Ci3 (Ri − ℓi )3
T2

s.t. 0 ≤ ℓi ≤ Ri, ti ≥ 0,

s.t. Q  0.

If λi = 0, we have ℓi∗ = 0
If λi > 0, we have
s
"
T2
∗
ℓi = Ri −
3κi Ci3

(15)

 
λi ti
ℓi
+
+ λi pc,i ti + µti
β
g̃i
ti
(16a)
(16b)

and ti∗ = 0;


α σ 2 ln 2 ri∗
+
2B
λi
Bg̃i

#+

(17)
(18)



 


where ri∗ , lnB2 W0 σg̃2ie λµi + pc,i − e1 + 1 denotes
the offloading rate of user i, W0 (x) is the principal branch
of the Lambert W function defined as the solution for
W0 (x)eW0 (x) = x [36], and e is the base of the natural
logarithm.
Proof: See Appendix C.
By combining Lemma 3.2 and Q∗ = 0, the dual function
Φ(λ, µ) can be evaluated for any given (λ, µ) ∈ S.
2) Obtaining the Optimal λopt and µopt to Maximize
Φ(λ, µ): Having obtained (Q∗, ℓ∗, t∗ ) for given λ and µ,
we can next solve the dual problem (D1.1) to maximize
Φ(λ, µ). Note that the dual function Φ(λ, µ) is concave but
non-differentiable in general [37]. Hence, we use subgradient
based methods, e.g., the ellipsoid method [38], to obtain the
optimal λopt and µopt for problem (D1.1). The basic idea of
the ellipsoid method is to find a series of ellipsoids to localize
the optimal dual solution λopt and µopt [38]. To start with, we
choose a given (λ, µ) ∈ S as the center of the initial ellipsoid
and set its volume to be sufficiently large to contain (λopt, µopt ).
Then, at each iteration, we update the dual variables (λ, µ)
based on the subgradients of both the objective function and
the constraint functions, and accordingly construct a new
ellipsoid with reduced volume. When the volume of the
ellipsoid is reduced below a certain threshold, the iteration will
terminate and the center of the ellipsoid is chosen to be the
optimal dual solution (λopt, µopt ). More details can be referred
to in [38].
To implement the ellipsoid method, it remains to determine
the subgradients of both the objective function in (14a) and
9 Note that Q∗ = 0 is not a unique optimal solution to problem (15) when
F (λ) is rank-deficient, i.e., rank(F (λ)) < N .

7

the constraint functions in (14b) and (14c). For the objective
function Φ(λ, µ) in (14a), one subgradient is given by [38]
"
 ∗
κ1 C13 (R1 − ℓ1∗ )3 t1∗
ℓ
+ β 1∗ + pc,1 t1∗, . . . ,
2
g̃1
t1
T
#†
 ∗ 
K
3 (R − ℓ ∗ )3
∗
Õ
κK CK
ℓ
t
K
K
∗
,
ti∗ − T .
+ K β ∗K + pc,K tK
g̃K
tK
T2
i=1
(19a)
As for the constraint F (λ)  0 in (14b), we have the
following lemma.
Lemma 3.3: Let v ∈ C N×1 be the eigenvector corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue of F (λ), i.e., v =
arg min k ξ k=1 ξ H F (λ)ξ. Then the constraint F (λ)  0 is
equivalent to the constraint of v H F (λ)v ≥ 0, and the
subgradient of v H F (λ)v at the given λ and µ is
 H
†
ζv H1 v, . . . , ζv H HK v, 0 .
(20)

Proof: See Appendix D.
Furthermore, the subgradient of λi ≥ 0 in (14c) is given
by the elementary vector ei ∈ R(K+1)×1 (i.e., ei is of all zero
entries except for the i-th entry being one), ∀i ∈ K, while that
of µ ≥ 0 is eK+1 . By using this together with (19) and (20),
the ellipsoid method can be applied to efficiently update λ and
µ towards the optimal λopt and µopt for (D1.1).
3) Finding the Optimal Primary Solution to (P1): With
λopt and µopt obtained, it remains to determine the optimal
primary solution to (P1.1) (or equivalently (P1)). Specifically,
by replacing λ and µ with λopt and µopt in Lemma 3.2, one
can obtain the optimal (topt, ℓopt ) for (P1) in a semi-closed
form. Furthermore, by substituting ℓopt in Lemma 3.1, one
opt
can then obtain the optimal local CPU frequencies { fi,n } for
the K users. However, we cannot directly obtain the optimal
energy transmit covariance matrix Qopt for (P1) from the
solution to problem (15), since its solution is non-unique in
general. Therefore, we adopt an additional step to obtain Qopt
by solving a semidefinite program (SDP), which corresponds
to solving problem (P1.1) for Q under the given (topt, ℓopt ).
We can then readily establish the following proposition.
3.1:
The
optimal
solution
Proposition
opt
opt
opt
opt
({ fi,n }, Q , t , ℓ ) for problem (P1) is given by
s
#+
"

opt 

r


opt
T2
σ 2 ln 2 iB
α


, if λi > 0,
Ri − 3κ C 3 opt + B g̃i 2
opt
λi
i i
ℓi =


opt
 0,
if λi = 0,

(21)
(
opt opt
opt
ℓ /ri , if λi > 0,
opt
ti = i
(22)
opt
0,
if λi = 0,
opt

opt
opt
i,Ci (Ri −ℓi )

fi,1 = . . . = f

opt

= Ci (Ri − ℓi )/T, ∀i ∈ K,

(23)

and
Qopt = arg min T tr(Q)
Q 0

s.t.

κi Ci3 (Ri

opt

− ℓi )3

T2

opt 

ti
opt
opt
+ pc,i ti
β ri
g̃i
− T ζtr(QHi ) ≤ 0, ∀i ∈ K,

+

(24)

where
opt
ri

!
!
!
g̃i µopt
1
B
W0
+1
+ pc,i −
,
ln 2
e
σ 2 e λiopt

(25)

corresponds to the optimal offloading rate for user i, ∀i ∈ K.
Proposition 3.1 can be verified by simply combining Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2; hence, we omit its detailed proof for
conciseness. Note that (24) is an instance of SDP, which can
thus be efficiently solved by off-the-shelf solvers, e.g., CVX
[39].
Summarizing, we present Algorithm 1 to solve the computation latency constrained energy minimization problem (P1).
Algorithm 1 for Solving the Energy Minimization Problem
(P1)
1: Initialization: Given an ellipsoid E((λ, µ), A) containing
(λopt, µopt ), where (λ, µ) is the center of E and A ≻ 0
characterizes the volume of E.
2: Repeat:
∗ ∗
• For each user i ∈ K, obtain (ti , ℓi ) by Lemma 3.2
under given λi and µ;
• Compute the subgradients of the objective function
and the constraints of (D1.1) as in Section III-B.2;
• Update λ and µ using the ellipsoid method [38];
3: Until λ and µ converge within a prescribed accuracy.
4: Set (λopt, µopt ) ← (λ, µ).
opt
5: Output: Obtain (topt, ℓopt ), { fi,n }, and compute Qopt by
(24).
Remark 3.1: Proposition 3.1 shows that the optimal joint
computing and offloading design has the following interesting
properties to minimize the energy consumption at the AP.
1) First, if the energy harvesting constraint is not tight for
user i (i.e., user i harvests sufficient wireless energy),
then no computation offloading is required and user i
opt
should compute all the tasks locally (i.e., ℓi = 0). This
can be explained based on the complementary slackness
condition [37], i.e.,
opt

opt
λi

opt

 
ti
opt
opt
+
+ pc,i ti
β
ri
g̃i
T2
!

opt
− T ζtr Q Hi = 0, ∀i ∈ K.

κi Ci3 (Ri − ℓi )3

(26)

In this case, if the energy harvesting constraint is not
opt
tight for user i, then based on (26) we have λi = 0, and
opt
accordingly ℓi = 0 holds from (21). This property is intuitive: when the user has sufficient energy to accomplish
the tasks locally, there is no need to employ computation
offloading that incurs additional energy consumption for
the MEC server’s computation at the AP.
2) Next, it is always beneficial to leave some bits for local
opt
computing at each user i ∈ K, i.e., ℓi < Ri always
holds (see (21)). In other words, offloading all the bits
to the AP is always suboptimal. This is because when
opt
ℓi → Ri , the marginal energy consumption of local

8

IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, numerical results are provided to gauge
the performance of the proposed design with joint WPT,
offloading, and computing optimization, as compared to the
following four benchmark schemes.
1) Local computing only: each user i ∈ K accomplishes its
computation task by only local computing. This scheme
corresponds to solving problem (P1) by setting ℓi = 0,
∀i ∈ K.
2) Computation offloading only: each user i ∈ K accomplishes its computation task by fully offloading the
computation bits to the AP. This scheme corresponds to
solving (P1) by setting fi,n = 0, ∀n, ∀i ∈ K, as well as
ℓi = Ri for (P1), ∀i ∈ K.
3) Joint design with isotropic WPT: the N-antenna AP radiates the RF energy isotropically or omni-directionally
over all directions by setting Q = pI, where p ≥ 0
denotes the transmit power at each antenna. This scheme
corresponds to solving problem (P1) by replacing Q as
pI with p being another optimization variable.
4) Separate MEC-WPT design: this scheme separately designs the computation offloading for MEC and the energy beamforming for WPT [21], [32]. First, the K users
minimize their sum-energy consumption subject to the
users’ individual computation latency constraints [32].
Then, under the constraints of energy demand at the K
users, the AP designs the transmit energy beamforming
with minimum energy consumption [21].
In the simulations, the EH efficiency is set as ζ = 0.3.
The system parameters are set as (unless stated otherwise):
the number of the AP antennas N = 4, Ci = 103 cycles/bit,
κi = 10−28, ∀i ∈ K [32], the circuit power pc,i = 10−4 Watt
(W), the energy consumption per offloaded bit by the MEC
server α = 10−4 Joule/bit, the receiver noise power σ 2 =
10−9 W, and the spectrum bandwidth for offloading B = 2

105
Average energy consumption (Joule)

computing is almost zero, and thus it is beneficial to
leave some bits for local computing in this case.
3) Furthermore, it is observed that for each user i, more
stringent the energy harvesting constraint is (or the
opt
associated dual variable λi is larger), more bits should
be offloaded to the AP with a smaller offloading rate
opt
ri . This property follows based on (21) and (25), in
opt
opt
which a larger λi admits a larger ℓi and a smaller
opt
ri .
opt
4) Finally, the number of offloaded bits ℓi and the ofopt
floading rate ri for each user i are affected by the
channel gain g̃i , the block length T , the circuit power
pc,i , and the MEC energy consumption α per offloaded
bit in the following way: 1) when the channel condition
opt
becomes better (i.e., g̃i becomes larger), both ℓi and
opt
ri increase, and thus user i is likely to offload more bits
with a higher offloading rate; 2) a higher circuit power
opt
pc,i at the user leads to a higher offloading rate ri ; 3)
opt
when T or α increases, ℓi reduces and thus fewer bits
are offloaded to the AP.

Local computing only
Full offloading only
Joint design w/ isotropic WPT
Separate design
Proposed joint design

104

103

102

101

0.1

0.2

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time block length, T (sec)

0.7

0.8

Fig. 3. The average energy consumption at the AP versus the block length
T.

MHz. By considering a Rayleigh fading channel model, the
wireless channel from the AP to each user i ∈ K is set as
h i = θ 0 di−3 h̄ i, gi = θ 0 di−3 ḡ i,

(27)

where h̄ i ∼ CN(0, I ) and ḡ i ∼ CN(0, I ), ∀i ∈ K, is
an independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) circularly
symmetric complex Gaussian (CSCG) random vector with
zero mean and covariance I ; θ 0 = 6.25 × 10−4 (i.e., −32
dB) corresponds to the channel power gain at a reference
distance of one meter; di denotes the distance from the AP
to user i ∈ K; and the path-loss exponent is assumed to
be 3. The numerical results are obtained by averaging over
500 randomized channel realizations. Note that the simulation
parameters are specifically chosen, but our approaches can be
also applied to other system setups.
A. Case with Homogeneous Users
First, we consider the case with homogeneous users, where
the distances from the AP to all the users are identical with
di = 5 meters, ∀i ∈ K. The corresponding average power loss
is set to be 5×10−6 (i.e., −53 dB). Additionally, the numbers of
computation bits at all users are set to be identical, i.e., R = Ri ,
∀i ∈ K. Figs. 3–6 show the average energy consumption at
the AP under different system parameters. It is observed that
the proposed joint design achieves the lowest average energy
consumption at the AP among all the five schemes. The joint
design with isotropic WPT achieves a suboptimal performance
due to the loss of multi-antenna energy beamforming gain.
The suboptimal performance of the separate-design scheme
implies the necessity of unified demand-supply optimization
in wireless powered MEC systems.
Fig. 3 shows the average energy consumption at the AP
versus the time block length T , where R = 10 kbits and
K = 10. First, with a small value of T (e.g., T = 0.05 sec), the
benchmark schemes but the local-computing-only scheme are
observed to achieve a near optimal performance close to that
with the proposed joint design, while as T increases, the energy

9

103
Average energy consumption (Joule)

Local computing only
Full offloading only
Joint design w/ isotropic WPT
Separate design
Proposed joint design

102

101

5

10

15
User number, K

20

25

Fig. 4. The average energy consumption at the AP versus the user number
K.

consumption with the local-computing-only scheme significantly decreases, approaching that with the proposed joint
design. It is also observed that the energy consumption with
the full-offloading-only scheme remains almost unchanged
when T ≥ 0.1 sec. This is due to the fact that in this case, the
optimal offloading time for all users is fixed to be around
0.1 sec for saving the circuit energy consumption; hence,
increasing T cannot further improve the energy efficiency
in this case. By contrast, the energy consumption with the
local-computing-only scheme decreases monotonically as T
increases. This is because as T increases, one can always lower
down the CPU frequency to save energy for local computing.
Finally, it is seen in Fig. 3 both the separate-design and
the equal-offloading-time-allocation schemes achieve a very
similar performance in the interested time block regime.
Fig. 4 depicts the average energy consumption versus the
user number K, where R = 10 kbits and T = 0.5 sec. It is
shown that the gain achieved by the proposed joint design
becomes more significant as the user number K becomes
large. The full-loading-only scheme outperforms the localcomputing-only scheme, but with a decreasing gain as K
increases. This is because in the full-offloading-only scheme,
all users share the finite time block and the offloading energy
consumption would increase drastically when K becomes
large. It is also observed that the performance of the equaloffloading-time-allocation scheme becomes closer to that of
the proposed joint design with larger K ≥ 15. This indicates
that an equal offloading time is desirable for a large number
of the users in order to minimize the energy consumption at
the AP.
Fig. 5 shows the average energy consumption at the AP
versus the number of computation bits R at each user, where
K = 2 and T = 0.05 sec. It is shown that the average energy
consumption by all the six schemes increases as R becomes
large, and the full-offloading-only scheme outperforms the
local-computing-only one, especially when R becomes large.
This indicates that with large R values, it is desirable to offload
more computation bits to the AP in order to reduce the energy

102

101

Local computing only
Full offloading only
Joint design w/ isotropic WPT
Separate design
Proposed joint design

100

10-1

2

4

6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Number of computation bits per user, R (kbits)

20

Fig. 5. The average energy consumption at the AP versus the number of
computation bits R at each user.

70
Average energy consumption (Joule)

Average energy consumption (Joule)

103

60
50

Local computing only
Full offloading only
Joint design w/ isotropic WPT
Separate design
Proposed joint design

40

30

20
0.5

1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Spectrum bandwith for offloading per user, B (MHz)

Fig. 6. The average energy consumption at the AP versus the spectrum
bandwidth B for offloading.

consumption. Furthermore, the full-offloading-only scheme is
observed to achieve a near optimal performance close to that
with the proposed joint design when R becomes large. This
is because the energy consumption per bit for offloading is
significantly smaller than that for local computing in the large
R case. It is also observed that the separate-design scheme
outperforms all the other benchmark schemes in this setup.
Fig. 6 shows the average energy consumption versus the
spectrum bandwidth B for offloading, where K = 6, T =
0.5 sec, and R = 50 kbits. As expected, Fig. 6 shows that
the energy consumption by the four schemes with offloading
decreases as B increases, and the one by the local-computingonly scheme remains unchanged. This indicates that a large
value of B not only implies a high offloading rate, but also
helps save the energy consumption in computation offloading.
It is also observed that at small B values (e.g., B ≤ 3 MHz), the
local-computing-only scheme outperforms the full-offloadingonly scheme, but it does not hold for large B cases. This

10

TABLE I
O FFLOADED B ITS AND R ESIDUAL E NERGY AT U SERS FOR THE P ROPOSED O PTIMAL J OINT D ESIGN U NDER D IFFERENT d2 .
d2 (meters)
opt

Near user’s offloaded bits ℓ1 (kbits)
opt
Far user’s offloaded bits ℓ2 (kbits)
Near user’s residual energy (×10−5 Joule)
Far user’s residual energy (×10−5 Joule)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.165
1.798
0.007
0.003

0.142
6.974
0.026
0

0.124
11.817
0.062
0

0.092
13.682
0.531
0

0.068
13.585
3.276
0

0.028
12.972
9.218
0

0.006
12.162
21.105
0

TABLE II
O FFLOADED B ITS AND R ESIDUAL E NERGY AT U SERS FOR THE P ROPOSED O PTIMAL J OINT D ESIGN U NDER D IFFERENT R2 .
R2 (kbits)

10

20

30

40

opt
Near user’s offloaded bits ℓ1 (kbits)
opt
Far user’s offloaded bits ℓ2 (kbits)
Near user’s residual energy (×10−5 Joule)

0.825
3.586
0.426
0

0.432
13.62
3.317
0

0.239
23.791
6.42
0

0.282
33.264
9.545
0

Far user’s residual energy (×10−5 Joule)

Average energy consumption (Joule)

80
Local computing only
Full offloading only
Joint design w/ isotropic WPT
Separate design
Proposed joint design

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2

3
4
5
6
7
Distance between the AP and the far user, d2 (meters)

8

Fig. 7. The average energy consumption at the AP versus the distance d2
from the AP to the far user.

indicates that offloading becomes a better option than localcomputing as B increases.
B. Case with Heterogeneous Users
Next, we evaluate the performance of the wireless powered
MEC system in the case with heterogeneous users. For the
purpose of illustration, we focus on the scenario with only
K = 2 users. It is assumed that the distances from the AP to
the two users (namely near and far users) are d1 = 2 meters
and d2 ≥ 2 meters, respectively. The time block length is set
as T = 0.2 sec.
Fig. 7 shows the average energy consumption versus the
distance d2 from the AP to the far user, where the computation
task sizes for both users are set as R1 = R2 = 20 kbits. It
is observed that as d2 increases, the energy consumption by
the six schemes increases significantly, and the proposed joint
design achieves the lowest energy consumption among them.
The local-computing-only scheme is observed to outperform
the full-offloading-only scheme when d2 < 3 meters, but
performs inferior to the full-offloading-only scheme when

d2 > 3 meters. Furthermore, the proposed joint design is
observed to achieve a significant performance gain over the
separate-design one when d2 > 4 meters.
To provide more insights, Table I demonstrates the numbers
opt
of offloaded bits ℓi s at both users and their residual energy
(i.e., Ei − Eloc,i − Eoffl,i ) under different values of d2 for the
proposed joint design. It is observed that the far user prefers
offloading significantly more bits than the near user, especially
at a larger d2 . As d2 increases, the number of offloaded
opt
bits ℓ1 by the near user decreases significantly, while that
opt
by the far user (i.e., ℓ2 ) increases. This result is generally
consistent with the first property in Remark 3.1. Furthermore,
it is observed that the residual energy at the near user increases
dramatically as d2 increases, while the far user always uses up
all its energy when d2 > d1 . This shows that as d2 increases,
the energy consumption increase at the AP in Fig. 7 is mainly
to satisfy the energy requirement at the far user. In this case,
the near user will harvest a lot of energy.
Furthermore, we consider the case when the near and far
users have distinct computation task sizes. Fig. 8 depicts the
average energy consumption versus the computation task size
R2 at the far user, where R1 = 20 kbits and d2 = 6 meters. It
is observed that the energy consumption by the six schemes
increases as R2 increases, and both the local-computing-only
and the separate-design schemes lead to much higher energy
consumption than the other four schemes when R2 > 20 kbits.
This is due to the fact that in the local-computing-only and
the separate-design schemes, the far user cannot explore the
benefit of task offloading for energy saving. Among the five
benchmark schemes, the full-offloading-only scheme achieves
the best performance close to the optimal proposed one.
Table II presents the numbers of offloaded bits at both users
and their residual energy for the proposed joint design. It is
opt
observed that as R2 increases, the number of offloaded bits ℓ1
opt
by the near user decreases, while ℓ2 by the far user increases
opt
significantly. Similarly as in Table I, ℓ2 is observed to be
opt
significantly larger than ℓ1 . It is also observed that with R2
increasing, the residual energy at the near user becomes more
significant, while that at the far user is zero.
Tables I and II show that when the users are heterogeneous

11

are convex functions with respect to x > 0, based on Jensen’s
inequality [37], it follows that

Average energy consumption (Joule)

200
175
150

Local computing only
Full offloading only
Joint design w/ isotropic WPT
Separate design
Proposed joint design

Ci (Ri − ℓi )/ fi ≤

125

Ci (Ri − ℓi )κi fi2 ≤

100

1/ fi,n

(28a)

2
,
κi fi,n

(28b)

where both the equalities hold if and only if
fi,1 = . . . = fi,Ci (Ri −ℓi ), ∀i ∈ K.

50

(29)

As a result, the optimality of problem (P1) is achieved when
(29) holds. Therefore, by replacing fi , fi,n , ∀n, problem (P1)
is equivalently expressed as

25

15
20
25
30
35
Computation task size of the far user, R2 (kbits)

40

min

Q  0, t, ℓ, { fi }

Fig. 8. The average energy consumption at the AP versus the computation
task size R2 kbits.

in locations and/or task sizes, even the optimal joint design
still leads to unbalanced energy demand and supply at these
users. In particular, the AP needs to use a large transmit power
to satisfy the high energy demand of users that are far apart
and/or have heavy computation tasks. At the same time, the
nearby users with light computation tasks can accordingly
harvest more energy and are likely to have energy surplus.
To better balance the energy demand and surplus, it can be
viable to enable user cooperation between near and far users,
which is an interesting research direction worth pursuing in
future work.
V. C ONCLUSION
We developed a unified MEC-WPT design framework with
joint energy beamforming, offloading, and computing optimization in emerging wireless powered multiuser MEC systems. In particular, we proposed an efficient wireless powered
multiuser MEC design by considering the latency-constrained
computation, for which the AP minimizes the total energy
consumption subject to the users’ individual computation latency constrains. Leveraging the Lagrange duality method, we
obtained the optimal solution in a semi-closed form. Numerical
results demonstrated the merits of the proposed joint design
over alternative benchmark schemes. The proposed unified
MEC-WPT design can pave the way to facilitate ubiquitous
computing for IoT devices in a self-sustainable way.
A PPENDICES
A. Proof of Lemma 3.1
First, consider the case when there exists some user i with
ℓi = Ri , i.e., user i offloads all of its computation task bits to
the AP. As user i does not perform local computing in this
case, the local CPU frequency of user i is evidently zero.
We next consider
the nontrivial case of 0 ≤ ℓi < Ri , ∀i ∈ K.
Í

Define fi ,

n=1
Ci (R
i −ℓi )
Õ
n=1

75

0
10

Ci (R
i −ℓi )
Õ

C i (R i −ℓ i )
fi, n
n=1
Ci (Ri −ℓi )

, ∀i ∈ K. Since that both 1/x and x 2

s.t.

T tr(Q) +

K
Õ

αℓi

(30a)

i=1

Ci (Ri − ℓi )/ fi ≤ T, ∀i ∈ K
 
ℓi
ti
+ pc,i ti
κi Ci (Ri − ℓi ) fi2 + β
g̃i
ti
− T ζtr(QHi ) ≤ 0, ∀i ∈ K
K
Õ
ti ≤ T, ti ≥ 0, 0 ≤ ℓi ≤ Ri, ∀i ∈ K.

(30b)

(30c)
(30d)

i=1

For a given (t, ℓ), it is evident that the optimal fi ’s for (30)
(equivalent (P1)) should be as small as possible by (30c).
Since fi is bounded below by Ci (Ri − ℓi )/T in (30b), it follows
that the optimal fi ’s are
fi = Ci (Ri − ℓi )/T, ∀i ∈ K.

(31)

It then readily follows that, at optimum of (P1), fi,1 = ... =
fi,Ci (Ri −ℓi ) = Ci (Ri − ℓi )/T , ∀i ∈ K.
B. Proof of F (λ)  0
F (λ)  0 can be verified by contradiction. Assume that
F (λ) is not positive semidefinite. Denote by ξ one eigenvector
corresponding to the negative eigenvalue of F (λ). By setting
Q = τξξ H  0 with τ going to infinity (which is feasible for
(13)), it follows that
lim tr(QF (λ)) = lim τξ H F (λ)ξ = −∞,

τ→+∞

τ→+∞

(32)

which in turn implies that the objective value in (13) is
unbounded below over Q  0. Therefore, in order for the
dual function value Φ(λ, µ) to be bounded below, we need
F (λ)  0.
C. Proof of Lemma 3.2
Given (λ, µ) ∈ S, we solve problem (16) for each user
i ∈ K. When λi = 0, the objective function in (16) becomes
αℓi + µti . It is evident that ti∗ = 0 and ℓi∗ = 0 are optimal for
(16).
For λi > 0, the Lagrangian of (16) is given by
 
λi κi Ci3 (Ri − ℓi )3 λi ti
ℓi
+
+ λi pc,i ti
β
Li = αℓi +
2
g̃i
ti
T
+ µti + γi (ℓi − Ri ) − νi ℓi − ηi ti,
(33)

12

where γi , νi , and ηi are the non-negative Lagrangian multipliers associated with ℓi ≤ Ri , ℓi ≥ 0, and ti ≥ 0, respectively.
Based on the KKT conditions [37], the necessary and sufficient
conditions for the optimal primal-dual point (ti∗, ℓi∗, γi∗, νi∗, ηi∗ )
are
ti∗ ≥ 0, 0 ≤ ℓi∗ ≤ Ri

(34a)

≥ 0, ηi∗ ≥ 0
Ri ) = 0, νi∗ ℓi∗ = 0, ηi∗ ti∗ = 0
  ∗
 ∗ 
ℓ∗
ℓ
ℓ
λi
β i∗ − i∗ β ′ ∗i + λi pc,i + µ − ηi∗ = 0
g̃i
ti
ti
ti
 
3
∗
3λi κi Ci (Ri − ℓi )2 λi ′ ℓi∗
α−
+ β ∗ + γi∗ − νi∗ =
g̃i
ti
T2

(34b)
(34c)

γi∗ ≥ 0,
γi∗ (ℓi∗ −

νi∗

2

(34d)
0,

(34e)

x

where β ′ (x) , σ Bln 2 2 B is the first-order derivative of β(x)
with respect to x. Note that (34c) denotes the complementary
slackness condition, while the left-hand-side terms of (34d)
and (34e) are the first-order derivatives of Li with respect to
ti∗ and ℓi∗ , respectively. For the function y = β(x) − x β ′ (x) of
x > 0, its inverse function can be shown to be [36]
 


y
B
1
W0 − 2 −
+1 .
(35)
x=
ln 2
σ e e

Let ri∗ , ℓi∗ /ti∗ . From (34b) and (34d), we have β(ri∗ ) −
ri∗ β ′ (ri∗ ) = −g̃i λµi + pc,i . Based on (35), it follows that


 


µ
g̃i
1
B
−
W0
+
1
.
(36)
ri∗ =
+
p
c,i
ln 2
e
σ 2 e λi

Since W0 (x) is a monotonically increasing function of x ≥ − 1e
and W0 (− 1e ) = −1 [36], it follows that ri∗ > 0 with non-zero
pc,i . From (34c) and (34e), it is immediate that
s
"
#+

1
α σ 2 ln 2 ri∗
∗
.
(37)
+
2B
ℓi = Ri −
Bg̃i
3κi Ci3 λi
With (36) and (37), the optimal ti∗ is then obtained as ti∗ =
ℓi∗ /ri∗ .
D. Proof of Lemma 3.3
The positive semidefinite constraint F (λ)  0 can be
equivalently expressed as a scalar inequality constraint as [37]
π(λ) , min ξ H F (λ)ξ ≥ 0.
k ξ k=1

(38)

Given a query point λ1 , [λ1,1, . . . , λ1,K ]† , one can find
the normalized eigenvector v1 of F (λ1 ) corresponding to the
smallest eigenvalue of F (λ1 ) (i.e., π(λ1 )). Consequently, we
can determine the value of the scalar constraint at a query
point as π(λ1 ) = v1H F (λ1 )v1 . To obtain a subgradient, we
have
π(λ) − π(λ1 ) = min ξ H F (λ)ξ − v1H F (λ1 )v1
≤
=

k ξ k=1
v1H (F (λ)
K
Õ
i=1

− F (λ1 )) v1


λ1,i − λi ζv1H Hi v1,

(39a)
(39b)

where the last equality follows from the affine structure of
F (·) in (14b). By the weak subgradient calculus [37], the
subgradient of F (λ) at the given λ and µ is then
[ζv H H1 v, . . . , ζv H HK v, 0]†,

(40)

where v is the eigenvector corresponding to the smallest
eigenvalue of F (λ), and the last zero entry follows from the
fact that π(λ) is independent of µ.
R EFERENCES
[1] F. Wang, J. Xu, X. Wang, and S. Cui, “Joint offloading and computing
optimization in wireless powered mobile-edge computing systems,” in
Proc. IEEE ICC, Paris, France, May 2017.
[2] M. Chiang and T. Zhang, “Fog and IoT: An overview of research
opportunities,” IEEE Internet Thing J., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 854–864, Jun.
2016.
[3] Y. Mao, C. You, J. Zhang, K. Huang, and K. B. Letaief, “A servey
on mobile edge computing: The communication perspective,” to appear
IEEE Commun. Survey Tuts. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/
abs/1701.01090
[4] S. Barbarossa, S. Sardellitti, and P. D. Lorenzo, “Communicating while
computing: Distributed mobile cloud computing over 5G heterogenous
networks,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 45–55, Nov.
2014.
[5] E. Cuervo, A. Balasubramanian, D. Cho, A. Wolman, S. Saroiu, R.
Chandra, and P. Bahl, “MAUI: Making smartphones last longer with
code offload,” in Proc. ACM MobiSys, San Francisco, USA, Jun. 2010,
pp. 49–62.
[6] S. Kosta, A. Aucinas, P. Hui, R. Mortier, and X. Zhang, “ThinkAir:
Dynamic resource allocation and parallel execution in the cloud for
mobile code offloading,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Orlando, USA, Mar.
2012, pp. 945–953.
[7] ETSI white paper (2015). Mobile edge computing: A key technology towards 5G. [Online]. Available: http://www.etsi.org/images/files/
ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_wp11_mec_a_key_technology_towards_5g.pdf
[8] D. J. Love, R. W. Heath, V. K. N. Lau, D. Gesbert, B. D. Rao, and M.
Andrews, “An overview of limited feedback in wireless communication
systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1341–1365,
Oct. 2008.
[9] R. Zhang and C. K. Ho, “MIMO broadcasting for simultaneous wireless
information and power transfer,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol.
12, no. 5, pp. 1989–2001, May 2013.
[10] D. W. K. Ng, E. S. Lo, and R. Schober, “Robust beamforming for secure
communication in systems with wireless power transfer,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 4599–4615, Aug. 2014.
[11] S. Timotheou, I. Krikidis, G. Zheng, and B. Ottersten, “Beamforming
for MISO interference channels with QoS and RF energy transfer,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2646–2658, May 2014.
[12] S. Bi, R. Zhang, and C. Ho, “Wireless powered communication: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 4, pp.
117–125, Apr. 2015.
[13] H. Li, J. Xu, R. Zhang, and S. Cui, “A general utility optimization
framework for energy harvesting based wireless communications,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 79–85, Apr. 2015.
[14] J. Xu, L. Liu, and R. Zhang, “Multiuser MISO beamforming for
simultaneous wireless information and power transfer,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 18, pp. 4798–4810, Sep. 2014.
[15] F. Wang, T. Peng, Y. Huang, and X. Wang, “Robust transceiver optimization for power-splitting based downlink MISO SWIPT systems,”
IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1492–1496, Sep. 2015.
[16] F. Wang, C. Xu, Y. Huang, X. Wang, and X.-Q. Gao, “REEL-BF design:
Achieving the SDP bound for downlink beamforming with arbitrary
shaping constraints,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 10, pp.
2672–2685, May 2017.
[17] Y. Zeng and R. Zhang, “Optimized training design for wireless energy
transfer,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 536–550, Feb. 2015.
[18] J. Xu and R. Zhang, “Energy beamforming with one-bit feedback,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 20, pp. 5370–5381, Oct. 2014.
[19] J. Xu and R. Zhang, “A general design framework for MIMO wireless
energy transfer with limited feedback,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 2475–2488, May 2016.

13

[20] C. Valenta and G. Durgin, “Harvesting wireless power: Survey of
energy-harvester conversion efficiency in far-field, wireless power transfer systems,” IEEE Microw. Mag., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 108–120, Jun.
2014.
[21] Y. Zeng, B. Clerckx, and R. Zhang, “Communications and signals design
for wireless power transmission,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 5,
pp. 2264–2290, May 2017.
[22] S. Lee and R. Zhang, “Distributed wireless power transfer with energy
feedback,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 1685–1699,
Apr. 2017.
[23] E. Boshkovska, D. W. K. Ng, N. Zlatanov, and R. Schober, “Practical
non-linear energy harvesting model and resource allocation for SWIPT
systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 2082–2085, Dec.
2015.
[24] B. Clerckx and E. Bayguzina, “Waveform design for wireless power
transfer,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 23. pp. 6313–6328,
Dec. 2016.
[25] F. Liu, P. Shu, H. Jin, L. Ding, J. Yu, D. Niu, and B. Li, “Gearing
resource-poor mobile devices with powerful clouds: Architectures, challenges, and applications,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp.
14–22, Jul. 2013.
[26] J. Liu, Y. Mao, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Delay-optimal computation
task scheduling for mobile-edge computing systems,” in Proc. IEEE
ISIT, Barcelona, Spain, Jun. 2016, pp. 1451–1455.
[27] D. Huang, P. Wang, and D. Niyato, “A dynamic offloading algorithm
for mobile computing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 6,
pp. 1991–1995, Jun. 2012.
[28] O. Muñoz, A. Pascual-Iserte, and J. Vidal, “Optimization of radio and
computational resources for energy efficiency in latency-constrained
application offloading,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 64, no. 10, pp.
4738–4755, Oct. 2015.
[29] Y. Wang, M. Sheng, X. Wang, L. Wang, and J. Li, “Mobile-edge computing: Partial computation offloading using dynamic voltage scaling,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 4268–4282, Aug. 2016.
[30] M.-H. Chen, B. Liang, and M. Dong, “Joint offloading decision and
resource allocation for multi-user multi-task mobile cloud,” in Proc.
IEEE ICC, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 2016, pp. 1–6.
[31] X. Chen, L. Jiao, W. Li, and X. Fu, “Efficient multi-user computation
offloading for mobile-edge cloud computing,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw.,
vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 2795–2808, Oct. 2016.
[32] C. You, K. Huang, H. Chae, and B. Kim, “Energy-efficient resource allocation for mobile-edge computation offloading,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1397–1411, Mar. 2017.
[33] S. Sardellitti, G. Scutari, and S. Barbarossa, “Joint optimization of radio
and computational resources for multicell mobile-edge computing,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Inf. Process. Netw., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 89–103, Jun.
2015.
[34] C. You, K. Huang, and H. Chae, “Energy efficient mobile cloud
computing powered by wireless energy transfer,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1757–1770, May 2016.
[35] T. D. Burd and R. W. Brodersen, “Processor design for portable
systems,” Kluwer J. VLSI Signal Process. Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 203–
221, Aug. 1996.
[36] R. Corless, G. Gonnet, D. Hare, D. Jeffrey, and D. Knuth, “On the
Lambert W function,” Adv. Comput. Math., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 329–359,
Dec. 1996.
[37] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge Univ. Press, Mar. 2004.
[38] S. Boyd, “Ellipsoid method,” Stanford University, California, USA.
[Online]. Available: http://stanford.edu/class/ee364b/lectures/ellipsoid_
method_notes.pdf
[39] M. Grant, S. Boyd, and Y. Ye, “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined
convex programming,” 2009. [Online]. Available: http://cvxr.com/cvx/

Feng Wang (M’16) received the B.Eng. degree from
Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China, in 2009, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees, both from Fudan University, China, in 2012
and 2016, respectively. He is currently an Assistant
Professor with the School of Information Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, China.
From 2012 to 2013, he was a Research Fellow
with the Department of Communication Technology,
Sharp Laboratories of China. From January 2017
to September 2017, he was a Postdoctoral Research
Fellow with the Engineering Systems and Design Pillar, Singapore University
of Technology and Design. His research interests include signal processing
for communications, wireless power transfer, and edge computing.

Jie Xu (S’12-M’13) received his B.E. and Ph.D.
degrees from University of Science and Technology
of China in 2007 and 2012, respectively. He is
now with the School of Information Engineering,
Guangdong University of Technology, China. From
2012 to 2014, he was a Research Fellow with the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore. From 2015
to 2016, he was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow
with the Engineering Systems and Design Pillar,
Singapore University of Technology and Design.
His research interests include energy efficiency and energy harvesting in
wireless communications, wireless information and power transfer, wireless
security, UAV communications, and mobile edge computing. He is now
an Editor for the IEEE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, an
Associate Editor for the IEEE ACCESS, and a Guest Editor for the IEEE
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS. He received the IEEE Signal Processing
Society Young Author Best Paper Award in 2017.

Xin Wang (SM’09) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc.
degrees from Fudan University, Shanghai, China, in
1997 and 2000, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree
from Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA, in 2004,
all in electrical engineering.
From September 2004 to August 2006, he was
a Postdoctoral Research Associate with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. In August 2006,
he joined the Department of Computer and Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science, Florida Atlantic
University, Boca Raton, FL, USA, as an Assistant Professor, and then an
Associate Professor from August 2010. He is currently a Distinguished Professor with the Department of Communication Science and Engineering, Fudan
University. His research interests include stochastic network optimization,
energy-efficient communications, cross-layer design, and signal processing
for communications. He served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Signal
Processing Letters. He currently serves as an Associate Editor for the IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing and as an Editor for the IEEE Transactions
on Vehicular Technology.

14

Shuguang Cui (S’99-M’05-SM’12-F’14) received
his Ph.D in Electrical Engineering from Stanford
University, California, USA, in 2005. Afterwards,
he has been working as assistant, associate, and full
professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering at
the Univ. of Arizona and Texas A&M University. He
is currently a Child Family Endowed Chair Professor
in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Univ.
of California-Davis. His current research interests
focus on data driven large-scale system control and
resource management, large data set analysis, IoT
system design, energy harvesting based communication system design, and
cognitive network optimization. He was selected as the Thomson Reuters
Highly Cited Researcher and listed in the Worlds’ Most Influential Scientific
Minds by ScienceWatch in 2014. He was the recipient of the IEEE Signal
Processing Society 2012 Best Paper Award. He has served as the general
co-chair and TPC co-chairs for many IEEE conferences. He has also been
serving as the area editor for IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, and associate
editors for IEEE Transactions on Big Data, IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, IEEE JSAC Series on Green Communications and Networking,
and IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications. He has been the elected
member for IEEE Signal Processing Society SPCOM Technical Committee
(2009∼2014) and the elected Chair for IEEE ComSoc Wireless Technical
Committee (2017∼2018). He is a member of the Steering Committee for
both IEEE Transactions on Big Data and IEEE Transactions on Cognitive
Communications and Networking. He is also a member of the IEEE ComSoc
Emerging Technology Committee. He was elected as an IEEE Fellow in 2013
and an IEEE ComSoc Distinguished Lecturer in 2014.

