arXiv:1603.00585v1 [cs.NI] 2 Mar 2016

Optimal Scheduling for Incentive WiFi Offloading
under Energy Constraint
Juntao Gao, Minoru Ito

Norio Shiratori

Graduate School of Information Science
Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Nara, Japan
Email: {jtgao, ito}@is.naist.jp

Research Institute of Electrical Communication
Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

Abstract—WiFi offloading, where mobile device users (e.g.,
smart phone users) transmit packets through WiFi networks
rather than cellular networks, is a promising solution to alleviating the heavy traffic burden of cellular networks due to
data explosion. However, since WiFi networks are intermittently
available, a mobile device user in WiFi offloading usually needs
to wait for WiFi connection and thus experiences longer delay
of packet transmission. To motivate users to participate in WiFi
offloading, cellular network operators give incentives (rewards
like coupons, e-coins) to users who wait for WiFi connection and
transmit packets through WiFi networks.
In this paper, we aim at maximizing users’ rewards while
meeting constraints on queue stability and energy consumption.
However, we face scheduling challenges from random packet
arrivals, intermittent WiFi connection and time varying wireless
link states. To address these challenges, we first formulate
the problem as a stochastic optimization problem. We then
propose an optimal scheduling policy, named Optimal scheduling
Policy under Energy Constraint (OPEC), which makes online
decisions as to when to delay packet transmission to wait for
WiFi connection and which wireless link (WiFi link or cellular
link) to transmit packets on. OPEC automatically adapts to
random packet arrivals and time varying wireless link states,
not requiring a priori knowledge of packet arrival and wireless
link probabilities. As verified by simulations, OPEC scheduling
policy can achieve the maximum rewards while keeping queue
stable and meeting energy consumption constraint.

I. I NTRODUCTION
With the explosion of smart devices (like smart phones,
tablets) in daily life, mountainous data (like high resolution
photos and videos) have been generated every day. Global mobile data traffic has already reached 3.7 exabytes per month at
the end of 2015 and will be 30.6 exabytes per month by 2020,
i.e., eightfold increase, according to the report of Cisco [1].
As a result, cellular networks are overloaded, which degrades
users’ quality of experience (we already experienced long
delay, low throughput during peak hours in crowded downtown
areas [2]). To improve users’ quality of experience, cellular
network operators struggle to increase network connection
speeds. However, deploying more cellular infrastructures (like
base stations) is very expensive and cannot bring reasonable
benefits. Recently, offloading mobile data traffic from cellular
networks to WiFi networks of low cost and high connection
speed (known as WiFi offloading) has been proposed as a
promising solution to alleviating the heavy traffic burden of
cellular networks [2], [3].

)KRR[RGX(9

=O,O)U\KXGMK

=O,O)U\KXGMK

'6

'6
'6

\OJKU

\OJKU
SU\KSKTZ

Fig. 1.

Illustration of participants in WiFi offloading.

Participants in WiFi offloading include cellular network
operators (cellular Base Station (BS)), WiFi Access Point (AP)
owners and mobile device users, as shown in Figure 1. In
such a network, mobile device users leverage loose delay
requirement of delay-tolerant applications (e.g., uploading
photos and videos to iCloud/youtube, synchronizing dropbox)
to postpone packet transmission for utilizing intermittent WiFi
connection. While cellular network operators can benefit from
WiFi offloading, both WiFi AP owners and users may suffer from bad quality of experience: WiFi AP owners need
to sacrifice WiFi bandwidth and energy to offer offloading
services and users need to delay packet transmission to wait
for intermittent WiFi connection. To motivate WiFi AP owners
to provide WiFi offloading services and users to utilize WiFi
offloading services, incentive frameworks have been proposed
recently (see Section II for related work), where cellular
network operators give rewards to WiFi AP owners and users
to compensate for their loss. However, these frameworks focus
on maximizing the utility of network operators (related to
operators’ satisfaction, e.g., minimizing operators’ incentive
cost) rather than mobile device users. Further, they do not
take into account limited battery power of mobile devices.
In this paper, we aim at maximizing users’ rewards in
incentive WiFi offloading under constraint on energy consumption of mobile devices. However, to achieve this goal,
we face scheduling challenges from random packet arrivals,

intermittent WiFi connection and time varying wireless link
states. To address these challenges, we first formulate the
problem as a stochastic optimization problem with constraint
on average energy consumption and queue stability (defined
later). We then propose an optimal scheduling policy, named
Optimal scheduling Policy under Energy Constraint (OPEC),
which makes online decisions as to when to delay packet
transmission to wait for WiFi connection and which wireless
link (WiFi link or cellular link) to transmit packets on.
OPEC automatically adapts to random packet arrivals and time
varying wireless link states, not requiring a priori knowledge
of packet arrival and wireless link probabilities. As verified
by simulations, OPEC scheduling policy can achieve the
maximum rewards while keeping queue stable and meeting
energy consumption constraint.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section
II, we review related work on incentive WiFi offloading and
scheduling policies under energy constraint. We introduce
network models and assumptions for WiFi offloading system
in Section III. We give a formulation of the optimal scheduling
problem in Section IV and present a detailed description of
OPEC scheduling policy in Section V. Simulation results to
verify OPEC are presented in Section VI and the whole paper
is concluded in Section VII.
II. R ELATED W ORK
To motivate users to delay their packet transmissions for
offloading cellular traffic to complementary networks (DTNs
and WiFi hotspots), Zhuo et al. [4] proposed an incentive
framework named ”Win-Coupon,” in which cellular network
operators provide users incentives (service discount coupon).
Their objective is to minimize the incentive cost of cellular
network operators.
A similar work [5], which also motivates users to offload
cellular traffic to WiFi networks, proposed an incentive mechanism to allow network operators to optimally award users,
but differs from [4] in how network operators negotiate an
offloading contract with users.
Instead of motivating users, Kang et al. [6] aim to motivate
WiFi Access Point (AP) owners to provide data offloading
services for network operators. They proposed an incentive
mechanism, where network operators award WiFi AP owners
based on both the amount of data offloading services and
service quality they provide. This work also focuses on maximizing network operators’ utility.
Iosifidis et al. [7] discussed the challenges of designing
incentive schemes to encourage WiFi AP owners to participate
in offering data offloading services (such networks are called
user-provided networks in [7]). They pointed out that energy
consumption and cost for providing and receiving offloading
services are critical to incentive scheme designs.
However, all above works [4]–[6] focused on maximizing
the utility of network operators rather than users and they
did not consider the issue of energy consumption of mobile
devices, which is a major concern to all battery-powered
mobile devices. Different from [4]–[6], our goal in this paper

is to maximize rewards of users under energy consumption
constraint.
There are also some works considering energy consumption
issues in offloading cellular traffic. Ra et al. [8] studied
the tradeoff between energy consumption and data delay in
WiFi offloading networks. They proposed an algorithm that
can achieve the minimum energy consumption under queue
stability constraint. However, they did not consider incentive
issue and their objective is different from ours.
Al-Kanj et al. [9] investigated how to offload cellular traffic
under energy consumption constraint on mobile devices in
multihop ad hoc networks. Their objective is to minimize the
usage of scarce cellular spectrum, which is different from the
goal of our work.
Recently, Onoue et al. [10] considered reducing data delay
in WiFi offloading networks under energy consumption constraint. The idea is that a user prefetches the data to be used
before he leaves WiFi network coverage. Therefore, the user
can obtain the data immediately when he leaves WiFi coverage
without waiting for next WiFi connection, thus reducing data
delay. However, they did not consider incentive issues.
III. N ETWORK M ODELS
In this section, we introduce network models for WiFi
offloading system concerning network time, packet arrival
process, wireless links, rewards and energy consumption. Key
notations are summarized in Table I.
Network time: In a WiFi offloading network as illustrated
in Figure 1, network time is divided into time slots t of equal
duration, t = 0, 1, 2, · · · . For example, one time slot could be
duration of 20 seconds.
Packet arrival process and queue: Packets arrive at the
mobile device following a general stochastic process {a(t); t ≥
0}, where a(t) is the number of packets arriving at the mobile
device at time slot t. We assume a(t) has finite second
moment for any t, E{a(t)2 } < ∞. All arriving packets will be
stored in a queue of the mobile device awaiting for wireless
transmission. Denote by Q(t) the number of packets in the
queue at the beginning of time slot t.
Wireless links: If a mobile device is connected through a
wireless channel to either a cellular base station (BS) or a
WiFi access point (AP), we say a wireless link is available
for the mobile device. We assume at most n > 0 wireless
links are available for the mobile device every time slot t,
including 1 cellular wireless link and n − 1 WiFi wireless
links. The state of a wireless link at slot t (i.e., how many
packets can be transmitted by that link at slot t) is a random
variable and varies from time slot to time slot, due to factors
like user mobility, interference and wireless channel fading.
Denote the states of n wireless links at slot t by a vector
S(t) = S1 (t), S2 (t), · · · , Sn (t) , where vector element S1 (t)
is the state of the cellular wireless link (i.e., at most S1 (t)
packets can be transmitted by cellular link at slot t) and
Si (t), 2 ≤ i ≤ n, is the state of WiFi wireless link i (at
most Si (t) packets can be transmitted by WiFi link i at slot
t).

TABLE I
K EY NOTATIONS IN W I F I OFFLOADING SYSTEM .
Notation
t
a(t)
Q(t)
Z(t)
n
S(t)
α(t)
D
π
P
απ (t)
pπ (t)
pc
pw
pav
bπ (t)
r π (t)

Description
slotted network time, t = 0, 1, 2, · · ·
the number of packets arriving at the mobile device at time slot t
the number of packets in the queue at the beginning of time slot t, also called queue size
the value of virtual queue at the beginning of time slot t
the maximum number of wireless links available for the mobile device every time slot t
the vector of states of n wireless links at slot t, where element S1 (t) is the state of cellular wireless link
and all other vector elements are the states of WiFi wireless links
a transmission decision made by the mobile device at slot t
the set of all n + 1 possible transmission decisions
a transmission policy
the set of all possible transmission policies for the considered WiFi offloading network
the transmission decision made by policy π at slot t
the energy consumption under transmission policy π at slot t
the energy consumption when transmitting packets by a cellular wireless link at a time slot
the energy consumption when transmitting packets by a WiFi wireless link at a time slot
constraint on average energy consumption
the transmission capacity under transmission policy π at time slot t
the reward given to the user under transmission policy π at slot t

Transmission decision: At each time slot t, the mobile
device makes a transmission decision from the following n+1
decision options:
D1: delaying packet transmission (i.e., not transmitting
packets at slot t),
D2: transmitting packets by the cellular link,
D3: transmitting packets by a WiFi link i, 2 ≤ i ≤ n.
We assume the mobile device can transmit packets by at
most one wireless link at a time slot. Denote by D the set of
all n+1 possible transmission decisions. Denote a transmission

decision at slot t by vector α(t) = α1 (t), α2 (t), · · · , αn (t) ,
where α(t) ∈ D and αi (t) is a binary variable regarding
wireless link i. Then

for D1,
 (0, 0, · · · , 0)
(1, 0, · · · , 0)
for D2,
α(t) =
(1)

(0, 0, · · · , 1, · · · , 0)
for D3, αi (t) = 1.
Transmission policy: A transmission policy π is a set of
rules for a user to make transmission decisions at each time
slot t.
For example, a transmission policy π can be one that first
observes the states of all wireless links S(t) at each time slot t
and then makes a random transmission decision from decision
set D.

Denote by απ (t) = απ1 (t), απ2 (t), · · · , απn (t) the transmission decision under transmission policy π at time slot t,
απ (t) ∈ D. Denote by P the set of all possible policies for
the considered WiFi offloading network.
Energy consumption: Denote by pπ (t) the energy consumption under transmission policy π at slot t.

for D1,
 0
pc
for D2,
pπ (t) =
(2)

pw
for D3.

Transmission capacity: Denote by bπ (t) the transmission
capacity under transmission policy π at time slot t, i.e., the

maximum number of packets that can be transmitted with
transmission decision απ (t) and link states S(t),
bπ (t) = απ (t)S(t) =

n
X

Si (t)απi (t)

(3)

i=1

We assume bπ (t) has finite second moment for any t under
any transmission policy π ∈ P, i.e., E{bπ (t)2 } < ∞.
Incentive: To encourage mobile device user to offload
cellular traffic, one unit of reward rπ (t) is given to the user
if the user decides to delay packet transmission or transmit
packets by a WiFi link under transmission policy π at slot t,
i.e.,

1
for D1 or D3,
π
r (t) =
(4)
0
for D2.
IV. O PTIMAL S CHEDULING P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
Our goal is to maximize user rewards under energy consumption constraint (defined later) in incentive WiFi offloading
network. In this section, we formulate the problem as a
stochastic optimization problem [11].
We first define how queue Q(t) evolves, when queue Q(t)
is said to be stable and quantities concerning time average
expectations of packet arrivals, energy consumption, transmission capacity and rewards.
Queue dynamics: Under transmission policy π ∈ P, the
queue in the mobile device evolves as follows:


Q(t + 1) = max Q(t) − bπ (t), 0 + a(t)

(5)

Queue stability: The queueing process Q(t) is mean rate
stable [11] if

E |Q(t)|
=0
(6)
lim
t→∞
t

Time average expectations: For transmission policy π ∈
P, we define the following time average expectations:
t−1

a(t) =

1X
E{a(τ )}
t τ =0

pπ (t) =

1X
E{pπ (τ )}
t τ =0

(7)

t−1

(8)

t−1

b (t) =

1X
E{bπ (τ )}
t τ =0

r π (t) =

1X
E{rπ (τ )}
t τ =0

π

(9)

t−1

(10)

Note that 0 ≤ r π (t) ≤ 1 from definition (4).
Optimal scheduling problem formulation: In the considered incentive WiFi offloading network, our objective is to
propose a scheduling policy to maximize the time average expected rewards while meeting energy consumption constraint
pav , 0 < pav < ∞, (12) and queue stability constraint (13). We
formulate this problem as a stochastic optimization problem
[11]:
maximize
π∈P

subject to

lim sup rπ (t)

(11)

t→∞

1) lim sup pπ (t) ≤ pav

(12)

t→∞

2) The queueing process Q(t) is
mean rate stable
3) απ (t) ∈ D, ∀ t ≥ 0

(13)
(14)

Note that the maximum value of lim supt→∞ r π (t) is 1.
If we let
f π (t) = −rπ (t)
y π (t) = pπ (t) − pav

(15)
(16)

and similarly define their time average expectations
π
f (t), y π (t) like (7) (8) (9) (10), then the above stochastic
optimization problem is equivalent to the following one.
π

minimize

lim inf f (t)

(17)

subject to

1) lim sup yπ (t) ≤ 0

(18)

π∈P

t→∞

t→∞

2) The queueing process Q(t) is
mean rate stable
3) απ (t) ∈ D, ∀ t ≥ 0

(19)
(20)

Feasible problem: The above stochastic optimization problem is said to be feasible if there exists at least one policy
π ∈ P that meets all constraints (18)-(20). Throughout this
paper we only consider feasible problem.
V. O PTIMAL S CHEDULING P OLICY
C ONSTRAINT

UNDER

E NERGY

In this section, we propose a scheduling policy that meets
constraints (18)-(20) and achieves the minimum limit value of
π
f (t) (i.e, maximum limit value of rewards r π (t)). Our policy

is named Optimal scheduling Policy under Energy Constraint
(OPEC), OPEC ∈ P.
We need several definitions in describing OPEC. First,
define a virtual queueing process {Z(t); t ≥ 0}, which is used
in OPEC to meet the average energy consumption constraint
(18). The virtual queueing process evolves as follows:


Z(t + 1) = max Z(t) + y OP EC (t), 0 ,
(21)

where y OP EC (t) is defined in (16) and we assume the initial
conditions Z(0) ≥ 0 and E{Z(0)2 } < ∞ 1 .
Then, define the following auxiliary quantities for transmission decision option α(t) ∈ D, which will help OPEC in
making decisions.

for D1,
 0
pc
for D2,
p(t) =
(22)

pw
for D3.
n
X
Si (t)αi (t)
(23)
b(t) = α(t)S(t) =
i=1

r(t) =



1
0

for D1 or D3,
for D2.

(24)

The full description of OPEC policy is given in Algorithm
1.
Basic idea of OPEC: To meet queue stability constraint
(19), it is sufficient for one policy to greedily minimize
−Q(t)b(t) every time slot t as proved in [11] (b(t), f (t), y(t)
are defined in Algorithm 1). Similarly, to meet the constraint
on average energy consumption (18), it suffices to greedily
minimize Z(t)y(t) every time slot t [11]. Thus, to meet
both constraints (19) and (18), OPEC greedily minimizes
−Q(t)b(t) + Z(t)y(t) every time slot t. Since our final goal is
to minimize objective function (17) while meeting constraints
(18)-(20), OPEC also needs to consider f (t). To account for
f (t), OPEC minimizes a weighted sum V f (t) − Q(t)b(t) +
Z(t)y(t) every time slot t.
Control parameter V measures the importance of getting
rewards: larger V means we prefer getting more rewards,
which comes at the cost of an increase in queue size Q(t).
Thus, by controlling V we can achieve a tradeoff between
queue size and rewards. It can be proved, by Lyapunov
optimization theory [11], that OPEC policy indeed achieves
π
the minimum limit value of f (t) while meeting constraints
(18)-(20) by greedily minimizing the above weighted sum.
Line 1-3: Initialize the decision αOP EC (t) to be not
transmitting packets. value and tmp are auxiliary variables
to be used in the following steps.
Line 4-13: For each time slot t, OPEC scheduling policy
looks for a transmission decision α(t) ∈ D that minimizes
tmp = V f (t) − Q(t)b(t) + Z(t)y(t).

(25)

Line 14: Update the value of queue Q(t).
Line 15: Update the value of virtual queue Z(t).
1 These two assumptions about Z(0) will be used in proving the optimality
of OPEC. See [11] for more details.

Algorithm 1 OPEC scheduling policy
Input: Q(t) : the number of packets in the queue at slot t
Z(t) : the value of the virtual queue at slot t
S(t) : wireless link states at slot t
a(t) : the number of packets arriving at t
Parameters: n : the maximum number of available links
pw : energy consumption of transmitting packets
by a WiFi link
pc : energy consumption of transmitting packets
by a cellular link
V : control parameter (V ≥ 0)
Output: A transmission decision αOP EC (t) ∈ D
1: value = ∞;
2: αOP EC (t) = (0, 0, · · · , 0);
3: tmp = 0;
4: for all transmission decision options α(t) ∈ D do
5:
f (t) = P
−r(t);
n
6:
b(t) = i=1 Si (t)αi (t);
7:
y(t) = p(t) − pav ;
8:
Calculate tmp = V f (t) − Q(t)b(t) + Z(t)y(t);
9:
if tmp < value then
10:
value = tmp ;
11:
αOP EC (t) = α(t);
12:
end if
13: end for


14: Q(t + 1) = max  Q(t) − bOP EC (t), 0  + a(t);
15: Z(t + 1) = max Z(t) + y OP EC (t), 0 ;
16: return αOP EC (t).

t−1

Q=

1X
Q(τ )
t τ =0

(26)

t−1

r OP EC =

1 X OP EC
r
(τ )
t τ =0

pOP EC =

1 X OP EC
p
(τ )
t τ =0

(27)

t−1

(28)

B. Simulation results
After running simulations for 106 slots (i.e., 11.5 days if 1
slot is equal to 1 second) under different settings of V , we
collected data of Q(t), rOP EC (t), pOP EC (t) and calculated
their time averages Q, r OP EC , pOP EC , as summarized in
Figures 2, 3, 4.

VALIDATION

For simulating the considered WiFi offloading network,
we developed a customized simulator, which takes as inputs
packet arrival process {a(t); t ≥ 0}, maximum number of
wireless links n, stochastic process of wireless link states S(t),
energy consumption pc , pw , energy consumption constraint
pav and control parameter V . By configuring these parameters,
we can simulate a wide range of network scenarios.
For illustration purpose, we consider a network scenario
with the following network settings.
• The number a(t) of packets arriving at the queue for
any time slot t ≥ 0 is an Independent and Identically
Distributed (IID) random variable, where P r{a(t) =
0} = 0.2, P r{a(t) = 2} = 0.3, P r{a(t) = 3} = 0.5.
• There are at most two wireless links (n = 2) available
every time slot: one cellular link and one WiFi link.
• Wireless link state vector S(t) is an IID vector random
variable over time slots. Since cellular network is of low
data rates and almost always available, we set cellular
link states and probabilities as P r{S1 (t) = 0} =
0.1, P r{S1 (t) = 1} = 0.2, P r{S1 (t) = 2} = 0.7.

0.7

(J/slot)

A. Simulation settings

0.8

pOPEC

In this section, we verify our OPEC scheduling policy by
simulations.

Time average energy consumption,

VI. S IMULATION

Since WiFi network is of high data rates and intermittently available, we set WiFi link states and probabilities as P r{S2 (t) = 0} = 0.7, P r{S2 (t) = 2} =
0.05, P r{S2(t) = 4} = 0.05, P r{S2 (t) = 10} =
0.1, P r{S2 (t) = 20} = 0.1.
• For energy consumption, we set pc = 1.15 J/slot when
transmitting by cellular link and pc = 1.1 J/slot when
transmitting by WiFi link. Constraint on average energy
consumption is set to be pav = 0.8 J/slot.
We vary control parameter V in our simulations and examine
its impact on performance metrics like time average queue
size Q, time average rewards r OP EC and time average energy
consumption pOP EC defined below

energy constraint,

pav

0.6

0.5

simulation result

0.4

0.3
0

40

80

120

Control parameter,

160

200

V

Fig. 2. Time average energy consumption pOP EC vs. control parameter V .

We first check whether OPEC satisfies the constraint on
average energy consumption. Figure 2 shows the simulated
results on pOP EC as V increases from 1 to 200. From Figure
2, we can see that the time average energy consumption
pOP EC under OPEC scheduling policy is always less than
the constraint pav = 0.8 J/slot. Thus, OPEC meets the given

14

rOPEC

0.9

simulation result
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
0

(packets)

12

Q

Time average queue size,

queue size limit

maximum reward
1.0

Time average rewards,

constraint on average energy consumption. Further observation
of Figure 2 shows that as V increases, pOP EC decreases and
approaches a limit value 0.32, indicating that with constraints
on queue stability and average energy consumption, there
exists a minimum value pmin of average energy consumption
for the considered WiFi offloading network. That is to say, the
average energy consumption constraint pav should be larger
than pmin , otherwise no scheduling policy can meet average
energy consumption constraint while keeping queue stable.

40

80

120

Control parameter,

simulation result

160

200

V

10

Fig. 4.

8
6
4

0

40

80

120

Control parameter,

Fig. 3.

V

160

200

Time average queue size Q vs. control parameter V .

We then check whether OPEC satisfies the queue stability
constraint. Figure 3 shows the simulated results on Q as V
increases. From Figure 3, we can see that the time average
queue size Q under OPEC scheduling policy increases as V
increases and tends to reach a limit valuethat is less than
14. As a common practice, we estimate E |Q(t)| by time
average Q. Therefore,

E |Q(t)|
14
Q
= lim
≤ lim
=0
(29)
lim
t→∞ t
t→∞ t
t→∞
t
Thus, OPEC also meets the constraint of queue being mean
rate stable.
Finally, we check whether OPEC can achieve the maximum
average reward 1. Figure 4 shows simulated results on r OP EC
as V increases. We can see from the figure that average
reward r OP EC under OPEC scheduling policy increases as V
increases and reaches the optimal value 1, thus verifying that
OPEC can indeed achieve the maximum average reward 1. In
summary, by simulations we validated that OPEC scheduling
policy can achieve the maximum average rewards while satisfying constraints on queue stability and energy consumption.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we focused on maximizing users’ rewards
in incentive WiFi offloading under energy consumption constraint. We proposed a flexible scheduling policy, called Op-

Time average rewards r OP EC vs. control parameter V .

timal scheduling Policy under Energy Constraint (OPEC).
As validated by simulation, OPEC can achieve the maximum rewards while keeping queue stable and meeting energy consumption constraint. One merit of OPEC is that it
automatically adapts to random packet arrivals, intermittent
WiFi connection and time varying wireless link states, not
requiring a priori knowledge of packet arrival and wireless link
probabilities. As a future work, we will consider offloading
cellular traffic by multiple complementary networks, such as
WiFi, WiMax and Femtocell networks.
R EFERENCES
[1] Cisco, “Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic
forecast update, 2015-2020 white paper,” 2016.
[2] F. Rebecchi, M. D. D. Amorim, V. Conan, A. Passarella, R. Bruno, and
M. Conti, “Data offloading techniques in cellular networks: A survey,”
IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 580–603,
November 2014.
[3] K. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Yi, I. Rhee, and S. Chong, “Mobile data offloading:
How much can wifi deliver?” IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 536–551, April 2013.
[4] X. Zhuo, W. Gao, G. Cao, and S. Hua, “An incentive framework for
cellular traffic offloading,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing,
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 541–554, March 2014.
[5] S. Cai, L. Duan, J. Wang, S. Zhou, and R. Zhang, “Incentive mechanism
design for delayed wifi offloading,” in IEEE International Conference
on Communications (ICC), 2015.
[6] X. Kang and S. Sun, “Incentive mechanism design for mobile data offloading in heterogeneous networks,” in IEEE International Conference
on Communications (ICC), 2015.
[7] G. Iosifidis, L. Gao, J. Huang, and L. Tassiulas, “Incentive mechanisms
for user-provided networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 52,
no. 9, pp. 20–27, September 2014.
[8] M.-R. Ra, J. Paek, A. B. Sharma, R. Govindan, M. H. Krieger,
and M. J. Neely, “Energy-delay tradeoffs in smartphone applications,”
in 8th International conference on Mobile systems, applications, and
services(MobiSys), 2010.
[9] L. Al-Kanj and Z. Dawy, “Offloading wireless cellular networks via
energy-constrained local ad hoc networks,” in IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2011.

[10] Y. Onoue, M. Tamai, and K. Yasumoto, “Energy-constrained wi-fi offloading method using prefetching,” in IEEE 79th Vehicular Technology
Conference (VTC Spring), 2014.
[11] M. J. Neely, Stochastic Network Optimization with Application to
Communication and Queueing Systems. Morgan & Claypool, 2010.

