Optimal Status Update for Age of Information
Minimization with an Energy Harvesting Source

arXiv:1706.05773v2 [cs.IT] 20 Jun 2017

Xianwen Wu∗ , Jing Yang† , and Jingxian Wu‡

Abstract
In this paper, we consider a scenario where an energy harvesting sensor continuously monitors
a system and sends time-stamped status updates to a destination. The destination keeps track of the
system status through the received updates. We use the metric Age of Information (AoI), the time
that has elapsed since the last received update was generated, to measure the “freshness” of the status
information available at the destination. We assume energy arrives randomly at the sensor according to a
Poisson process, and each status update consumes one unit of energy. Our objective is to design optimal
online status update policies to minimize the long-term average AoI, subject to the energy causality
constraint at the sensor. We consider three scenarios, i.e., the battery size is infinite, finite, and one unit
only, respectively.
For the infinite battery scenario, we adopt a best-effort uniform status update policy and show that it
minimizes the long-term average AoI. For the finite battery scenario, we adopt an energy-aware adaptive
status update policy, and prove that it is asymptotically optimal when the battery size goes to infinity.
For the last scenario where the battery size is one, we first show that within a broadly defined class
of online policies, the optimal policy should have a renewal structure, i.e., the status update epochs
form a renewal process, and the length of each renewal interval depends on the first energy arrival
over that interval only. We then focus on a renewal interval, and prove that if the AoI in the system
is below a threshold when the first energy arrives, the sensor should store the energy and hold status
update until the AoI reaches the threshold; otherwise, it updates the status immediately. We analytically
characterize the long-term average AoI under such a threshold-based policy, and explicitly identify the
optimal threshold. Simulation results corroborate the theoretical bounds.
∗

Xianwen Wu is with Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. (email: xianwenw@qti.qualcomm.com).

†

Jing Yang is with the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA, USA. (e-mail: yangjing@psu.edu).
‡

Jingxian Wu is with the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA (email:
wuj@uark.edu).
This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grants ECCS-1405403 and ECCS1650299, and presented in part at the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Paris, France, May
2017 [1].

2

I. I NTRODUCTION
Enabled by the widespread wireless communications and the proliferation of ultra-low power
sensors, ubiquitous sensing has profoundly changed almost every aspect of our daily lives.
In many applications, such as environment monitoring [2], vechicle tracking [3], sensors are
deployed to monitor the status of sensing objects, and communicate the status information to a
fusion center (FC). To keep track of the status, it is desirable to keep the status information at the
FC as fresh as possible. However, this is often constrained by limited physical resources, such as
energy and bandwidth. In order to measure the freshness of the status updates at the FC, a metric
called “Age of Information” (AoI) has been introduced in recent literature [4]. Specifically, AoI
is defined as the time that has elapsed since the last received update was generated.
With this definition, AoI in various queueing systems has been analyzed, such as single-source
single-server queues [4], the M/M/1 Last-Come First-Served (LCFS) queue with preemption in
service [5], and the M/M/1 First-Come First-Served (FCFS) system with multiple sources [6],
[7]. AoI with out-of-order packet delivery has been evaluated in [8]–[10]. A related metric, Peak
Age of Information (PAoI), is introduced in [11], and has been studied in [12], [13]. In [14],
Bedewy et al have identified the optimality properties of a Last Generated First Served (LGFS)
service discipline when updates arrive out of order. Kam et al have shown that packet deadlines
can improve AoI in [15]. AoI in the presence of errors has been evaluated in [16], and LCFS with
non-memoryless gamma-distributed service times has been investigated in [17]. With knowledge
of the server state, Sun et al have studied the optimal status update policy in [18].
One the other hand, optimal scheduling policies of energy harvesting (EH) sensors for various
communication and sensing objectives have been extensively studied in the recent literature.
Optimal transmission scheduling for throughput and delay optimization has been studied under
both infinite battery setting [19]–[21] and finite battery setting [22]–[26]. With signal processing
related performance metrics, such as detection delay and estimation error, optimal sensing
scheduling policies have been developed to optimize the sensing performances of EH sensor
networks [27]–[30]. As the newly introduced metric AoI comes into the picture, several works
have begun to investigate AoI optimization in EH status updating systems. Under an EH setting,
[31], [32] investigate several status update polices assuming the battery at the energy harvesting
sensor is sufficiently large. It has been shown in [31] that with knowledge of the system state,
updates should be submitted only when the server is free to avoid queueing delay. Moreover, a

3

greedy policy that submits a fresh update as the system becomes idle is shown to be inefficient; a
lazy update policy that introduces inter-update delays is better. The optimal update policy remains
open in this setting. In [32], under the assumption that a status update packet can be generated
and served (transmitted) instantly, the authors investigate optimal offline and online policies.
The optimal offline policy is to equalize the inter-update delays as much as possible, subject to
the energy constraint imposed by the energy harvesting source. The online problem is cast as a
Markov Decision Process in a discrete-time setting, and solved through dynamic programming.
Although it is analytically intractable, the optimal policy is shown to have a threshold structure.
I.e., with real-time knowledge of the energy arrival profile and its statistics, the source sends
a status update if the expected AoI is above certain threshold, given it has sufficient energy.
Other threshold type status update policies have been studied in [33], [34] and shown to be
optimal under certain conditions recently. An offline policy to miminimize AoI in a two-hop
relay channel is studied in [35].
In this paper, we investigate optimal online status update policies for an energy harvesting
source with various battery sizes in a continuous-time setting. Similar to [32], we assume a status
update packet can be generated by the source at any time and transmitted to a FC instantly, given
sufficient energy is available at the source. We assume that the energy unit is normalized so that
each status update requires one unit of energy. This energy unit represents the cost of both
measuring and transmitting a status packet. We assume energy arrives at the sensor according
to a Poisson process, and the sensor only has causal information of the energy arrival profile in
addition to the parameter of the Poisson process. Our objective is then to determine the sequence
of update instants so that the long-term average AoI at the FC is minimized, subject to the energy
causality constraint at the source.
We first study the properties of the time-average AoI as a function of inter-update delays, and
establish a connection between this problem and the optimal sensing problem studied in [30]. This
motivates us to adopt the (asymptotically) optimal sensing policies in [30] for AoI minimization,
namely, a best-effort uniform status update policy for the infinite battery case, and an energyaware adaptive status update policy for the finite battery case. Since the AoI function does not
have all the properties required to establish the optimality of those policies in [30], we revise
the proofs accordingly to re-establish their (asymptotic) optimality. We then study a special case
where the battery size is one unit, and propose a threshold based status update policy, i.e., if
the AoI in the system is below a threshold when an energy enters an empty battery, the sensor

4

should store the energy and hold status update until the AoI reaches the threshold; otherwise, it
consumes the energy to update the status immediately. Through rigorous stochastic analysis, we
show that within a broadly defined class of online policies, this threshold based status update
policy is optimal.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
Consider a scenario where an energy harvesting sensor continuously monitors a system and
sends time-stamped status updates to a destination. The destination keeps track of the system
status through the received updates. We use the metric Age of Information (AoI) to measure the
“freshness” of the status information available at the destination.
We assume that the time used to collect and transmit a status update is negligible compared
with the time scale of inter-update delays. Therefore, given sufficient energy is available at the
source, a status update can be generated by the source at any time and transmitted to a FC
instantly. In this case, a status update is transmitted immediately after it is generated to avoid
unnecessary queueing delay.
We assume that the energy unit is normalized so that each status update requires one unit of
energy. This energy unit represents the cost of both measuring and transmitting a status update.
Assume energy arrives at the sensor according to a Poisson process with parameter λ. Hence,
energy units arrive at discrete time instants t1 , t2 , . . .. We assume λ = 1 throughout this paper
for ease of exposition. The sensor is equipped with a battery with capacity B, B ≥ 1. When
B = ∞, it corresponds to the infinite battery case.
A status update policy is denoted as π := {Sn }∞
n=1 , where Sn is the n-th update epoch. We
assume S0 = 0, i.e., the system updates its status information right before time zero. Denote the
P
inter-update delays as Xn , Sn − Sn−1 , for n = 1, 2, . . .. Then, we have Sn = ni=1 Xi .
Define A(Xn ) as the total amount of energy harvested in [Sn−1 , Sn ), and E(Sn− ) as the energy
level of the sensor right before the scheduled updating epoch Sn . For a clear exposition of the
paper, we assume the system has one unit amount of energy before it updates at time zero, and
after that, the battery becomes empty, i.e.,
E(S0− ) = 1.

(1)

5

Fig. 1: AoI as a function of T . Circles represent status update instants.

Then, under any feasible status update policy, the energy queue evolves as follows
−
E(Sn− ) = min{E(Sn−1
) − 1 + A(Xn ), B}

(2)

E(Sn− ) ≥ 1

(3)

for n = 1, 2, . . .. Eqn. (3) corresponds to the energy causality constraint in the system. Based on
the Poisson arrival process assumption, A(Xn ) is an independent Poisson random variable with
parameter Xn .
Under any feasible status update policy, the AoI as a function of time is shown in Fig. 1.
We use N (T ) to denote the number of status updates generated over (0, T ]. Define R(T ) as the
total “reward”, i.e., age of information experienced by the system over [0, T ]. Then,
PN (T ) 2
Xi + (T − SN (T ) )2
R(T ) = i=1
2

(4)

Then, the time average AoI over the duration [0, T ] can be expressed as R(T )/T .
Our objective is to determine the sequence of update epochs S1 , S2 , . . ., so that the time
average AoI at the FC is minimized, subject to the energy causality constraint. We focus on a
set of online policies Π in which the information available for determining the updating epoch
Sn includes the updating history {Si }n−1
i=0 , the energy arrival profile over [0, Sn ), as well as the
energy harvesting statistics (i.e., λ in this scenario). The optimization problem can formulated

6

as


min
π∈Π

s.t.

R(T )
lim sup E
T
T →+∞
(1) − (3)


(5)

where the expectation in the objective function is taken over all possible energy harvesting
sample paths. This problem does not admit a MDP formulation in general, and it is extremely
challenging to explicitly identify the optimal solution.
III. O PTIMAL S TATUS U PDATE P OLICIES WHEN B

IS LARGE

In [30], we studied an optimal sensing scheduling problem. Our objective was to strategically
select the sensing epochs, so that the long-term average sensing performance can be optimized.
P (T )
We assumed that the sensing performance over [0, T ] can be expressed as N
i=1 f (Xi ) + f (T −
N (T )), where Xi is the i-th inter-sensing delay. Under the assumption that 1) f (x) is convex
and monotonically increasing in x; 2) f (x)/x is increasing in x; and 3) f (x)/x is upper bounded
by a positive constant, we proposed two sensing policies, for the infinite and finite battery cases,
respectively, and proved their (asymptotic) optimality.
We note that the AoI minimization problem can be treated as a particularized case of the
optimal sensing scheduling problem studied in [30], by replacing the general sensing performance
metric with AoI. Thus, for this particular case, f (x) = x2 /2. We note that this function exhibits
the first two properties required to establish the optimality of the proposed sensing scheduling
policies in [30]. However, the last condition i.e., f (x)/x is upper bounded by a positive constant,
does not hold, due to the fact that f (x)/x = x/2 and it is unbounded. Therefore, the optimality
of the policies proposed in [30] need to be carefully examined. In the following, we will utilize
the specific form of the AoI function to bypass the last condition and reaffirm the optimality of
the policies.
For the completeness of this paper, in this section, we adapt the major results and policies
in [30] for the AoI minimization setup. We leave out the proofs that do not reply on the third
assumption, and provide necessary new proofs only.
A. Status Update with Infinite Battery
When the battery size is infinite, no energy overflow will happen. Thus, the maximum achievable long-term average status update rate is one update per unit time. If we drop the energy

7

causality constraint, and replace it with this long-term average status update rate constraint, we
obtain a lower bound on the long-term average AoI as follows:
Lemma 1 The long-term average AoI is lower bounded by 1/2.
This lower bound corresponds to a uniform status update policy which updates once per unit
time. However, it may become infeasible when the energy causality constraint is imposed. Thus,
we propose the following policy to ensure the status update policy is always feasible.
Definition 1 (Best-effort Uniform Status Update Policy) The sensor is scheduled to update
the status at sn = n, n = 1, 2, . . .. The sensor performs the task at sn if E(s−
n ) ≥ 1; Otherwise,
the sensor keeps silent until the next scheduled status update epoch.
Here we use sn to denote the n-th scheduled status update epoch, which is in general different
from the n-th actual status update epoch Sn since some of the scheduled status update epochs
may be infeasible.
Theorem 1 The best-effort uniform status update policy is optimal when the battery size is
infinite, i.e.,
lim sup
T →+∞

R(T )
1
=
T
2

a.s.

The proof of Theorem 1 is provided in Appendix A. Intuitively, when the battery size is infinite,
the fluctuation in the energy harvesting process can be averaged out when T is sufficiently large,
thus the uniform status update policy can be achieved asymptotically.
B. Status Update with Finite Battery
In order to minimize the long-term average AoI when the battery size is finite, intuitively,
the status update policy should try to prevent any battery overflow, as wasted energy leads to
performance degradation. Meanwhile, the properties of AoI require the status update rate to be
as uniform as possible in time. Those two objectives are not aligned with each other, thus, the
optimal status update policy should strike a balance between them.
In the following, we propose an energy-aware adaptive status update policy, which adaptively
changes the update rate based on the instantaneous battery level. When the battery level is high,
the sensor updates more frequently in order to prevent battery overflow; When the battery level

8

is low, the sensor updates less frequently to avoid infeasible status update epochs. Meanwhile,
the update rate does not vary significantly in time in order to control the increase of time-average
AoI caused by the jittering updating epochs.
Definition 2 (Energy-aware Adaptive Status Update Policy) Assume B > 1. The adaptive
status update policy defines status update epochs sn recursively as follows


B
1

, E(s−

n−1 ) < 2

 1−β
B
sn = sn−1 +
1, E(s−
n−1 ) = 2




 1 , E(s− ) > B
n−1
1+β
2
where s0 = 0, E(s−
0 ) = 1, and β :=

k log B
,
B

(6)

with k being a positive number such that 0 < β < 1.

The sensor samples and updates the status at sn if E(s−
n ) ≥ 1; Otherwise, the sensor keeps
silent until the next scheduled status update epoch.
As B → ∞, we have β → 0 for any fixed k, i.e., the adaptive status update policy converges
to the best-effort uniform status update policy as battery size increases. Thus, it is reasonable
to expect that the adaptive status update policy is asymptotically optimal as the battery size
approaches infinity.
Theorem 2 Under the adaptive status update policy, the gap between the long-term average
 k+1
2 
B)2
+ logBB
almost surely.
AoI and its lower bound 1/2 scales in O 2 Bk(log
k+1
Theorem 2 implies that as battery size B increases, the long-term average AoI under the adaptive
status update policy approaches 1/2, which is the lower bound on the long-term average AoI
in a system with infinite battery. Thus, it is asymptotically optimal. The proof of Theorem 2 is
provided in Appendix B.
IV. A S PECIAL C ASE : B = 1
In the previous section, we investigate the optimal and asymptotically optimal status update
policies when battery size B is infinite, and finite but sufficiently large, respectively. However,
when the battery size is so small that the asymptotics cannot kick in, those policies may not
perform very well. This motivates us to investigate other status update policies when battery size
B is small. One extreme case for this scenario is when B = 1, i.e., the battery can only store
the energy for one status update operation. In this case, the battery only has two states: empty,

9

or full. When it is empty, obviously, any status update should not be scheduled. When one unit
amount of energy arrives, the battery jumps to the other state, and it then need to decide when
to spend the energy for status update. Denote Γi as time duration between Si−1 and the first
−
energy arrival time after Si−1
. Then, we have the following observations

Lemma 2 When B = 1, under any feasible online policy, we must have Xi ≥ Γi , ∀i, and Γi s
are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables, with common distribution
exp(1).
Lemma 2 is based on the energy causality constraint, and the memoryless property of the interarrival times of the Poisson energy arrivals.
As defined in Sec. II, the policy space Π includes all of the online policies which make the
status updating decision based on up-to-date updating history and energy arrival profile, as well
as the energy harvesting statistics. In other words, Xi is a function of Γi , among other variables.
In order to facilitate the analysis, in the following, we focus on a special class of online
policies, termed as uniformly bounded policies.
Definition 3 (Uniformly bounded policy) For an online policy with {(Xi , Γi )}∞
i=1 , if ∀i, Γi ≤
Xi , and there exists a function g(Γi ) such that Xi ≤ g(Γi ), and the second moment of g(Γi ) is
finite, then this policy is a uniformly bounded policy.
Theorem 3 Any uniformly bounded policy is sub-optimal to a renewal policy, i.e., a policy under
which the updating epochs {Si }∞
i=1 form a renewal process. Besides, under the renewal policy,
Xi only depends on Γi .
The proof is provided in Appendix C. Our approach involves two steps of averaging. The first
step of averaging is in the space of status update sample paths under a given uniformly bounded
policy. For each fixed i and τ , we group all of the sample paths with Γi = τ , and obtain the
corresponding average inter-update delay Xi (τ ). This step essentially averages out all factors that
may affect Xi other than Γi . The second step is to do an averaging in the temporal domain. For
each fixed τ , we form a sophisticated linear combination of involved Xi (τ )s, and use it as the
inter-update delay under the new policy. Such a policy is a renewal policy, it is always feasible,
and each renewal interval only depends on τ . Through rigorous stochastic analysis, we prove
that the new renewal policy always outperforms the original policy in terms of time-average
AoI.

10

In the following, we will focus on renewal policies, and show that the optimal renewal policy
has a threshold structure.
Theorem 4 In the class of renewal policies, the optimal policy must have a threshold structure,
i.e., Xi equals constant τ0 if Γi ≤ τ0 ; otherwise Xi equals Γi .
The proof of Theorem 4 is provided in Appendix D. The proof is sketched as follows: We
note that the long-term average AoI under a renewal policy can be expressed in the form of
E[X 2 ]
,
2E[X]

where X is a random variable with the same distribution of Xi . The objective is then

to identify the optimal X as a function of τ , which follows the same as Γi . We first establish
a necessary condition for X(τ ) to be optimal, i.e., if we add a small perturbation on X(τ )
without violating the energy causality condition, the objective function can only increase. Such a
necessary condition indicates that X(τ ) must have the threshold structure described in Theorem 4.
We propose the following threshold-based status update policy based on Theorem 4.
Definition 4 (Threshold-based Status Update Policy) When an energy unit enters an empty
battery, the sensor performs a status update immediately if the AoI at the FC is greater than a
threshold τ0 ; Otherwise, it holds its operation until the AoI is exactly equal to τ0 .
The long-term average AoI under this policy can be analytically characterized based on the
memoryless property of the exponentially distributed inter-arrival times of energy units.
Theorem 5 Under the threshold-based status update policy, the long-term average AoI is h(τ0 ) ,
2τ0 e−τ0 +2e−τ0 +τ02
.
2(e−τ0 +τ0 )

The proof of Theorem 5 can be found in Appendix E. Besides, by taking derivative of h(τ0 ),
we can show that h(τ0 ) is first decreasing, then increasing in τ0 . Therefore, the optimal τ0
corresponds to the point where h0 (τ0 ) = 0. Solving the equation, we have τ0∗ = 0.901, and the
corresponding long-term average AoI is 0.9012.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
The performances of the proposed status update policies are evaluated in this section through
simulations.
First, we fix the battery size B = ∞. We generate sample paths for the Poisson energy
harvesting process, and perform status updating according to the best-effort uniform status update

11

1
A sample path
Sample average
AoI lower bound

0.95
0.9

Time Average AoI

0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55

0.5
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

T

Fig. 2: Time average AoI under best-effort uniform status update policy.

policy. The time average AoI as a function of T is shown in Fig. 2. We plot one sample path
and the sample average over 1, 000 sample paths in the figure. We observe that both curves
gradually approach the lower bound 1/2 as T increases. When T = 500, there is only a very
small difference between the simulation results and the analytical lower bound. The results
indicate that the proposed best-effort uniform status update policy is optimal.
Next, we study the time average AoI under the adaptive status update policy with finite battery
sizes. We fix T = 100, 000 and plot the average AoI over 1,000 sample paths in Fig. 3. We
note that for each fixed k, the gap between the time average AoI and the lower bound 1/2
monotonically decreases as B increases, which is consistent with Theorem 2.
Last, we compare the performances of the three policies for B = 1. For a fair comparison,
we optimize the parameters for the best-effort uniform status update policy and the adaptive
status update policy numerically before we perform the comparison. We note that the optimal
update rate for the best-effort uniform policy is once every 0.43 unit of time. We also modify the
adaptive status update policy to make it applicable for the case B = 1. Specifically, we schedule
the next update

1
1+β

schedule it in time

away if the battery level is full right before the current update; otherwise, we
1
.
1−β

We numerically search for the optimal value of β, and it turns out that

when β = −0.145, the time-average AoI is minimized. This is opposite to the case when B is
large but finite. Although it is a bit counter intuitive, it is due to the memoryless property of the
inter-arrival times of a Poisson process, i.e., the expected waiting time for the next energy arrival
keeps unchanged after current scheduled update epoch, regardless of its feasibility. If B = 1 at

12

k=0
k=1
k=2
AoI lower bound

1.8
1.6
1.4

0.53
0.525

Time Average AoI

1.2

0.52
1

0.515
0.51

0.8

0.505
0.5

0.6

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

50
60
Battery size B

70

80

90

0.4
10

20

30

40

100

Fig. 3: Time average AoI under adaptive status update policy.

1.6
Best-effort uniform
Adaptive
Threshold-based
Lower bound

Time Average
AoI

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

T

Fig. 4: Performance comparison when B = 1: A sample path.

current scheduled update epoch, the battery will become empty immediately after it updates the
status, and the AoI will then linearly grow from zero; If B = 0, the AoI has a positive value
already, and will grow with the same rate. Thus, in order to balance the inter-update delays to
minimize the time average AoI, the system should be more aggressive to update if the current
scheduled update is infeasible. We then generate a sample path and plot the time average AoI
as a function of time T under each policy, as shown in Fig. 4. The corresponding sample-path
average over 1,000 sample paths is plotted in Fig. 5. As we expect, for both scenarios, the
threshold based updating policy outperforms the other two policies, and approaches its limit as

13

1.2

Time Average AoI

1

0.8

0.6

Best-effort uniform
Adaptive
Threshold-based
Lower bound

0.4

0.2

0
0

10

20

30

40

50
T

60

70

80

90

100

Fig. 5: Performance comparison when B = 1: Sample-path average.

T gets sufficiently large.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we investigated optimal status update policies for an energy harvesting source
equipped with a battery. We considered three differenct cases, namely, the battery size is infinite,
finite but large, and one unit. We showed that the best-effort uniform status update policy
minimizes the long-term average AoI when the battery size is infinite. We then showed that
the energy-aware adaptive status update policy is asymptotically optimal when the battery size
is finite but sufficiently large. At last, we considered an extreme case when the battery size is one
unit. We introduced the definition of uniformly bounded online policies, and explicitly identified
the optimal policy within this class. Under the optimal policy, the status update epochs form a
renewal process, where the length of each renewal interval relies on the first energy arrival in
that interval, and has a threshold structure. We also evaluated the performances of the proposed
policies through simulation.
We point out that the (asymptotically) optimal status update polices for the infinite battery
and finite battery cases are closedly related to our earlier work [30]. In [30], our objective
was to optimize the long-term average sensing performance, which was measured by a general
function of the inter-sensing delays. The average AoI as a function of the inter-update delays
can be treated as a particularized case of that general function, thus the optimal policies and
the corresponding analysis in both works are quite similar. Such inherent connection between
time average AoI minimization and more general sensing performance optimization also implies

14

that AoI as a metric of information freshness does have deep implications on other performance
metrics in sensing/status updating systems. Unveiling the intricate relationship between AoI and
other performance metrics (i.e., estimation error) from an information theoretic perspective is
one of our future directions.
A PPENDIX
A. Proof of Theorem 1
To prove Theorem 1, it suffices to show that lim supT →+∞

R(T )
T

≤ 1/2 almost surely.

The uniform best-effort status update policy partitions the time axis into slots, each with length
1. Let E(n− ) be the energy level of the sensor right before the scheduled status update at time
n. Based on E(n− ), we can group the time slots into intervals labeled as v1 , u1 , . . . , vk , uk , . . .,
where ui corresponds to the i-th interval that begins with E(n− ) = 0 for some n and ends
when E(n− ) becomes positive as n increases; vi corresponds to the i-th interval that begins
with E(n− ) > 0 for some n and ends when E(n− ) becomes zero as n increases. Note that we
assume one unit energy is available at time 0, i.e., E(0− ) = 1.
We note that E(n− ) jumps from zero to some positive value at the end of ui , due to random
energy arrivals over the last time slot in ui . Based on assumption that the energy arrivals follow
a Poisson process, the length of ui follows an independent geometric distribution where
P [ui = k] = e−(k−1) (1 − e−1 ),

k = 1, 2 . . .

(7)

With a bit abuse of notation, in (7), and in the following proofs, we use ui to denote the length
of the interval labeled as ui ; similarly for vi .
Over the interval labeled as vi , all of the scheduled status update epochs are feasible, except
for the last one bounding vi . Considering the duration bounded by the first and last feasible
status update epochs over vi , the aggregated AoI equals (vi − 1)f (1), where f (x) = x2 /2. Since
all of the scheduled status updating epochs over ui are infeasible except for the last one (which
is also the first feasible status update epoch over vi+1 ), the aggregated AoI over the duration
bounded by the last feasible status update epoch over vi and the first feasible status update epoch
over vi+1 is f (ui + 1).

15

Let K(T ) be the number of ui s over [0, T ]. Then the number of vi s over [0, T ] is either K(T )
or K(T ) + 1, depending on whether time T − 1 is a feasible update epoch or not. Therefore,
R(T )
T
T →+∞
PK(T )
P )
T − K(T
i=1 f (ui + 1)
i=0 (ui + 1)
= lim sup
+
f (1)
T
T
T →+∞
PK(T )
PK(T )
2
ui K(T )
1
i=1 (ui + 1)
= lim sup
+ − i=1
−
2T
2
2T
2T
T →+∞
!
PKT 2 PK(T )
ui
K(T ) 1
i=1 ui
+ i=1
+1
+
= lim sup
2K(T )
K(T )
T
2
T →+∞

lim sup

(8)

(9)

where (28) follows from the definition of vi and ui , (9) follows from the results that K(T )/T → 0
P )
and K(T
i=1 ui /T → 0 almost surely, as proved in the proof of Theorem 1 in [30]. Since ui ’s
are i.i.d. geometric random variables,

PK(T )
i=1

ui

K(T )

and

PK(T )

2
i=1 ui
K(T )

converges to the first and second

moments of the geometric distribution specified in (7), which are finite constants. Therefore, we
have (9) converges to 1/2 almost surely.
B. Proof of Theorem 2
Consider the first n scheduled status update epochs under the proposed adaptive status update
policy for a sample path of the energy harvesting process. Let n+ denote the number of intervals
between two scheduled status updating epochs with duration

1
,
1−β

n− be that with duration

1
,
1+β

and n0 be that with duration 1. Let n̄ be the number of status updating epochs the battery
overflows, and n be the number of infeasible status update epochs. Then, the n-th scheduled
status update epoch happens at time Tn :=

n+
1−β

n−
+ n0 + 1+β
. Let A+
n be the total amount of energy

wasted. Then,
E(Tn− ) = (A(Tn ) − A+
n ) − (n − n)

(10)

where A(Tn ) is a Poisson random variable with parameter Tn . Dividing both sides by n and
taking the limit as n goes to +∞, we have
E(Tn− )
A(Tn ) Tn
A+ 
n
= lim
·
− lim n − 1 − lim
n→∞
n→∞
n→∞ n
n
Tn
n n→∞ n
lim

16

According to Theorem 3 in [30], for almost every sample path,
 k+1

2 k(log B)2
A+
n
=O
lim
n→∞ n
B k+1
 k+1

n
2 k(log B)2
lim = O
n→∞ n
B k+1
Combining with the fact that limn→∞

E(Tn− )
n

= 0 and limn→∞


Tn
lim
=1+O
n→∞ n

A(Tn )
Tn

2k+1 k(log B)2
B k+1

(11)
(12)
= 1, we have


(13)

Based on Taylor expansion and (13), we have




1
1
n+ f 1−β + n0 f (1) + n− f 1+β
lim
n→∞
Tn

2 !
2k+1 k(log B)2
log B
= f (1) + O
+
B k+1
B
On the other hand, due to the existence of infeasible status update epochs, we have
h



i
P
1
1
n f (Xn ) − n+ f 1−β + n0 f (1) + n− f 1+β
lim
n→∞
Tn
P
P
2
1 f (Xn )
1 Xn
n:Xn > 1−β
n:Xn > 1−β
ñ
≤ lim
= lim
n→∞
n→∞
Tn
2ñ
Tn

(14)

where the inequality in (14) follows from the fact that Xn differs from the delay between two
consecutive scheduled status update epochs only when battery outage happens, and ñ denote the
number of Xn ’s with Xn >

1
.
1−β

We note that for all Xn ≥
1
− 1−β

parameter p , 1 − e

1
,
1−β

, and its second moment is
P
lim

=

n→∞

n

Xn2

2−p
.
p2

Then,

2
1 (X̃n )
n:Xn > 1−β

P
= lim

n→∞

2(1 − β)2 ñ

E[X̃n2 ]
2−p
= 2
2
(1 − β)
2p (1 − β)2

Meanwhile, we have limn→∞
P

1
n:Xn > 1−β

2ñ

n→∞

lim

X̃n , Xn (1 − β) follows a geometric distribution with

ñ
Tn

≤ limn→∞

n
.
Tn

f (Xn )
1
= +O
Tn
2

Combining with (12)(14), we have
2 !

2k+1 k(log B)2
log B
+
B k+1
B

(15)
(16)

17

C. Proof of Theorem 3
∞
Let {Si }∞
i=1 be the status update epochs under a uniformly bounded policy, and {Xi }i=1 be

the corresponding inter-update delays. Based on the definition of R(T ) in (4), we have
R(SN (T )+1 )
R(SN (T ) )
R(T )
≤
≤
T
T
T

(17)

" 2
#





XN (T )+1
R(SN (T ) )
R(SN (T )+1 )
R(T )
E
≥E
=E
−E
T
T
T
2T

(18)

Thus,



We aim to show that 1) E

2
XN
(T )+1

2T


→ 0, and 2) E

h

R(SN (T )+1 )
T

i

is suboptimal to a renewal

policy. In the following,
we will show them separately.

2
XN
(T )+1
1) E
→ 0: First, we denote Fn (t) as the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of
2T
Sn under the uniformly bound policy, and N (t) be the total number of updates over (0, t]. Then,
we have
E[N (t)] =

∞
X

Fn (t)

(19)

n=0

Next, we note that
 2

E Xn+1
1Sn+1 >T | Sn = t
 2

= E Xn+1
1Xn+1 >T −t | Sn = t


≤ EΓn+1 g 2 (Γn+1 )1g(Γn+1 )>T −t | Sn = t


= EΓn+1 g 2 (Γn+1 )1g(Γn+1 )>T −t , G(T − t)

(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)

where (22) follows from the definition of uniformly bounded policy, and (23) follows from the
memoryless property of the inter-arrival time of a Poisson process.

18

Therefore, by fist conditioning on the time of the last renewal prior to (or at) time t, we have
E



XN2 (T )+1



=

∞ Z
X

T

G(T − t)d

≤
0

Z

 2

E Xn+1
1Sn+1 >T | Sn = t dFn (t)

∞
X

!
Fn (t)

(25)

n=0
T

G(T − t)dE[N (t)]

=

(24)

0

n=0

Z

T

(26)

0

where (25) follows from (23), and (26) follows from (19).
For any fixed 0 ≤ ∆ ≤ T , we have
Z
Z
Z
1 T
1 T −∆
1 T
G(T − t)dE[N (t)] =
G(T − t)dE[N (t)] +
G(T − t)dE[N (t)]
T 0
T 0
T T −∆
E[N (T )] − E[N (T − ∆)]
E[N (T − ∆)]
+ G(0)
≤ G(∆)
T
T

(27)
(28)

where (28) follows from the fact that G(t) is monotonically decreasing in t.
Note that A(t) is defined as the total number of energy arrivals over [0, t], which upper bounds
the total number of status updates over (0, t], i.e., N (t), due to energy causality constraint. Thus,
N (T ) − N (T − ∆) = N (T ) − (N (T − ∆) + 1) + 1

(29)

≤ A(SN (T ) ) − A(SN (T −∆)+1 ) + 1

(30)

≤ A(T ) − A(T − ∆) + 1

(31)

under each status update sample path. Plugging in (28) and letting T → ∞, we have
Z
1 T
T −∆
∆+1
lim
G(T − t)dE[N (t)] ≤ lim G(∆)
+ G(0)
T →∞ T 0
T →∞
T
T
= G(∆)

(32)
(33)

where (33) holds for any ∆ ≥ 0, dueto the assumption
in Definition 3 that E[g 2 (Γi )] is bounded.

X2

(T )+1
Since lim∆→ G(∆) = 0, we have E N2T
→ 0 as T → ∞.
h
i
R(SN (T )+1 )
2) E
is sub-optimal to a renewal policy: For any given uniformly bounded policy,
T

we will construct a renewal policy as follows: For all of the status update sample paths under
the given uniformly bounded policy, we will group those with Si ≥ T based on the value of Γi ,

19

and find the corresponding average inter-update delay Xi . Specifically, we define
X̂iT (τ ) , E[Xi |Si−1 ≤ T, Γi = τ ]

(34)

Since each Xi ≥ Γi under the given policy, we have X̂iT (τ ) ≥ τ , and it depends only on τ .
Besides, we have the following observation:
Lemma 3 For any fixed T > 0,
E[Xi 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}] = Eτ [X̂iT (τ )] · E[1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]

(35)

Proof: Based on the property of conditional expectation, we have
E[Xi 1{Si−1 ≤ T }|Γi = τ ]
P[Si−1 ≤ T |Γi = τ ]
E[Xi 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}|Γi = τ ]
=
E[1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]

X̂iT (τ ) =

(36)
(37)

where 1{E} in (36) is an indicator function, which takes value 1 if event E is true; otherwise, it
equals 0. (37) follows from the fact that events Si−1 ≤ T and i ≤ N (T ) + 1 are equivalent, and
P[Si−1 ≤ T |Γi = τ ] = P[Si−1 ≤ T ] = E[1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]

(38)

The Lemma is proved after taking expectation of both sides of (37) with respect to τ . 
Next, we will construct a renewal policy based on the definition of X̂iT (τ ). Define
E[1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]
E[N (T ) + 1]
∞
X
X̄T (τ ) ,
ρTi X̂iT (τ )
ρTi ,

(39)
(40)

i=1

Then, we have the following observations.
Proposition 1 For any fixed T ≥ 0, {ρTi }∞
i=1 is a valid distribution.
This proposition can be proved based on the facts that ρTi ≥ 0, and

P∞

i=1

ρTi = 1.

Proposition 2 For any fixed T ≥ 0, X̄T (τ ) ≥ τ , and it depends on τ only.
This proposition is due to X̂iT (τ ) ≥ τ , and it depends only on τ , as well as Proposition 1.
Proposition 2 indicates that if we define a status update policy such that the corresponding inter-

20

update delay is determined by the delay between the last status update epoch and the first energy
arrival time after that according to X̄T (τ ), then, the corresponding policy always satisfies the
energy causality constraint, and the inter-update delays over [0, T ] are independent and identically
distributed, thus it is a renewal policy over [0, T ].
With a little abuse of notation, in the following, we use τ to denote a random variable that
has the same distribution as Γi .
Lemma 4 For any fixed T > 0,
E[N (T ) + 1]
1
1
≥
= P∞ T
.
T
T
Eτ [X̄T (τ )]
i=1 ρi Eτ [X̂i (τ )]
P (T )+1
Xi ≥ T . Thus, we have
Proof: First, we note that SN (T )+1 := N
i=1


SN (T )+1
1≤E
T
"∞
#
X
1
Xi · 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}
= E
T
i=1
=

∞
1X
E [Xi · 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]
T i=1

∞
1X
Eτ [X̂Ti (τ )] · E [1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]
T i=1
!
∞
X
E[N (T ) + 1]
T
i
=
ρi Eτ [X̂T (τ )] ·
T
i=1

=

= Eτ [X̄T (τ )] ·

E[N (T ) + 1]
T

(41)

(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)

(46)
(47)

where we switch the order of summation and expectation in (44) since Xi ≥ 0, (45) follows from
Lemma 3, (46) follows from the definitions of ρTi in (39), and (47) follows from the definition
of X̄T in (40). Dividing Eτ [X̄T (τ )] on both sides of (47), we have (41) proved. 
Lemma 5 Under the uniformly bounded policy, we have
(E[Xi · 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}|Γi = τ ])2 ≤ E[Xi2 · 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}|Γi = τ ] · E[1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]
(48)

21

Proof: Based on Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have
(E[Xi · 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}|Γi = τ ])2
≤ E[Xi2 · (1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1})2 |Γi = τ ] · E[(1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1})2 |Γi = τ ]

(49)

Eqn. (48) then follows from the fact that 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1} is independent with Γi . 
Last, we will show that the corresponding renewal policy always outperforms the original
uniformly bounded policy in terms of AoI.
"∞
#


X
R(SN (T )+1 )
1
=
E
Xi2 · 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}
E
T
2T
i=1
∞
1 X
=
E[E[Xi2 · 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}|Γi = τ ]]
2T i=1
P∞ 
2
1
i=1 E (E[Xi · 1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}|Γi = τ ])
≥
2T
E[1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]

∞

2 
1 X
T
=
E X̂i (τ )
E[1{i ≤ N (T ) + 1}]
2T i=1

∞
2 
X
E[N (T ) + 1]
T
=
E X̂i (τ )
ρTi ·
2T
i=1


!2
∞
X
E[N (T ) + 1]
≥ Eτ 
X̂iT (τ )ρTi  ·
2T
i=1

E[N (T ) + 1]
Eτ [X̄T2 (τ )]
≥
2T
2Eτ [X̄T (τ )]
Eτ [X 2 (τ )]
≥ min 0
X(τ )∈Π 2Eτ [X(τ )]
= Eτ [X̄T2 (τ )] ·

(50)
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)

(55)

(56)
(57)

where (52) follows from the Lemma 5, (53) follows from Lemma 3, (55) follows from Jensen’s
inequality and Proposition 1. Combining with Lemma 4, we have (56), which is greater than
or equal to (57), the minimum long-term average AoI of the optimal renewal policy. We use
Π0 to denote the set of feasible renewal policies under which Xi only depends on Γi . Since the
inequality holds for every T , we have




R(SN (T )+1 )
R(T )
Eτ [X 2 (τ )]
lim sup E
≥ lim sup E
≥ min 0
X(τ )∈Π 2Eτ [X(τ )]
T
T
T →∞
T →∞

(58)

22

D. Proof of Theorem 4
Based on Theorem 3, we assume the inter-update delays under a renewal policy is a function
of τ , the duration between the last update epoch and the first energy arrival after it. Specifically,
we denote the function as
X(τ ) = τ + l(τ )

(59)

where l(τ ) ≥ 0. Since X(τ ) ≥ τ , such a policy is always feasible. Assume X(τ ) is measurable.
Then, to minimize the long-term average AoI is equivalent to
min
l(τ )

Eτ [X 2 (τ )]
2Eτ [X(τ )]

s.t. l(τ ) ≥ 0, ∀τ

(60)

Based on the assumption that the energy arrival process is Possion with λ = 1, τ is an exponential
random variable with rate 1. Since continuous function is dense in the space of measurable
functions, it suffices to show that a continuous X(τ ) is suboptimal to a threshold policy.
Definition 5 (Admissible Direction) δ(τ ) is an admissible direction at X(τ ) if 1) Eτ [δ(τ )] = 0;
and 2) ∃ > 0, X(τ ) + sδ(τ ) ≥ τ for s ∈ [0, ).
Lemma 6 If X(τ ) is optimal, then for any admissible direction δ(τ ),
E[X(τ )δ(τ )] ≥ 0

(61)

Proof: For the optimal X(τ ), construct a new policy as X 0 (τ ) , X(τ ) + sδ(τ ), where δ(τ ) is
an admissible direction and s ∈ [0, ]. Then, the difference between the time average AoI under
the new policy and that under the optimal policy is
Eτ [X 0 (τ )]2
E[X 2 (τ )]
−
2Eτ [X 0 (τ )] 2E[X(τ )]
E[X 2 (τ )] + 2sE[X(τ )δ(τ )] + s2 E[δ 2 (t)] E[X 2 (τ )]
=
−
2E[α(τ ) + sδ(τ )]
2E[X(τ )]
2sE[X(τ )δ(τ )] + s2 E[δ 2 (t)
=
2E[X(τ )]

(62)
(63)
(64)

which should be greater than or equal to zero for every s ∈ [0, ]. Thus
2sE[X(τ )δ(τ )] + s2 E[δ 2 (t)
E[X(τ )δ(τ )]
=
≥0
s→0
2sE[X(τ )]
E[X(τ )]
lim

(65)

23

which implies that E[X(τ )δ(τ )] ≥ 0. 
Assume that under the optimal policy, we can find a point a where X(a) > a. Since X(τ ) is
continuous, there must exist ∆ > 0, such that X(τ ) > τ for ∀τ ∈ [a, a + ∆]. Find another point
b ≥ 0 such that [a, a + ∆] and [b, b + ∆] do not overlap. Define

 − R a+∆ 1
τ ∈ (a, a + ∆)
pτ (t)dt
a
δ∆ (τ ) =
 R b+∆ 1
τ ∈ (b, b + ∆)
b

(66)

pτ (t)dt

where pτ (t) is the probability density function of τ . We can verify that δ∆ (τ ) is an admissible
direction for every ∆ > 0.
Let ∆ → 0. Then δ∆→0 (τ ) = δ(τ − b) − δ(τ − a) where δ(τ ) is the Dirac delta function with
respect to pτ . Therefore (61) gives
E[X(τ )δ∆→0 (τ )] = E[X(τ )(δ(τ − b) − δ(τ − a))] = X(b) − X(a) ≥ 0

(67)

It implies the following necessary condition for X(τ ) to be optimal: for every point a where
X(a) 6= a, we must have X(a) no larger than any other X(b). I.e., X(a) either equals a, or
equals inf τ {X(τ )}. Therefore, X(τ ) must be a function in the following form

 τ , τ ∈ (0, τ )
0
0
X(τ ) =
 τ, τ ≥ τ0

(68)

which corresponds to a threshold policy.
E. Proof of Theorem 5
Under the threshold-based status update policy, the status update epochs form a renewal
process, and Xn s are i.i.d random variables. Based on the memoryless property of the inter-arrival

24

time for Poisson processes, Γi is an exponential random variable with parameter 1. Therefore,
E[Xi ] = E[Xi |Γi > τ0 ]P[Γi > τ0 ] + E[Xi |Γi ≤ τ0 ]P[Γi ≤ τ0 ]
Z +∞
=
τ e−τ dτ + τ0 (1 − e−τ0 )
τ0

= (1 + τ0 )e−τ0 + τ (1 − e−τ0 ) = e−τ0 + τ0

(69)

E[Xi2 ] = E[Xi2 |Γi > τ0 ]P[Γi > τ0 ] + E[Xi2 |Γi ≤ τ0 ]P[Γi ≤ τ0 ]
Z +∞
τ 2 e−τ dτ + τ02 (1 − e−τ0 )
=
τ0

= (τ02 + 2τ0 + 2)e−τ0 + τ02 (1 − e−τ0 )

(70)

Thus, based on the property of renewal processes [36], we have
R(T )
E[Xi2 ]
(2τ0 + 2)e−τ0 + τ02
=
=
T →+∞
T
2E[Xi ]
2(e−τ0 + τ0 )
lim

(71)

R EFERENCES
[1] X. Wu, J. Yang, and J. Wu, “Optimal status updating to minimize age of information with an energy harvesting source,”
in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2017.
[2] A. Mainwaring, D. Culler, J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk, and J. Anderson, “Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring,”
in 1st ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications, 2002, pp. 88–97.
[3] P. Papadimitratos, A. De La Fortelle, K. Evenssen, R. Brignolo, and S. Cosenza, “Vehicular communication systems:
Enabling technologies, applications, and future outlook on intelligent transportation,” IEEE Comm. Mag., vol. 47, no. 11,
pp. 84–95, November 2009.
[4] S. K. Kaul, R. D. Yates, and M. Gruteser, “Real-time status: How often should one update?” in IEEE INFOCOM, Orlando,
FL, USA, March 2012, pp. 2731–2735.
[5] ——, “Status updates through queues,” in 46th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, Princeton, NJ,
USA, March 2012, pp. 1–6.
[6] R. D. Yates and S. K. Kaul, “Real-time status updating: Multiple sources,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory, Cambridge, MA, USA, July 2012, pp. 2666–2670.
[7] ——, “The age of information: Real-time status updating by multiple sources,” CoRR, vol. abs/1608.08622, 2016.
[Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08622
[8] C. Kam, S. Kompella, and A. Ephremides, “Age of information under random updates,” in IEEE International Symposium
on Information Theory, Istanbul, Turkey, July 2013, pp. 66–70.
[9] ——, “Effect of message transmission diversity on status age,” Honolulu, HI, USA, June 2014, pp. 2411–2415.
[10] C. Kam, S. Kompella, G. D. Nguyen, and A. Ephremides, “Effect of message transmission path diversity on status age,”
IEEE Trans. Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1360–1374, 2016.
[11] M. Costa, M. Codreanu, and A. Ephremides, “Age of information with packet management,” in IEEE International
Symposium on Information Theory, Honolulu, HI, USA, June 2014, pp. 1583–1587.

25

[12] L. Huang and E. Modiano, “Optimizing age-of-information in a multi-class queueing system,” in IEEE International
Symposium on Information Theory, Hong Kong, China, June 2015, pp. 1681–1685.
[13] M. Costa, M. Codreanu, and A. Ephremides, “On the age of information in status update systems with packet management,”
IEEE Trans. Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1897–1910, 2016.
[14] A. M. Bedewy, Y. Sun, and N. B. Shroff, “Optimizing data freshness, throughput, and delay in multi-server informationupdate systems,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, Barcelona, Spain, July 2016, pp. 2569–2573.
[15] C. Kam, S. Kompella, G. D. Nguyen, J. E. Wieselthier, and A. Ephremides, “Age of information with a packet deadline,”
in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, Barcelona, Spain, July 2016, pp. 2564–2568.
[16] K. Chen and L. Huang, “Age-of-information in the presence of error,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory, Barcelona, Spain, July 2016, pp. 2579–2583.
[17] E. Najm and R. Nasser, “Age of information: The gamma awakening,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory, Barcelona, Spain, July 2016, pp. 2574–2578.
[18] Y. Sun, E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, R. D. Yates, C. E. Koksal, and N. B. Shroff, “Update or wait: How to keep your data fresh,”
in 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, INFOCOM 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA,
April 2016, pp. 1–9.
[19] J. Yang and S. Ulukus, “Optimal packet scheduling in an energy harvesting communication system,” IEEE Transactions
on Communications, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 220–230, January 2012.
[20] C. K. Ho and R. Zhang, “Optimal energy allocation for wireless communications with energy harvesting constraints,”
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 4808–4818, Sept 2012.
[21] O. Ozel, K. Tutuncuoglu, J. Yang, S. Ulukus, and A. Yener, “Transmission with energy harvesting nodes in fading wireless
channels: Optimal policies,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1732–1743, September
2011.
[22] K. Tutuncuoglu and A. Yener, “Optimum transmission policies for battery limited energy harvesting nodes,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1180–1189, March 2012.
[23] O. Ozel, J. Yang, and S. Ulukus, “Optimal broadcast scheduling for an energy harvesting rechargeable transmitter with a
finite capacity battery,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Commmunications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 2193–2203, June 2012.
[24] ——, “Optimal transmission schemes for parallel and fading Gaussian broadcast channels with an energy harvesting
rechargeable transmitter,” Elsevier Computer Communications, special issue for selected papers from WiOpt 2011, vol. 36,
no. 12, pp. 1360–1372, 2013.
[25] R. Srivastava and C. E. Koksal, “Basic performance limits and tradeoffs in energy-harvesting sensor nodes with finite data
and energy storage,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1049–1062, August 2013.
[26] D. Shaviv and A. Özgür, “Universally near optimal online power control for energy harvesting nodes,” IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 3620–3631, Dec 2016.
[27] K. Kar, A. Krishnamurthy, and N. Jaggi, “Dynamic node activation in networks of rechargeable sensors,” IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 15–26, Feburary 2006.
[28] J. Geng and L. Lai, “Non-bayesian quickest change detection with stochastic sample right constraints,” IEEE Transactions
on Signal Processing, vol. 61, no. 20, pp. 5090–5102, October 2013.
[29] J. Yang, X. Wu, and J. Wu, “Optimal scheduling of collaborative sensing in energy harvesting sensor networks,” IEEE
Jour. on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 512–523, March 2015.
[30] ——, “Optimal online sensing scheduling for energy harvesting sensors with infinite and finite batteries,” IEEE Jour. on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1578–1589, 2016.

26

[31] R. D. Yates, “Lazy is timely: Status updates by an energy harvesting source,” in IEEE International Symposium on
Information Theory, Hong Kong, China, June 2015, pp. 3008–3012.
[32] B. T. Bacinoglu, E. T. Ceran, and E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, “Age of information under energy replenishment constraints,” in
Information Theory and Applications Workshop, San Diego, CA, USA, February 2015, pp. 25–31.
[33] B. T. Bacinoglu and E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, “Scheduling status updates to minimize age of information with an energy
harvesting sensor,” CoRR, vol. abs/1701.08354, 2017.
[34] Y. Sun, Y. Polyanskiy, and E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, “Remote estimation of the wiener process over a channel with random
delay,” CoRR, vol. abs/1701.06734, 2017.
[35] A. Arafa and S. Ulukus, “Age-minimal transmission in energy harvesting two-hop networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/1704.08679,
2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.08679
[36] S. Ross, Stochastic Processes, ser. Wiley series in probability and statistics: Probability and statistics.

Wiley, 1996.

