Timely Information Updating for Mobile Devices Without and With ML Advice

If the device decides to transmit an update at the beginning of slot $t$, then the age of information at the AP is reset to zero at the end of slot $t$, indicating that the AP has received the latest update. Otherwise, the age increases by an amount $\Delta A(t)$ to reflect the continued staleness of the information at the AP. The value of $\Delta A(t)$ can vary across slots $t$. Let $A(t)$ denote the age of information maintained by the AP at the end of slot $t$. As illustrated in Fig. 1(b), the evolution of $A(t)$ across time slots is given by

with initial age $A(0)=A_{0}$, where $A_{0}$ is specified by the AP during the initial connection. We define the age increment sequence as $\boldsymbol{\Delta A}=(\Delta A(1),\Delta A(2),\cdots,\Delta A(T))$.

While transmitting updates in every slot minimizes the age of information at the AP, it also incurs substantial resource consumption (e.g., energy and bandwidth) at the device. To capture this trade-off, we introduce two cost metrics: the age cost and the update cost. Specifically, we assume that each unit of age in a slot incurs a cost of one unit; thus, the age cost in slot $t$ is given by $A(t)$. In addition, if the device transmits an update in slot $t$, it incurs an update cost denoted by $C(t)$. For instance, $C(t)$ can be modeled as the product of a unit cost $C_{u}(t)$ and the transmission energy $\mathcal{E}(t)$ by $C(t)=C_{u}(t)\mathcal{E}(t)$. Here, $\mathcal{E}(t)$ depends on the instantaneous channel condition between the device and the AP, which may fluctuate due to user mobility. Meanwhile, $C_{u}(t)$ may also vary over time, e.g., depending on the device’s remaining energy or, when multiple packets are present, different unit costs can be assigned to prioritize certain packets over others. The form $C_{u}(t)\mathcal{E}(t)$ can also be interpreted more generally as a unit cost multiplied by resource expenditure (e.g., energy or bandwidth). However, for clarity, in the remainder of this paper we focus on the energy example. We define the update cost sequence as $\mathbf{C}=(C(1),\cdots,C(T))$.

To balance the age cost and the update cost, the device needs a scheduling algorithm defined as $\boldsymbol{\pi}=(d(1),\cdots,d(T))$. The total cost incurred by a scheduling algorithm $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ depends on the sources of uncertainty, including the operation duration $T$, the age increment sequence $\boldsymbol{\Delta A}$, and the update cost sequence $\mathbf{C}$. We represent this uncertainty instance as $\mathcal{I}=\{T,\boldsymbol{\Delta A},\mathbf{C}\}$. Given an instance $\mathcal{I}$ and a scheduling algorithm $\boldsymbol{\pi}$, the total cost is defined as the sum of age and update costs:

Our objective is to design a scheduling algorithm $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ that minimizes the total cost $J(\mathcal{I},\boldsymbol{\pi})$.

A scheduling algorithm is referred to as an offline scheduling algorithm if it has prior knowledge of the entire instance $\mathcal{I}$. Such algorithms are generally impractical in real-world systems due to their reliance on future information. Thus, this paper focuses on a more realistic design, where the device has access only to the historical or current information but lacks knowledge of future values.

Because of the potential unavailability of real-time channel information, the current update cost $C(t)$ may not be known at the beginning of slot $t$. Therefore, we design scheduling algorithms that do not rely on instantaneous channel knowledge. Instead, the algorithms use only the maximum and minimum possible update costs, denoted by $C_{M}$ and $C_{m}$. The values of $C_{M}$ and $C_{m}$ can be estimated from the historically observed worst and best channel conditions (e.g., those observed by the AP within its service region and reported by the AP). If these values are unavailable, see Remark 10 for a slight modification of the proposed algorithms that preserves some performance guarantee.

A scheduling algorithm is called a (cost-agnostic) online scheduling algorithm if it requires only the constants $C_{M}$ and $C_{m}$ and the realized age increments up to the current slot. For simplicity, we will omit the term cost-agnostic, with the understanding that all references to online scheduling algorithms refer to the cost-agnostic setting. Without access to the complete uncertainty instance, an online algorithm is generally unable to achieve the minimum total cost attainable by an optimal offline scheduling algorithm. Given an instance $\mathcal{I}$, let $\mathrm{OPT}(\mathcal{I})$ denote the minimum total cost achieved by an optimal offline algorithm. We evaluate the performance of online algorithms in terms of their competitiveness [buchbinder2009design] relative to the offline optimum, defined as follows.

That is, a $\gamma$-competitive online scheduling algorithm guarantees that the resulting total cost is at most $\gamma$ times the offline minimum cost, regardless of the instance $\mathcal{I}$. Our goal is to design an online scheduling algorithm that achieves the smallest possible competitive ratio $\gamma$.

Note that in addition to the competitive ratio, another common performance metric is regret [lattimore2020bandit]. Regret measures the additive performance gap between an online learning approach and the best offline algorithm restricted to fixed decision rules. In contrast, the competitive ratio compares the performance of an online algorithm against the best offline algorithm without such restrictions. Moreover, online learning approaches typically provide regret guarantees only as the decision horizon grows to infinity. Such guarantees are less suitable for our setting, since a device may monitor and transmit updates only for a short and unpredictable duration.

Moreover, with the advancement of machine learning (ML) techniques, it is increasingly feasible to leverage ML to provide scheduling advice. A scheduling algorithm is referred to as an online scheduling algorithm with ML if it additionally has access to ML advice. Let $\mathcal{M}(t)\in\{0,1\}$ denote the decision advised by ML at slot $t$. We define the sequence $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}=(\mathcal{M}(1),\cdots,\mathcal{M}(T))$ as the ML advice. Because such a scheduling algorithm can adapt its actions based on the ML advice, its decision sequence $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ is allowed to be a function of $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}$.

This paper considers the setting where the ML advice may be untrusted. While following perfect ML advice (which can minimize the total cost) yields the minimum total cost, blindly trusting imperfect ML advice (which cannot minimize the total cost) may lead to poor performance. Moreover, we assume that the reliability of the ML advice is unknown a priori. In this context, we characterize online scheduling algorithms with ML in terms of two metrics introduced in [lykouris2018competitive]: consistency and robustness. Consistency quantifies performance relative to the ML advice, while robustness guarantees performance in the worst case. These notions are formally defined as follows.

In other words, an $\alpha$-consistent and $\beta$-robust online scheduling algorithm ensures that 1) when the ML advice is perfect, the resulting total cost is at most $\alpha$ times the offline minimum cost, and 2) when the advice is arbitrary or even adversarial, the cost remains within a factor of $\beta$ of the offline minimum cost. An algorithm that fully trusts the ML advice may achieve near-optimal consistency, but this often comes at the expense of robustness. Therefore, there exists an inherent trade-off between consistency $\alpha$ and robustness $\beta$. The goal of this paper is to design an online scheduling algorithm with ML that achieves the optimal consistency-robustness trade-off, namely, to minimize the consistency $\alpha$ for any fixed robustness $\beta$.

Without loss of generality, we assume that the age increment $\Delta A(t)$ is an integer for all $t$. If this is not the case, we can multiply both $C(t)$ and $\Delta A(t)$ by a common constant so that every $\Delta A(t)$ becomes integer-valued. Such scaling does not alter the optimal solution to the objective in Eq. (2). Based on this assumption, we introduce a virtual queue that mirrors the evolution of the integer-valued age.

We construct a virtual queueing system (shown in Fig. 2) consisting of a virtual server, a virtual queue, and virtual packet arrivals. The virtual system operates in the same discrete time slots as the real mobile network. Initially, the virtual queue contains $A_{0}$ virtual packets. At the beginning of each slot $t$, $\Delta A(t)$ virtual packets arrive at the virtual queue. If the device decides to transmit an update in slot $t$ (in the actual network), then the virtual server clears the virtual queue at the end of the slot. Otherwise, the virtual server remains idle and the virtual packets accumulate. As a result, the virtual queue size evolves as follows: it resets to zero if $d(t)=1$ (i.e., the virtual server clears the virtual queue, corresponding to an update in the actual network), or increases by $\Delta A(t)$ if $d(t)=0$ (i.e., the virtual server idles, corresponding to no update in the actual network). This evolution exactly mirrors the age dynamics in Eq. (1). Therefore, we use the same notation $A(t)$ to denote the virtual queue size at the end of slot $t$.

We index the virtual packets by $1,2,\cdots$ according to their arrival times, and let $T_{i}$ denote the slot in which virtual packet $i$ arrives. For each virtual packet $i$, we use a binary variable $z_{i}(t)\in\{0,1\}$ to indicate whether it remains in the virtual queue at the end of slot $t$, where $z_{i}(t)=1$ if it is still present, and $z_{i}(t)=0$ otherwise. Using this notation, the virtual queue size at the end of slot $t$ can be expressed as $A(t)=\sum_{i:T_{i}\leq t}z_{i}(t)$, which counts the number of virtual packets that have arrived by slot $t$ and remain in the virtual queue. This representation allows us to express the age $A(t)$ as a linear function of the binary variables $z_{i}(t)$. Substituting this expression into Eq. (2), we can rewrite the total cost $J(\mathcal{I},\pi)$ as the following linear function:

This linear expression facilitates the formulation of an LP in the next section. Moreover, by Eq. (3), the update cost $C(t)$ can also be interpreted as a clearing cost incurred when the virtual queue is cleared in slot $t$, while holding a virtual packet for one slot incurs a unit holding cost.

We note that the clear/idle behavior in the virtual queueing system directly corresponds to sending/withholding an acknowledgment (ACK) to clear all received packets in the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). From this perspective, we can leverage prior studies for the classic online TCP ACK problem [buchbinder2009design, Chapter 12] to formulate our offline optimal scheduling problem as an integer program with a linear objective and constraint functions:

In this integer program, we introduce a variable $x(t)$ to denote whether the device transmits an update in slot $t$. That is, $x(t)$ in the integer program is exactly the decision variable $d(t)$ introduced earlier. The reason for redefining this variable is that we will relax $x(t)$ to take a real value between 0 and 1, which prevents immediate interpretation as a transmission decision. Later in Section V, we show how to convert a fractional solution for $x(t)$ into a randomized scheduling decision for $d(t)$. Moreover, the constraint in Eq. (4b) ensures that each virtual packet $i$ arriving by slot $t$ either remains in the virtual queue at the end of slot $t$ (i.e., $z_{i}(t)=1$ in the first term of Eq. (4b)) or has been cleared by slot $t$ (i.e., there exists a slot $\tau\in\{T_{i},\cdots,t\}$ such that $x(\tau)=1$ in the second term of Eq. (4b)).

By relaxing the integrality constraint (4c) to allow continuous variables, we obtain the following LP:

Next, Section V proposes an online algorithm to compute a feasible solution to LP (5) without relying on ML, while Section VI extends this approach by incorporating ML advice.

We propose Alg. 1, referred to as the online LP algorithm, which computes a feasible solution to LP (5). All variables are initialized to zero in Line 1. At the beginning of each slot $t$, the algorithm iteratively adjusts the variables for all virtual packets that have arrived by slot $t$, as specified in Line 1.

The underlying idea is that in each slot $t$, our scheduling algorithm that will be proposed in Section V-C makes a probabilistic decision: to set $d(t)=1$ with some probability or $d(t)=0$ otherwise. The probability is governed by the current value of $x(t)$, which is determined in Line 1 of Alg. 1. Accordingly, $x(t)$ can be interpreted as the probability of clearing the virtual queue in slot $t$. In this context, the cumulative sum $\sum_{\tau=T_{i}}^{t}x(\tau)$ represents the cumulative clearing probability (up to slot $t$) for virtual packet $i$.

With this interpretation, the condition in Line 1 checks whether virtual packet $i$ has already been cleared by slot $t$. If $\sum_{\tau=T_{i}}^{t}x(\tau)\geq 1$, virtual packet $i$ is considered cleared, and no further processing is required. Otherwise, the virtual packet may still remain in the virtual queue and its associated variables should be adjusted. As shown in Line 1, for each such packet, Line 1 increases the value of $x(t)$. That is, the more virtual packets remain in the virtual queue, the higher the resulting clearing probability.

Moreover, the idea behind Line 1 is that it adjusts the cumulative clearing probability $\sum_{\tau=T_{i}}^{t}x(\tau)$ as follows:

which increases the cumulative clearing probability by a multiplicative factor of $1+(1/C_{M})$ and an additive factor of $1/(\theta C_{M})$. The constant $\theta$ is chosen as in Line 1 so that the algorithm asymptotically achieves the minimum achievable competitive ratio (as stated in Lemma 9). The appearance of $C_{M}$ in the denominators reflects that a larger update cost reduces the rate at which the clearing probability increases. In addition, Line 1 sets $z_{i}(t)=1-\sum_{\tau=T_{i}}^{t}x(\tau)$ to ensure that the constraint in Eq. (5b) is satisfied, so that Alg. 1 produces a feasible solution to LP (5).

Note that Alg. 1 operates in an online manner, as it requires only the constants $C_{M}$ and $C_{m}$, and the knowledge of virtual arrivals up to the current slot (which corresponds to the age increment sequence up to the current slot), without relying on any future information.

In this section, we analyze the objective value in Eq. (5a) computed by Alg. 1. Unlike prior studies [buchbinder2009design, bamas2020primal] that analyze online algorithms for LPs using primal–dual techniques, our analysis exploits structural properties of Alg. 1 and its relation to an optimal offline scheduling algorithm. An advantage of our approach is that it provides a unified analysis framework for all proposed LP algorithms (including Algs. 1, 3, and 4) without the need to construct separate dual solutions for different scenarios.

Let $P(t)=\{i:T_{i}\leq t\}$ denote the set of virtual packets that have arrived by slot $t$. The following two lemmas characterize properties of this set. Here, when a virtual packet satisfies the condition in Line 1 and thus triggers the operation in Line 1, we say that it activates. For clarity and continuity, we move most detailed proofs of this paper to the appendices in the supplemental material.

Lemma 4 immediately implies the following result.

Leveraging Lemma 5, we are now ready to analyze the objective value in Eq. (5a) achieved by Alg. 1 in the following theorem. The theorem also characterizes the asymptotic behavior when the update cost scales linearly with the energy consumption, i.e., $C(t)=C_{u}\mathcal{E}(t)$ for a constant unit cost $C_{u}$. The asymptotic regime $C_{u}\to\infty$ models scenarios with severely constrained resources. In this regime, the competitive ratio depends only on the ratio between the maximum and minimum update cost, denoted by $R=C_{M}/C_{m}$. Let $\mathcal{E}_{M}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{m}$ denote the maximum and minimum per-update energy consumption, respectively. Then, when $C(t)=C_{u}\mathcal{E}(t)$, the same ratio can also be written as $R=\mathcal{E}_{M}/\mathcal{E}_{m}$.

Next, we also use Lemma 5 to analyze the computational complexity of Alg. 1, as stated in the following lemma. Here, we use $\Delta A_{M}$ to denote the maximum value of $\Delta A(t)$ for all possible $t$.

According to Lemma 7, at the beginning of slot $t$, at most $2\left\lceil\sqrt{\Delta A_{M}C_{m}}\right\rceil+\Delta A_{M}$ virtual packets may satisfy the condition in Line 1. Therefore, Line 1 needs at most $2\left\lceil\sqrt{\Delta A_{M}C_{m}}\right\rceil+\Delta A_{M}$ iterations. The computational complexity of the online algorithm scales quadratically with the minimum update cost.

Leveraging the fractional-to-probabilistic conversion technique proposed in [buchbinder2009design, Chapter 12], this section presents a randomized online scheduling algorithm in Alg. 2, which converts the fractional solution $x(t)$ generated by Alg. 1 into a probabilistic transmission decision.

Alg. 2 adjusts the variable $x(t)$ in Line 2 using the same rule as in Alg. 1. In addition, we introduce two auxiliary variables: $x_{\text{pre-sum}}$ and $x_{\text{sum}}$. The variable $x_{\text{pre-sum}}$ records the cumulative sum of $\min\{x(t),1\}$ up to slot $t-1$ (Line 2), while $x_{\text{sum}}$ records the cumulative sum up to slot $t$ (Line 2). In Line 2, Alg. 2 selects a uniform random number $u\in[0,1)$. Then, according to Lines 2 and 2, if there exists $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $u+k\in[x_{\text{pre-sum}},x_{\text{sum}})$, then the device decides to transmit an update (Line 2); otherwise, the device idles (Line 2). The idea behind Alg. 2 mirrors the classical technique for sampling from a distribution using its cumulative distribution function. In particular, by the uniform randomness of $u$, the probability of transmitting an update (equivalently, clearing the virtual queue) in slot $t$ is exactly $\min\{x(t),1\}$, and the cumulative transmission probability by slot $t$ is $\min\left\{\sum_{\tau=T_{i}}^{t}x(\tau),1\right\}$.

Because of the randomness of Alg. 2, we evaluate its performance in terms of the expected competitive ratio.

Next, we show that the competitive ratio of Alg. 2 is optimal by establishing a matching lower bound as follows.

Through the lower bound on the competitive ratio in Lemma 9 and the matching achievability scheme proposed in Alg. 2, we establish that the optimal competitive ratio against an adversary that can jointly manipulate the operation duration, the age increment, and the update cost is $(e^{1/R})/(e^{1/R}-1)$. This matches the result in the classic online TCP [buchbinder2009design] for $R=1$ (without cost variation). Moreover, this ratio is $\mathcal{O}(R)$ for large $R$, scaling linearly with the update cost range $R$, while is unaffected by all other sources of uncertainty. Thus, when the cost fluctuates, it becomes fundamentally harder for any online algorithm to balance timeliness and update cost. Moreover, see Fig. 3 for the competitive ratio at finite values of $R$, which also appears approximately linear in $R$.

This section extends the online LP algorithm in Alg. 1 by incorporating ML advice $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}$ with unknown reliability, as described in Alg. 3. The key idea underlying Alg. 3 is as follows. A new variable $T_{ML}$ is introduced in Line 3 and is adjusted in Line 3 whenever the ML advice suggests clearing the virtual queue. Hence, the value of $T_{ML}$ represents the most recent slot when the ML advice recommended a clearing. Since the ML advice may be imperfect, the device does not blindly follow it. Instead, Alg. 1 modulates its response based on whether a virtual packet $i$ has been suggested for clearing by the ML advice at the beginning of slot $t$:

• •

  If the ML advice has already recommended clearing the virtual packet $i$ (checked via Line 3), Alg. 3 raises the clearing probability more aggressively by setting a smaller value for $\theta$ in Line 3. We refer to this as a fast step.

• •

  Conversely, if the ML advice has not yet recommended clearing the virtual packet $i$ by slot $t$ (checked via Line 3), Alg. 3 raises the clearing probability more conservatively by setting a larger value for the constant $\theta$ in Line 3. We refer to this as a slow step.

The adjustment of $\theta$ is governed by a hyperparameter $\lambda\in(0,1]$, which reflects the device’s level of trust in the ML advice. A smaller value of $\lambda$ corresponds to greater confidence in the ML advice and leads to closer alignment with it, whereas a larger value represents caution and yields more robust behavior. This trade-off between the consistency and the robustness with respect to $\lambda$ will be further discussed in Section VI-B.

In this section, we establish the robustness and consistency of the proposed Alg. 3. To this end, we begin by analyzing the set $P(t)$ under Alg. 3 in the following two lemmas, analogous to Lemmas 4 and 5, respectively. Here, if a virtual packet activates and performs a slow or fast step, we say that it activates a slow or fast step, respectively. Moreover, we denote $\theta_{s}=(1+(1/C_{M}))^{C_{m}/\lambda}-1$ and $\theta_{f}=(1+(1/C_{M}))^{C_{m}\lambda}-1$.

Leveraging Lemma 12, we are ready to analyze the objective value in Eq. (5a) computed by Alg. 3. The next two theorems analyze its robustness and consistency, respectively.

Next, we show that the results in the above two theorems characterize the optimal consistency-robustness trade-off.

Combining the lower bound in Lemma 15 with the matching achievability scheme in Alg. 3, we establish that the optimal consistency–robustness trade-off is characterized by the pair of $(\lambda e^{\lambda/R})/(e^{\lambda/R}-1)$ and $(e^{\lambda/R})/(e^{\lambda/R}-1)$. This matches the result for the classic online TCP with ML [bamas2020primal] when $R=1$ (without cost variation).

Note that in many prior studies on ML-augmented online algorithms (e.g., [bamas2020primal, liu2025learning]), the consistency approaches 1 as the trust parameter $\lambda\to 0$, i.e., setting $\lambda\to 0$ forces the algorithm to rely entirely on the ML advice. In contrast, in our setting the consistency approaches $R$ as $\lambda\to 0$, which exceeds 1 whenever $R>1$. This difference is explained as follows. The robustness becomes unbounded as $\lambda\to 0$. Because this trade-off is optimal, the robustness is infinite whenever the consistency falls below $R$. This implies that robustness guarantees collapse even when an online algorithm follows ML advice only partially (so that its consistency remains below $R$). Thus, in our setting, taking $\lambda\to 0$ does not force the algorithm to rely fully on the ML advice. Instead, it identifies the limit in which the algorithm becomes as consistent with the ML advice as possible while still maintaining a finite robustness guarantee.

Thus far, we have characterized the optimal consistency–robustness trade-off as the trust level in the ML advice varies. Tuning the trust level leads to different competitive ratios. We next discuss how to determine an optimal trust level that minimizes the competitive ratio when the value of $R$ is large. For large $R$, the consistency $(\lambda e^{\lambda/R})/(e^{\lambda/R}-1)$ varies from $(e^{1/R})/(e^{1/R}-1)\approx R$ at $\lambda=1$ to $R$ as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$. Hence, the consistency is nearly identical for all $\lambda\in(0,1]$. In contrast, for large $R$, the robustness $(e^{\lambda/R})/(e^{\lambda/R}-1)=\mathcal{O}(R/\lambda)$ degrades as $\lambda$ decreases. Then, considering all possible $\lambda\in(0,1]$ (representing partial or no trust in the ML advice), an optimal online scheduling algorithm $\pi^{*}$ that minimizes the competitive ratio satisfies the following performance guarantees: