Query-Based Sampling of Heterogeneous CTMCs: Modeling and Optimization with Binary Freshness

Nail Akar,  and Sennur Ulukus N. Akar is with the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey (e-mail:[email protected]) This work is done when N. Akar is on sabbatical leave at University of Maryland, MD, USA. The work of N. Akar is supported in part by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Tübitak) 2219-International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program.S. Ulukus is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, MD, USA (e-mail:[email protected]).
Abstract

We study a remote monitoring system in which a mutually independent and heterogeneous collection of finite-state irreducible continuous time Markov chain (CTMC) based information sources is considered. In this system, a common remote monitor queries the instantaneous states of the individual CTMCs according to a Poisson process with possibly different intensities across the sources, in order to maintain accurate estimates of the original sources. Three information freshness models are considered to quantify the accuracy of the remote estimates: fresh when equal (FWE), fresh when sampled (FWS) and fresh when close (FWC). For each of these freshness models, closed-form expressions are derived for mean information freshness for a given source. Using these expressions, optimum sampling rates for all sources are obtained so as to maximize the weighted sum freshness of the monitoring system, subject to an overall sampling rate constraint. This optimization problem leads to a water-filling solution with quadratic worst case computational complexity in the number of information sources. Numerical examples are provided to validate the effectiveness of the optimum sampling policy in comparison to several baseline sampling policies.

Index Terms:
Markov information sources, information freshness, optimum sampling, water-filling based optimization.

I Introduction

Timely delivery of status update packets from a number of information sources for maintaining information freshness at a remote monitor (or destination) has recently gained significant attention for the development of applications requiring real-time monitoring and control. In such applications, information sources generate status update packets that contain the samples of an underlying random process, e.g., a sensor sampling a physical quantity such as temperature, humidity, etc., or an information item with time-varying content such as news, weather reports, etc., which are subsequently delivered to the monitor through a communication network. In the push-based communication paradigm, information sources decide when to sample and form the information packets, which are subsequently forwarded towards the destination [1, 2]. On the other hand, in query-based (or pull-based) communications, monitors proactively query the information sources upon which sampling takes place [3, 4].

For the design and optimization of status update systems, a need for quantifying information freshness is evident. For this purpose, age of information (AoI) is commonly used which is a continuous-valued continuous-time stochastic process maintained at the destination that keeps track of the time elapsed since the reception of the last status update packet received from a particular information source. The AoI process was first introduced in [5] for a single-source M/M/1 queuing model which resulted in substantial interest in the modeling of AoI and its optimization in very general settings including multiple sources [6, 7].

In this paper, the interest will be on the remote estimation of discrete-valued information sources, in particular CTMC based information sources, for which the status of the sources change at random instants, and the source dynamics (set of states and transition rates) is known at the monitor. In this setting, the monitor and the source are synchronized (in sync or fresh) when the monitor’s estimate overlaps with the state of the source. Otherwise, they are de-synchronized (out of sync or erroneous or stale). Although performance metrics derived from AoI have played an important role for the development of status update systems for continuous-valued information sources, these metrics are not as suitable for discrete-valued information sources with known dynamics, the latter being the focus of this paper. For example, even when the monitor has perfect knowledge of the source when its discrete status stays intact, its corresponding AoI process would continue to increase with time, leading to an undesired penalty [8].

On the basis of such shortcomings of AoI, alternative performance metrics have been proposed including age of synchronization (AoS) which is defined as the elapsed time since the content at the destination has de-synchronized with the source [9, 10, 11]. With AoS, the penalty of the monitor having an erroneous estimate of the source increases linearly with time as long as the de-synchronization condition stays. A more general process proposed recently is age of incorrect information (AoII) which is defined as the product of an increasing time penalty function and another penalty function chosen general enough to depend on both the current estimate at the monitor and the actual state of the process [8]. AoII covers AoS as a sub-case whereas other application-oriented choices for the two penalty functions are further elaborated in [8]. For certain applications including caching systems, dissatisfaction of being in an erroneous state does not necessarily increase with time but instead, with the number of versions the monitor lags with respect to the original source. For this purpose, version age (VA) has been introduced which keeps track of the number of status changes that have occurred at the source since the last time the content at the destination is de-synchronized with the source [12, 13, 14, 15]. In some applications, in contrast to the age-driven metrics, the information at the destination may not possess a value unless the content at the destination is in sync with the source irrespective of the duration of the erroneous state. In such applications, there is not a need for the dissatisfaction to grow with time or with outdated versions, which gives rise to the so-called binary freshness (BF) process which takes the value of one when the information at the destination is in sync with the source, and is zero otherwise. This simple BF metric was extensively used in the optimization of Web crawling systems by which local copies of remote Web pages are managed for Web search engines [16, 17]. BF has recently been used as a performance metric for freshness quantification in other computer and communication systems, such as in cache update systems [18, 19, 20, 21], gossi** networks [22, 23], infection tracking systems [24]. The focus of this study is applications for which the use of the BF metric is suitable for freshness quantification.

X2(t)subscript𝑋2𝑡X_{2}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t )X1(t)subscript𝑋1𝑡X_{1}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t )XN(t)subscript𝑋𝑁𝑡X_{N}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t )λ2subscript𝜆2\lambda_{2}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTλ1subscript𝜆1\lambda_{1}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTλNsubscript𝜆𝑁\lambda_{N}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT\vdots\vdotsX~n(t)subscript~𝑋𝑛𝑡\tilde{X}_{n}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t )1nN1𝑛𝑁1\leq n\leq N1 ≤ italic_n ≤ italic_Nremote monitor
Figure 1: Query-based status update system in which the monitor queries the CTMC Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) associated with source-n𝑛nitalic_n with intensity λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, to maintain an estimate X~n(t)subscript~𝑋𝑛𝑡\tilde{X}_{n}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) of Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ).

In this paper, we consider the query-based communication system in Fig. 1 involving a number of CTMC-based information sources each of which is queried by a common remote monitor according to a Poisson process after which samples are taken and sent as status update packets towards the monitor, to maintain a remote estimate of the original process. Queries and status update packet transmissions are assumed to take place immediately. The individual CTMCs are finite-state and irreducible, mutually independent, and their heterogeneous dynamics (state-space and transition rates do not have to be the same across the sources) are known at the monitor. We employ a martingale estimator that is also used in similar studies such as [8, 25, 24], for which the remote estimate of the source between two consecutive samples, is the value of the first sample. The martingale estimator is easy to maintain, and moreover, we will show that it is possible to obtain closed-form expressions for several freshness metrics with this estimator, which subsequently leads to an algorithmic optimization procedure for obtaining the optimum sampling rates in a heterogeneous setting. Non-Poisson query arrivals, such as periodic queries, more advanced estimators such as the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), and non-zero transmission times for query and status update packets, are left for future research.

We employ three non-age driven freshness models, two being binary, to quantify the accuracy of the martingale estimators. In fresh when equal (FWE), the information is fresh at the destination when the remote estimator is in sync with the state of the original source. In the fresh when sampled (FWS) freshness model (which is also binary), the information becomes stale when the state of the original source changes and it becomes fresh only when a new sample is taken. For FWS, when the freshness process is stale, it cannot be set until the remote monitor re-samples the process, which is in contrast with FWE. The advantage of the FWS model is that it represents certain applications where freshness can be regained only with an explicit user action once it has been lost, and further, closed form expressions for mean freshness can be obtained for FWS for a very general class of CTMCs. The non-binary fresh when close (FWC) model is a generalization of the binary FWE model where the level of freshness depends on the proximity of the original process and its estimator at the monitor, yielding more flexibility than FWE.

In this work, for the three freshness models of interest, we first find closed form expressions for mean freshness as a function of the sampling rate and subsequently we find the optimum sampling rate for each source that maximizes the weighted sum freshness for the system, under a total sampling rate constraint for the monitor. We show that this optimization problem possesses a water-filling structure which amounts to a procedure in which a limited volume of water is poured into a pool organized into a number of bins with different ground levels with the water level in each bin giving the desired optimum solution [26]. Water-filling based optimization has been successfully used in solving optimal resource allocation problems arising in wireless networks; see [27, 26] for two related surveys, and also references [28] and [29], that make use of water-filling techniques. Iterative methods are available for water-filling based optimization which will be shown to give rise to an algorithm for the optimum monitoring problem in Fig. 1 with quadratic worst-case computational complexity in the number of sources.

The contributions of our paper are as follows:

  • To the best of our knowledge, optimum sampling of heterogeneous CTMCs under overall sampling rate constraints has not been explored in the literature. Our work initiates this line of study.

  • We derive closed form expressions for mean freshness for FWE, FWC and FWS models for finite-state and irreducible CTMCs. For the FWS model, the obtained expression is in terms of the sum of first order rational functions of the sampling rate which is a strictly concave increasing function. For the FWE and FWC models, similar expressions are obtained for the sub-case of time-reversible CTMCs (using the real-valued eigenvalues, and eigenvectors of the corresponding generators) that cover the well-established birth-death Markov chains that arise frequently in the performance of computer and communication systems.

  • The obtained expressions allow us to use computationally efficient water-filling algorithms to obtain optimum sampling policies.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Related work is summarized in Section II. Preliminaries on CTMCs are given in Section III. In Section IV, the detailed system model is presented. Section V addresses the derivation of mean freshness expressions for the three freshness models. The water-filling based optimization algorithm is presented in Section VI. A comparative evaluation of the proposed optimum sampler and several baseline sampling policies are presented in Section VII. Conclusions, some open problems and potential future directions are given in Section VIII.

II Related Work

The majority of the remote estimation problems in the literature are in the discrete-time setting. In [30], the authors study the remote estimation of a linear time-invariant dynamic system while focusing on the trade-off between reliability and freshness. In [31], AoII is investigated in a status update system involving a multi-state Markovian information source, a monitor, and a channel susceptible to packet errors, and the communication goal is to minimize AoII subject to a power constraint. The authors of [32] study a transmitter monitoring the evolution of a two-state discrete Markov source and sending status updates to a destination over an unreliable wireless channel for the purpose of real-time source reconstruction for remote actuation. This work is then extended in [33] with more general discrete stochastic source processes and resource constraints. The work presented in [34] studies the trade-off between the sampling frequency and staleness in detecting the events through a freshness metric called age penalty which is defined as the time elapsed since the first transition out of the most recently observed state. The authors of [35] investigate a time-slotted communication system for tracking a discrete-time Markovian source with joint sampling and transmission over a wireless channel.

For the continuous-time setting, [36] investigates the problem of sampling a Wiener process with samples forwarded to a remote estimator over a channel that is modeled as a queue. The authors of [37] investigate the effect of AoI on the accuracy of a remote monitoring system which displays the latest state information from a CTMC and they develop a computational method for finding the conditional probability of the displayed state, given the actual current state of the information source. The authors of [38] obtain a push-based sampling policy for remote tracking of a CTMC source subject to a sampling rate constraint using constrained semi-Markov decision processes. A common feature of the above works is the existence of a single information source which gets to be sampled. On the other hand, [24] studies the sampling of a collection of heterogeneous two-state CTMC-based information sources each modeling whether an individual is infected with a virus or not, while using the binary freshness metric, and [14] studies sampling of multiple heterogeneous Poisson processes representing the citation indices of multiple researchers with the goal of kee** timely estimates (similar to version age) of all the random processes. In the current manuscript, we study a heterogeneous collection of general finite-state (not necessarily two-state) CTMC-based information sources with three different freshness models (including the binary freshness metric) where the sources need to be sampled for remote estimation with a constraint on the overall sampling rate.

III Preliminaries

The focus of the current paper is on irreducible, finite-state, time-homogeneous (transition rates do not depend on time) CTMCs with their main properties given in this section based on [39, 40]. We consider the CTMC X(t),t0,X(t)𝒦={1,2,,K}formulae-sequence𝑋𝑡𝑡0𝑋𝑡𝒦12𝐾X(t),t\geq 0,X(t)\in\mathcal{K}=\{1,2,\ldots,K\}italic_X ( italic_t ) , italic_t ≥ 0 , italic_X ( italic_t ) ∈ caligraphic_K = { 1 , 2 , … , italic_K }, where K1𝐾1K\geq 1italic_K ≥ 1 is the number of states. The process X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) has the infinitesimal generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q of size K𝐾Kitalic_K with its (i,j)𝑖𝑗(i,j)( italic_i , italic_j )th entry denoted by qijsubscript𝑞𝑖𝑗q_{ij}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which is the transition rate from state i𝑖iitalic_i to state j𝑗jitalic_j for ij𝑖𝑗i\neq jitalic_i ≠ italic_j and its diagonal entries are strictly negative satisfying Qe=0𝑄𝑒0Qe=0italic_Q italic_e = 0, where e𝑒eitalic_e is a column vector of ones of appropriate size. The CTMC X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) is called irreducible if it is possible with some positive probability to get from any state to any other state in some finite time. An irreducible CTMC does not have any transient states. Hence, the limiting probability of X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) being in state j𝑗jitalic_j conditioned on being in state i𝑖iitalic_i at time zero, exists and does not depend on the initial state,

limt[X(t)=j|X(0)=i]subscript𝑡delimited-[]𝑋𝑡conditional𝑗𝑋0𝑖\displaystyle\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[X(t)=j|X(0)=i]roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P [ italic_X ( italic_t ) = italic_j | italic_X ( 0 ) = italic_i ] =:πj.\displaystyle=:\pi_{j}.= : italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (1)

Moreover, the row vector π={πj}𝜋subscript𝜋𝑗\pi=\{\pi_{j}\}italic_π = { italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, known as the stationary (or invariant) distribution, satisfies πQ=0𝜋𝑄0\pi Q=0italic_π italic_Q = 0 and πe=1𝜋𝑒1\pi e=1italic_π italic_e = 1, which are known as the global balance equations (GBE). The GBEs for CTMCs are a set of equations, one for each state s𝑠sitalic_s of the CTMC, which states that the total probability flux out of a state s𝑠sitalic_s should be equal to the total probability flux from other states into the state s𝑠sitalic_s, in steady-state [39].

Irreducible, finite-state CTMCs are ergodic, i.e., for any function f:𝒦:𝑓𝒦f:\mathcal{K}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_f : caligraphic_K → blackboard_R, the following holds,

limτ1τt=0τfX(t)dtsubscript𝜏1𝜏superscriptsubscript𝑡0𝜏subscript𝑓𝑋𝑡𝑡\displaystyle\lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\tau}\int_{t=0}^{\tau}f_{X(t% )}\differential{t}roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_τ end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X ( italic_t ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_d start_ARG italic_t end_ARG =i=1Kfiπi,absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{K}f_{i}\pi_{i},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (2)

where fisubscript𝑓𝑖f_{i}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the value of the function at state i𝑖iitalic_i, known as the Ergodic Theorem [40]. Note that the right hand side of (2) is an expectation with respect to the invariant distribution π𝜋\piitalic_π. In particular, when fi=isubscript𝑓𝑖𝑖f_{i}=iitalic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_i, then we have

limτ1τt=0τX(t)dt=i=1Kiπi=:𝔼[X],\displaystyle\lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\tau}\int_{t=0}^{\tau}X(t)% \differential{t}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}i\pi_{i}=:\mathbb{E}[X],roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_τ end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X ( italic_t ) roman_d start_ARG italic_t end_ARG = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = : blackboard_E [ italic_X ] , (3)

where the random variable X𝑋Xitalic_X has the same limiting distribution in (1), i.e., [X=j]=limt[X(t)=j]=πj,j𝒦formulae-sequencedelimited-[]𝑋𝑗subscript𝑡delimited-[]𝑋𝑡𝑗subscript𝜋𝑗𝑗𝒦\mathbb{P}[X=j]=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[X(t)=j]=\pi_{j},j\in% \mathcal{K}blackboard_P [ italic_X = italic_j ] = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P [ italic_X ( italic_t ) = italic_j ] = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j ∈ caligraphic_K. X𝑋Xitalic_X is called the random variable associated with the CTMC X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) in the steady-state.

The generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q has a left eigenvector π𝜋\piitalic_π and right eigenvector e𝑒eitalic_e, associated with the simple eigenvalue at zero and all other eigenvalues having strictly negative real parts [39]. X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) is called a time-reversible CTMC if its generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q satisfies the following detailed balance equations (DBE),

πiqijsubscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝑞𝑖𝑗\displaystyle\pi_{i}q_{ij}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =πjqji,ij.formulae-sequenceabsentsubscript𝜋𝑗subscript𝑞𝑗𝑖𝑖𝑗\displaystyle=\pi_{j}q_{ji},\quad i\neq j.= italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i ≠ italic_j . (4)

The equations (4) are the GBEs for birth-death chains since the corresponding state transitions take place between neighboring states only. Therefore, birth-death chains are time-reversible. For a time-reversible CTMC X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ), let

Π=Πabsent\displaystyle\Pi=roman_Π = diag{π1,π2,,πK},diagsubscript𝜋1subscript𝜋2subscript𝜋𝐾\displaystyle{\rm diag}\{\pi_{1},\pi_{2},\ldots,\pi_{K}\},roman_diag { italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } , (5)

be the diagonal matrix composed of the entries of π𝜋\piitalic_π. Also let

S𝑆\displaystyle Sitalic_S =Π1/2QΠ1/2,absentsuperscriptΠ12𝑄superscriptΠ12\displaystyle=\Pi^{1/2}Q\Pi^{-1/2},= roman_Π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q roman_Π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (6)

which is a symmetric matrix from (4). Symmetric matrices have real eigenvalues and they are diagonalizable by orthogonal transformations [41]. Therefore, there exists an orthonormal matrix U𝑈Uitalic_U such that

UTSUsuperscript𝑈𝑇𝑆𝑈\displaystyle U^{T}SUitalic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S italic_U =D=diag{d1,d2,,dK1,0},absent𝐷diagsubscript𝑑1subscript𝑑2subscript𝑑𝐾10\displaystyle=D={\rm diag}\{-d_{1},-d_{2},\ldots,-d_{K-1},0\},= italic_D = roman_diag { - italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , - italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , - italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 } , (7)

where disubscript𝑑𝑖-d_{i}- italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with di>0subscript𝑑𝑖0d_{i}>0italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0, are the corresponding real eigenvalues of the matrix S𝑆Sitalic_S. Moreover, the matrix defined by T=Π1/2U𝑇superscriptΠ12𝑈T=\Pi^{-1/2}Uitalic_T = roman_Π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U diagonalizes the original generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q,

T1QTsuperscript𝑇1𝑄𝑇\displaystyle T^{-1}QTitalic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q italic_T =D.absent𝐷\displaystyle=D.= italic_D . (8)

Next, we present several properties on the left and right eigenvectors of time-reversible CTMCs. Let the (i,j)𝑖𝑗(i,j)( italic_i , italic_j )th entries of T𝑇Titalic_T and T~=T1~𝑇superscript𝑇1\tilde{T}=T^{-1}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG = italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be denoted by tijsubscript𝑡𝑖𝑗t_{ij}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and t~ijsubscript~𝑡𝑖𝑗\tilde{t}_{ij}over~ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively. The way the transformation matrix T𝑇Titalic_T is defined, the i𝑖iitalic_ith row of T~~𝑇{\tilde{T}}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG, i.e., the i𝑖iitalic_ith left eigenvector of Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, is obtained by post-multiplying by ΠΠ\Piroman_Π the transpose of the i𝑖iitalic_ith column of T𝑇Titalic_T, i.e., the transpose of the i𝑖iitalic_ith right eigenvector of Q𝑄Qitalic_Q. Consequently, t~ji=πitijsubscript~𝑡𝑗𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝑡𝑖𝑗\tilde{t}_{ji}=\pi_{i}t_{ij}over~ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all i,j𝑖𝑗i,jitalic_i , italic_j. Moreover, the row vector π𝜋\piitalic_π is the K𝐾Kitalic_Kth row of T~~𝑇\tilde{T}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG and e𝑒eitalic_e is the K𝐾Kitalic_Kth column of T𝑇Titalic_T in (8).

IV System Model

We consider the monitoring system in Fig. 1 with N𝑁Nitalic_N continuous-time information sources each of which is a finite-state, irreducible CTMC. The CTMC associated with source-n𝑛nitalic_n is denoted by Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ), n𝒩={1,2,,N}𝑛𝒩12𝑁n\in\mathcal{N}=\{1,2,\ldots,N\}italic_n ∈ caligraphic_N = { 1 , 2 , … , italic_N }, t0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0, and Xn(t){1,2,,Kn}subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡12subscript𝐾𝑛X_{n}(t)\in\{1,2,\ldots,K_{n}\}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) ∈ { 1 , 2 , … , italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, where Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the size of state space for Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ). The process Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) has the infinitesimal generator Qnsubscript𝑄𝑛{Q_{n}}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of size Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with its (i,j)𝑖𝑗(i,j)( italic_i , italic_j )th entry denoted by qn,ijsubscript𝑞𝑛𝑖𝑗q_{n,ij}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The steady-state vector satisfies 𝝅nQn=0subscript𝝅𝑛subscript𝑄𝑛0\bm{\pi}_{n}{Q_{n}}=0bold_italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 and 𝝅ne=1subscript𝝅𝑛𝑒1\bm{\pi}_{n}e=1bold_italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e = 1 with 𝝅n={πn,i}subscript𝝅𝑛subscript𝜋𝑛𝑖\bm{\pi}_{n}=\{\pi_{n,i}\}bold_italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. The transition rate out of state i𝑖iitalic_i is denoted by σn,i=jiqn,ijsubscript𝜎𝑛𝑖subscript𝑗𝑖subscript𝑞𝑛𝑖𝑗\sigma_{n,i}=\sum_{j\neq i}q_{n,ij}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The average transition intensity of source-n𝑛nitalic_n is denoted by rnsubscript𝑟𝑛r_{n}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i.e., rn=i=1Knπn,iσn,isubscript𝑟𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑖1subscript𝐾𝑛subscript𝜋𝑛𝑖subscript𝜎𝑛𝑖r_{n}=\sum_{i=1}^{K_{n}}\pi_{n,i}\sigma_{n,i}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which is the long-term frequency of state transitions for the CTMC Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ). We denote by r𝑟ritalic_r the system transition intensity, r=i=1Nrn𝑟superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝑟𝑛r=\sum_{i=1}^{N}r_{n}italic_r = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

The remote monitor in Fig. 1 samples the original process Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) according to a Poisson process with intensity λn>0subscript𝜆𝑛0\lambda_{n}>0italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 in order to maintain an estimate of the instantaneous state of the original information process. In this paper, we propose to use the martingale estimator X~n(t)subscript~𝑋𝑛𝑡\tilde{X}_{n}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) which is given as X~n(t)=Xn(t)subscript~𝑋𝑛𝑡subscript𝑋𝑛superscript𝑡\tilde{X}_{n}(t)=X_{n}(t^{\prime})over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), where tsuperscript𝑡t^{\prime}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the latest sampling time before t𝑡titalic_t. The accuracy of the remote estimator is studied with three information freshness models described below. For the FWE information freshness model, the information is said to be fresh at the remote monitor only when the original process and its estimate are equal, i.e., X~n(t)=Xn(t)subscript~𝑋𝑛𝑡subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡\tilde{X}_{n}(t)=X_{n}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ), and is otherwise stale. In the FWE model, there is no value at all in a sample, unless the original process and its estimator are synchronized. Hence, the binary freshness process Fn,e(t)subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡F_{n,e}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is defined as Fn,e(t)=1subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡1F_{n,e}(t)=1italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 1 when X~n(t)=Xn(t)subscript~𝑋𝑛𝑡subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡\tilde{X}_{n}(t)=X_{n}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ), and zero otherwise. It is clear that the joint process (X~(t),X(t))~𝑋𝑡𝑋𝑡(\tilde{X}(t),X(t))( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_t ) , italic_X ( italic_t ) ) is also an irreducible CTMC as the original CTMC X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ), and using the Ergodic Theorem [40], the time-average of the freshness process Fn,e(t)subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡F_{n,e}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is given by,

limτ1τt=0τFn,e(t)dt:=𝔼[Fn,e]assignsubscript𝜏1𝜏superscriptsubscript𝑡0𝜏subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑡𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒\displaystyle\lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\tau}\int_{t=0}^{\tau}F_{n,e% }(t)\differential{t}:=\mathbb{E}[F_{n,e}]roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_τ end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) roman_d start_ARG italic_t end_ARG := blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] , (9)

where Fn,esubscript𝐹𝑛𝑒F_{n,e}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the random variable associated with the random process Fn,e(t)subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡F_{n,e}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) in steady-state, i.e.,

[Fn,e=1]delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒1\displaystyle\mathbb{P}[F_{n,e}=1]blackboard_P [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 ] =limt[Fn,e(t)=1],absentsubscript𝑡delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡1\displaystyle=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[F_{n,e}(t)=1],= roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 1 ] , (10)
=limt[X(t)=X~(t)],absentsubscript𝑡delimited-[]𝑋𝑡~𝑋𝑡\displaystyle=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[X(t)=\tilde{X}(t)],= roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P [ italic_X ( italic_t ) = over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_t ) ] , (11)

and similarly,

[Fn,e=0]delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒0\displaystyle\mathbb{P}[F_{n,e}=0]blackboard_P [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ] =limt[X(t)X~(t)].absentsubscript𝑡delimited-[]𝑋𝑡~𝑋𝑡\displaystyle=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[X(t)\neq\tilde{X}(t)].= roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P [ italic_X ( italic_t ) ≠ over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_t ) ] . (12)
X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t )111122221111333311112222\cdotsX~(t)~𝑋𝑡\tilde{X}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_t )111133332222\cdotsFe(t)subscript𝐹𝑒𝑡F_{e}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t )\cdots1111001111001111001111\cdotsFc(t)subscript𝐹𝑐𝑡F_{c}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t )\cdots11110.50.50.50.51111001111000.50.50.50.51111\cdotsFs(t)subscript𝐹𝑠𝑡F_{s}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t )\cdots1111001111001111\cdotst𝑡titalic_t
Figure 2: Sample paths of the processes X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ), X~(t)~𝑋𝑡\tilde{X}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_t ), Fe(t)subscript𝐹𝑒𝑡F_{e}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ), Fc(t)subscript𝐹𝑐𝑡F_{c}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) and Fs(t)subscript𝐹𝑠𝑡F_{s}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) for a source with states 1, 2 and 3, for an example scenario. Down arrows represent sampling operation.

In the FWC model, we assume that there may be a value when the original process and its estimator are close enough to each other despite being out of sync, from a certain semantic perspective. For this purpose, for FWC, we introduce a proximity matrix Pn={pn,ij}subscript𝑃𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛𝑖𝑗{P_{n}}=\{p_{n,ij}\}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, 0pn,ij10subscript𝑝𝑛𝑖𝑗10\leq p_{n,ij}\leq 10 ≤ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 for source-n𝑛nitalic_n, and subsequently define a non-binary freshness process Fn,c(t)subscript𝐹𝑛𝑐𝑡F_{n,c}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) which takes the value pn,ijsubscript𝑝𝑛𝑖𝑗p_{n,ij}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT when Xn(t)=isubscript𝑋𝑛𝑡𝑖X_{n}(t)=iitalic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_i and X~n(t)=jsubscript~𝑋𝑛𝑡𝑗\tilde{X}_{n}(t)=jover~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_j. In particular, pn,ii=1subscript𝑝𝑛𝑖𝑖1p_{n,ii}=1italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, representing perfect freshness when the original process and its estimator are synchronized. Close to unity values of pn,ijsubscript𝑝𝑛𝑖𝑗p_{n,ij}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are representative of proximity between the states i𝑖iitalic_i and j𝑗jitalic_j. When Pnsubscript𝑃𝑛{P_{n}}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is taken as the identity matrix, FWC reduces to FWE. For the FWS model, the binary freshness process Fn,s(t)subscript𝐹𝑛𝑠𝑡F_{n,s}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is set whenever the process is sampled, and it stays set until Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) makes a transition at which instant Fn,s(t)subscript𝐹𝑛𝑠𝑡F_{n,s}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) becomes zero. The mean freshness for FWC (resp. FWS) is denoted by 𝔼[Fn,c]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑛𝑐\mathbb{E}[F_{n,c}]blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] (resp. 𝔼[Fn,s])\mathbb{E}[F_{n,s}])blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ) similar to (9) where Fn,csubscript𝐹𝑛𝑐F_{n,c}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (resp. Fn,ssubscript𝐹𝑛𝑠F_{n,s}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) is the random variable associated with the random process Fn,c(t)subscript𝐹𝑛𝑐𝑡F_{n,c}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) (resp. Fn,s(t)subscript𝐹𝑛𝑠𝑡F_{n,s}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t )) in the steady-state.

When the index of the source is immaterial, the subscript n𝑛nitalic_n is dropped for the source process X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) and its estimator X~(t)~𝑋𝑡\tilde{X}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_t ) along with the corresponding freshness processes Fe(t)subscript𝐹𝑒𝑡F_{e}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ), Fc(t)subscript𝐹𝑐𝑡F_{c}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ), and Fs(t)subscript𝐹𝑠𝑡F_{s}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) for FWE, FWC, and FWS, respectively, and the proximity matrix P={pij}𝑃subscript𝑝𝑖𝑗{P}=\{p_{ij}\}italic_P = { italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } for FWC. Fig. 2 depicts the sample paths of the processes X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ), X~(t)~𝑋𝑡\tilde{X}(t)over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_t ), Fe(t)subscript𝐹𝑒𝑡F_{e}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ), Fc(t)subscript𝐹𝑐𝑡F_{c}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) and Fs(t)subscript𝐹𝑠𝑡F_{s}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) for a source with three states {1,2,3}123\{1,2,3\}{ 1 , 2 , 3 } for an example scenario where the proximity matrix P𝑃Pitalic_P is chosen such that pij=1subscript𝑝𝑖𝑗1p_{ij}=1italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 when |ij|=0𝑖𝑗0|i-j|=0| italic_i - italic_j | = 0, 0.50.50.50.5 when |ij|=1𝑖𝑗1|i-j|=1| italic_i - italic_j | = 1, and zero when |ij|=2𝑖𝑗2|i-j|=2| italic_i - italic_j | = 2. Note that when Fs(t)=1subscript𝐹𝑠𝑡1F_{s}(t)=1italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 1, then Fe(t)=1subscript𝐹𝑒𝑡1F_{e}(t)=1italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 1, but not otherwise. Therefore, 𝔼[Fe]𝔼[Fs]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑒𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑠\mathbb{E}[F_{e}]\geq\mathbb{E}[F_{s}]blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≥ blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] for any choice of the sampling rate λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. Moreover, 𝔼[Fc]𝔼[Fe]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑐𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑒\mathbb{E}[F_{c}]\geq\mathbb{E}[F_{e}]blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≥ blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] since Fc(t)subscript𝐹𝑐𝑡F_{c}(t)italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) can be larger than zero when Fe(t)=0subscript𝐹𝑒𝑡0F_{e}(t)=0italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 0, stemming from the structure of the proximity matrix P𝑃Pitalic_P. Thus, it always holds that 𝔼[Fc]𝔼[Fe]𝔼[Fs]𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑐𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑒𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑠\mathbb{E}[F_{c}]\geq\mathbb{E}[F_{e}]\geq\mathbb{E}[F_{s}]blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≥ blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≥ blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ].

V Analytical Expressions for Mean Freshness

The subscript n𝑛nitalic_n indicating the source index is dropped for convenience in the current section where the mean freshness is derived for a single irreducible CTMC X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) for the three freshness models.

V-A FWE Model

Theorem 1 provides an expression for f(λ)=𝔼[Fe]𝑓𝜆𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑒f(\lambda)=\mathbb{E}[F_{e}]italic_f ( italic_λ ) = blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] for the FWE model for the CTMC X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ).

Theorem 1.

Let the irreducible CTMC X(t){1,2,,K}𝑋𝑡12𝐾X(t)\in\{1,2,\ldots,K\}italic_X ( italic_t ) ∈ { 1 , 2 , … , italic_K } with generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q and steady-state vector π𝜋\piitalic_π, be Poisson sampled with sampling rate λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. Then, for the FWE model, the mean freshness f(λ)=𝔼[Fe]𝑓𝜆𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑒f(\lambda)=\mathbb{E}[F_{e}]italic_f ( italic_λ ) = blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] is given by,

f(λ)𝑓𝜆\displaystyle f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) =λπ𝒅iag[(λIQ)1],absent𝜆𝜋𝒅𝑖𝑎𝑔delimited-[]superscript𝜆𝐼𝑄1\displaystyle=\lambda\pi\ {\bm{d}iag}[(\lambda I-Q)^{-1}],= italic_λ italic_π bold_italic_d italic_i italic_a italic_g [ ( italic_λ italic_I - italic_Q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , (13)

where 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐠[]𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐠delimited-[]\bm{diag}[\cdot]bold_italic_d bold_italic_i bold_italic_a bold_italic_g [ ⋅ ] represents a column vector composed of the diagonal entries of its matrix argument.

Proof.

Let us consider the two-dimensional random process Y(t)=(X~(t),X(t))𝑌𝑡~𝑋𝑡𝑋𝑡Y(t)=(\tilde{X}(t),X(t))italic_Y ( italic_t ) = ( over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_t ) , italic_X ( italic_t ) ), which is also Markov. To see this, note that, the transition intensity from state (i,j)𝑖𝑗(i,j)( italic_i , italic_j ) to (i,j)𝑖superscript𝑗(i,j^{\prime})( italic_i , italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is qjjsubscript𝑞𝑗superscript𝑗q_{jj^{\prime}}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and from state (i,j)𝑖𝑗(i,j)( italic_i , italic_j ) to (j,j)𝑗𝑗(j,j)( italic_j , italic_j ) for ji𝑗𝑖j\neq iitalic_j ≠ italic_i is λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. Let the steady-state vector of the process Y(t)𝑌𝑡Y(t)italic_Y ( italic_t ) be denoted by y𝑦yitalic_y, i.e., yij=limt[Y(t)=(i,j)]subscript𝑦𝑖𝑗subscript𝑡delimited-[]𝑌𝑡𝑖𝑗y_{ij}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[Y(t)=(i,j)]italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P [ italic_Y ( italic_t ) = ( italic_i , italic_j ) ], 1i,jKformulae-sequence1𝑖𝑗𝐾1\leq i,j\leq K1 ≤ italic_i , italic_j ≤ italic_K. Let Y𝑌Yitalic_Y be a K×K𝐾𝐾K\times Kitalic_K × italic_K matrix such that Y={yij}𝑌subscript𝑦𝑖𝑗Y=\{y_{ij}\}italic_Y = { italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. Applying the GBE for the state (i,i)𝑖𝑖(i,i)( italic_i , italic_i ) of Y(t)𝑌𝑡Y(t)italic_Y ( italic_t ) provides the following equation for each i𝑖iitalic_i, 1iK1𝑖𝐾1\leq i\leq K1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_K,

yiiσisubscript𝑦𝑖𝑖subscript𝜎𝑖\displaystyle y_{ii}\sigma_{i}italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =jiyijqji+jiyjiλ,absentsubscript𝑗𝑖subscript𝑦𝑖𝑗subscript𝑞𝑗𝑖subscript𝑗𝑖subscript𝑦𝑗𝑖𝜆\displaystyle=\sum_{j\neq i}y_{ij}q_{ji}+\sum_{j\neq i}y_{ji}\lambda,= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , (14)
=jiyijqji+λ(πiyii),absentsubscript𝑗𝑖subscript𝑦𝑖𝑗subscript𝑞𝑗𝑖𝜆subscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝑦𝑖𝑖\displaystyle=\sum_{j\neq i}y_{ij}q_{ji}+\lambda(\pi_{i}-y_{ii}),= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ ( italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , (15)

where the last equality stems from the identity πi=jyjisubscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝑦𝑗𝑖\pi_{i}=\sum_{j}y_{ji}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. On the other hand, when the GBE is applied for the state (i,k)𝑖𝑘(i,k)( italic_i , italic_k ), ki𝑘𝑖k\neq iitalic_k ≠ italic_i, then we obtain the following,

yik(σk+λ)=jkyijqjk,1iK,ki.formulae-sequenceformulae-sequencesubscript𝑦𝑖𝑘subscript𝜎𝑘𝜆subscript𝑗𝑘subscript𝑦𝑖𝑗subscript𝑞𝑗𝑘1𝑖𝐾𝑘𝑖\displaystyle y_{ik}(\sigma_{k}+\lambda)=\sum_{j\neq k}y_{ij}q_{jk},\quad 1% \leq i\leq K,\ k\neq i.italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_K , italic_k ≠ italic_i . (16)

Writing the equations (15) and (16) in a matrix form, we obtain for each i𝑖iitalic_i, 1iK1𝑖𝐾1\leq i\leq K1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_K,

Y(i,:)(QλI)𝑌𝑖:𝑄𝜆𝐼\displaystyle Y(i,:)(Q-\lambda I)italic_Y ( italic_i , : ) ( italic_Q - italic_λ italic_I ) =λπiI(i,:),absent𝜆subscript𝜋𝑖𝐼𝑖:\displaystyle=-\lambda\pi_{i}I(i,:),= - italic_λ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ( italic_i , : ) , (17)

where Y(i,:)𝑌𝑖:Y(i,:)italic_Y ( italic_i , : ) and I(i,:)𝐼𝑖:I(i,:)italic_I ( italic_i , : ) denote the i𝑖iitalic_ith row of Y𝑌Yitalic_Y and the i𝑖iitalic_ith row of the identity matrix, respectively. In FWE, the freshness process Fe(t)=1subscript𝐹𝑒𝑡1F_{e}(t)=1italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 1 when the joint process Y(t)𝑌𝑡Y(t)italic_Y ( italic_t ) is visiting state (i,i)𝑖𝑖(i,i)( italic_i , italic_i ) (in the steady-state) for some state i𝑖iitalic_i and Fe(t)=0subscript𝐹𝑒𝑡0F_{e}(t)=0italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 0 otherwise. Therefore, 𝔼[Fe]=i=1Kyii,𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑒superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝑦𝑖𝑖\mathbb{E}[F_{e}]=\sum_{i=1}^{K}y_{ii},blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , which yields the identity (13). ∎

The following corollary gives a simplified expression for mean freshness f(λ)𝑓𝜆f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) in terms of the sum of first-order rational functions of the variable λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ for time-reversible CTMCs on the basis of Theorem 1.

Corollary 1.

Consider the process X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) of Theorem 1 with generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q which is time-reversible and with diagonalizing transformation matrix T𝑇Titalic_T as given in (8). Then, the mean freshness f(λ)=𝔼[Fe]𝑓𝜆𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑒f(\lambda)=\mathbb{E}[F_{e}]italic_f ( italic_λ ) = blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] is given for the FWE model by

f(λ)𝑓𝜆\displaystyle f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) =j=1Kπj2+λj=1K1bjλ+dj,absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑗2𝜆superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾1subscript𝑏𝑗𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗\displaystyle=\sum_{j=1}^{K}\pi_{j}^{2}+\lambda\sum_{j=1}^{K-1}\frac{b_{j}}{% \lambda+d_{j}},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_λ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (18)
=1j=1K1ajλ+dj,absent1superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾1subscript𝑎𝑗𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗\displaystyle=1-\sum_{j=1}^{K-1}\frac{a_{j}}{\lambda+d_{j}},= 1 - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (19)

where ajsubscript𝑎𝑗a_{j}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and bjsubscript𝑏𝑗b_{j}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for 1jK11𝑗𝐾11\leq j\leq K-11 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_K - 1, are given by

bjsubscript𝑏𝑗\displaystyle b_{j}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =i=1Kπi2tij2=i=1Kt~ji2,aj=bjdj.formulae-sequenceabsentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖2superscriptsubscript𝑡𝑖𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾superscriptsubscript~𝑡𝑗𝑖2subscript𝑎𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑑𝑗\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}^{2}t_{ij}^{2}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\tilde{t}_{% ji}^{2}},\quad a_{j}=b_{j}d_{j}.= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (20)

Moreover, f(λ)𝑓𝜆f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) is increasing and strictly concave, and has a continuous derivative f(λ)superscript𝑓𝜆f^{\prime}(\lambda)italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ ) with limλ0+f(λ)=j=1Kπj2subscript𝜆superscript0𝑓𝜆superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑗2\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0^{+}}f(\lambda)=\sum_{j=1}^{K}\pi_{j}^{2}roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_λ ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

Using the diagonalization equation (8), we first write the term A=(λIQ)1=T(λID)1T𝐴superscript𝜆𝐼𝑄1𝑇superscript𝜆𝐼𝐷1𝑇A=(\lambda I-Q)^{-1}=T(\lambda I-D)^{-1}Titalic_A = ( italic_λ italic_I - italic_Q ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_T ( italic_λ italic_I - italic_D ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T appearing in (13) as follows,

A𝐴\displaystyle Aitalic_A =T(1λ+d11λ+dK11λ)T1.absent𝑇matrix1𝜆subscript𝑑1missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpression1𝜆subscript𝑑𝐾1missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpression1𝜆superscript𝑇1\displaystyle=T\matrixquantity(\frac{1}{\lambda+d_{1}}&&&\\ &\ddots&&\\ &&\frac{1}{\lambda+d_{K-1}}&\\ &&&\frac{1}{\lambda})T^{-1}.= italic_T ( start_ARG start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_ARG ) italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (21)

Using (13) and (21), we have

f(λ)λ𝑓𝜆𝜆\displaystyle\frac{f(\lambda)}{\lambda}divide start_ARG italic_f ( italic_λ ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG =i=1KπiAii,absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝐴𝑖𝑖\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}A_{ii},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (22)
=i=1Kπij=1Ktijt~ji1λ+dj,absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾subscript𝑡𝑖𝑗subscript~𝑡𝑗𝑖1𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}\sum_{j=1}^{K}t_{ij}\tilde{t}_{ji}\frac{1% }{\lambda+d_{j}},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (23)
=j=1K1i=1Kπi2tij2bj1λ+dj+1λi=1Kπi2,absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾1subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖2superscriptsubscript𝑡𝑖𝑗2subscript𝑏𝑗1𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗1𝜆superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖2\displaystyle=\sum_{j=1}^{K-1}\underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}^{2}t_{ij}^{2% }}_{b_{j}}\frac{1}{\lambda+d_{j}}+\frac{1}{\lambda}\sum_{i=1}^{K}\pi_{i}^{2},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT under⏟ start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (24)
=j=1K1bjλ+dj+1λi=1Kπi2,absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾1subscript𝑏𝑗𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗1𝜆superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖2\displaystyle=\sum_{j=1}^{K-1}\frac{b_{j}}{\lambda+d_{j}}+\frac{1}{\lambda}% \sum_{i=1}^{K}\pi_{i}^{2},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (25)

since t~ji=πitijsubscript~𝑡𝑗𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝑡𝑖𝑗\tilde{t}_{ji}=\pi_{i}t_{ij}over~ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and also i=1KπitiKt~Ki=i=1Kπi2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝑡𝑖𝐾subscript~𝑡𝐾𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖2\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}t_{iK}\tilde{t}_{Ki}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}\pi_{i}^{2}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by observing that tiK=1subscript𝑡𝑖𝐾1t_{iK}=1italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 and t~Ki=πisubscript~𝑡𝐾𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖\tilde{t}_{Ki}={\pi}_{i}over~ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The result in (25) gives the desired expression in (18). Then, (19) follows directly from (25) and also the fact that limλf(λ)=1subscript𝜆𝑓𝜆1\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}f(\lambda)=1roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_λ ) = 1. Moreover, the coefficients ajsubscript𝑎𝑗a_{j}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and bjsubscript𝑏𝑗b_{j}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are strictly positive since πi>0subscript𝜋𝑖0\pi_{i}>0italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 and the entries of a column of T𝑇Titalic_T cannot be all zero. A first-order rational function of λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ in the form a/(λ+d)𝑎𝜆𝑑-a/(\lambda+d)- italic_a / ( italic_λ + italic_d ) is increasing and strictly concave for a,d>0𝑎𝑑0a,d>0italic_a , italic_d > 0 and sums of concave functions are also increasing and strictly concave, completing the proof. The expression pertaining to limλ0+f(λ)subscript𝜆superscript0𝑓𝜆\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0^{+}}f(\lambda)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_λ ) immediately follows from (18). ∎

For the special case K=2𝐾2K=2italic_K = 2, X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) is a two-state time-reversible CTMC with generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q and the diagonal matrix ΠΠ\Piroman_Π given as follows (5),

Q=(ααββ),Π=(βα+β00αα+β).formulae-sequence𝑄matrix𝛼𝛼𝛽𝛽Πmatrix𝛽𝛼𝛽00𝛼𝛼𝛽\displaystyle Q=\begin{pmatrix}-\alpha&\alpha\\ \beta&-\beta\end{pmatrix},\quad\Pi=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\beta}{\alpha+\beta}&0% \\ 0&\frac{\alpha}{\alpha+\beta}\end{pmatrix}.italic_Q = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - italic_α end_CELL start_CELL italic_α end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_β end_CELL start_CELL - italic_β end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , roman_Π = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_β end_ARG start_ARG italic_α + italic_β end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_α end_ARG start_ARG italic_α + italic_β end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . (26)

The generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q has two eigenvalues: the first eigenvalue being d1subscript𝑑1-d_{1}- italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where d1=α+βsubscript𝑑1𝛼𝛽d_{1}=\alpha+\betaitalic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_α + italic_β and the second one at the origin. Consequently, we obtain the symmetric matrix S𝑆Sitalic_S according to (6) and the orthogonal transformation matrix U𝑈Uitalic_U from (7),

S=(βαβαββ),U=(αα+ββα+ββα+βαα+β),formulae-sequence𝑆matrix𝛽𝛼𝛽𝛼𝛽𝛽𝑈matrix𝛼𝛼𝛽𝛽𝛼𝛽𝛽𝛼𝛽𝛼𝛼𝛽\displaystyle S=\begin{pmatrix}-\beta&\sqrt{\alpha\beta}\\ \sqrt{\alpha\beta}&-\beta\end{pmatrix},\quad U=\begin{pmatrix}\sqrt{\frac{% \alpha}{\alpha+\beta}}&\sqrt{\frac{\beta}{\alpha+\beta}}\\ \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{\alpha+\beta}}&\sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha+\beta}}\end{% pmatrix},italic_S = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - italic_β end_CELL start_CELL square-root start_ARG italic_α italic_β end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL square-root start_ARG italic_α italic_β end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL - italic_β end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , italic_U = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_α end_ARG start_ARG italic_α + italic_β end_ARG end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_β end_ARG start_ARG italic_α + italic_β end_ARG end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_β end_ARG start_ARG italic_α + italic_β end_ARG end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_α end_ARG start_ARG italic_α + italic_β end_ARG end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , (27)

which gives rise to the matrix T~~𝑇\tilde{T}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG which is the inverse of the diagonalizing transformation matrix T𝑇Titalic_T (see (8)),

T~=(αβ(α+β)2αβ(α+β)2βα+βαα+β).~𝑇matrix𝛼𝛽superscript𝛼𝛽2𝛼𝛽superscript𝛼𝛽2𝛽𝛼𝛽𝛼𝛼𝛽\displaystyle\tilde{T}=\begin{pmatrix}{\frac{\alpha\beta}{(\alpha+\beta)^{2}}}% &{\frac{\alpha\beta}{(\alpha+\beta)^{2}}}\\ {\frac{\beta}{\alpha+\beta}}&{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha+\beta}}\end{pmatrix}.over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_α italic_β end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_α + italic_β ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_α italic_β end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_α + italic_β ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_β end_ARG start_ARG italic_α + italic_β end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG italic_α end_ARG start_ARG italic_α + italic_β end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . (28)

From (19), the following closed-form solution exists for mean freshness,

f(λ)𝑓𝜆\displaystyle f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) =1a1λ+d1,absent1subscript𝑎1𝜆subscript𝑑1\displaystyle=1-\frac{a_{1}}{\lambda+d_{1}},= 1 - divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (29)

where a1=2αβ(α+β)subscript𝑎12𝛼𝛽𝛼𝛽a_{1}=\frac{2\alpha\beta}{(\alpha+\beta)}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 2 italic_α italic_β end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_α + italic_β ) end_ARG since a1=b1d1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑏1subscript𝑑1a_{1}=b_{1}d_{1}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and b1subscript𝑏1b_{1}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the sum of the squares of the entries of the first row of T~~𝑇\tilde{T}over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG which is evident from the equations (19) and (20). We note that expressions for expected staleness for this limited special case of 2-state sources have been obtained in [24] using a different method.

V-B FWC Model

Corollary 2 provides an expression for f(λ)=𝔼[Fc]𝑓𝜆𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑐f(\lambda)=\mathbb{E}[F_{c}]italic_f ( italic_λ ) = blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] for the FWC model for time-reversible CTMCs on the basis of Theorem 1.

Corollary 2.

Consider the process X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ) of Theorem 1 with generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q which is time-reversible and with diagonalizing transformation matrix T𝑇Titalic_T as given in (8). Then, the mean freshness f(λ)=𝔼[Fc]𝑓𝜆𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑐f(\lambda)=\mathbb{E}[F_{c}]italic_f ( italic_λ ) = blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] with proximity matrix P𝑃Pitalic_P is given for the FWC model by

f(λ)𝑓𝜆\displaystyle f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) =πi=1KπiP(:,i)+j=1K1bjλλ+dj,absent𝜋superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖𝑃:𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾1subscript𝑏𝑗𝜆𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗\displaystyle=\pi\sum_{i=1}^{K}\pi_{i}P(:,i)+\sum_{j=1}^{K-1}\frac{b_{j}% \lambda}{\lambda+d_{j}},= italic_π ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P ( : , italic_i ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (30)
=1j=1K1ajλ+dj,absent1superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾1subscript𝑎𝑗𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗\displaystyle=1-\sum_{j=1}^{K-1}\frac{a_{j}}{\lambda+d_{j}},= 1 - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (31)

where ajsubscript𝑎𝑗a_{j}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and bjsubscript𝑏𝑗b_{j}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for 1jK11𝑗𝐾11\leq j\leq K-11 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_K - 1, are given by

bjsubscript𝑏𝑗\displaystyle b_{j}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =T~(j,:)i=1KπitijP(:,i),aj=bjdj,formulae-sequenceabsent~𝑇𝑗:superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝑡𝑖𝑗𝑃:𝑖subscript𝑎𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑑𝑗\displaystyle=\tilde{T}(j,:)\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}t_{ij}P(:,i),\quad a_{j}=b_% {j}d_{j},= over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ( italic_j , : ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P ( : , italic_i ) , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (32)

and P(:,i)𝑃:𝑖P(:,i)italic_P ( : , italic_i ) denotes the i𝑖iitalic_ith column of P𝑃Pitalic_P, and limλ0+f(λ)=πi=1KπiP(:,i)subscript𝜆superscript0𝑓𝜆𝜋superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖𝑃:𝑖\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0^{+}}f(\lambda)=\pi\sum_{i=1}^{K}\pi_{i}P(:,i)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_λ ) = italic_π ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P ( : , italic_i ).

Proof.

Recalling the definition of yijsubscript𝑦𝑖𝑗y_{ij}italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we write

f(λ)𝑓𝜆\displaystyle f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) =i=1Kj=1Kyijpji.absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾subscript𝑦𝑖𝑗subscript𝑝𝑗𝑖\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{K}\sum_{j=1}^{K}y_{ij}p_{ji}.= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (33)

Recalling the definition of matrix A𝐴Aitalic_A, we first obtain the following identity from (17),

f(λ)λ𝑓𝜆𝜆\displaystyle\frac{f(\lambda)}{\lambda}divide start_ARG italic_f ( italic_λ ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG =i=1KπiA(i,:)P(:,i).absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖𝐴𝑖:𝑃:𝑖\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}A(i,:)P(:,i).= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ( italic_i , : ) italic_P ( : , italic_i ) . (34)

Consequently,

f(λ)λ𝑓𝜆𝜆\displaystyle\frac{f(\lambda)}{\lambda}divide start_ARG italic_f ( italic_λ ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG =i=1Kπi(j=1KtijT~(j,:)1λ+dj)P(:,i),absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾subscript𝑡𝑖𝑗~𝑇𝑗:1𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗𝑃:𝑖\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{K}t_{ij}\tilde{T}(j,:)% \frac{1}{\lambda+d_{j}}\right)P(:,i),= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ( italic_j , : ) divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_P ( : , italic_i ) , (35)

which is equal to the following expression,

j=1K1T~(j,:)i=1KπitijP(:,i)bj1λ+dj+πi=1KπiP(:,i)λ,superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾1subscript~𝑇𝑗:superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝑡𝑖𝑗𝑃:𝑖subscript𝑏𝑗1𝜆subscript𝑑𝑗𝜋superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝜋𝑖𝑃:𝑖𝜆\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{K-1}\underbrace{\tilde{T}(j,:)\sum_{i=1}^{K}{\pi}_{i}% t_{ij}P(:,i)}_{b_{j}}\frac{1}{\lambda+d_{j}}+\pi\sum_{i=1}^{K}\frac{\pi_{i}P(:% ,i)}{\lambda},∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT under⏟ start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ( italic_j , : ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P ( : , italic_i ) end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + italic_π ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P ( : , italic_i ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG , (36)

since tiK=1subscript𝑡𝑖𝐾1t_{iK}=1italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 and t~Ki=πisubscript~𝑡𝐾𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖\tilde{t}_{Ki}={\pi}_{i}over~ start_ARG italic_t end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_K italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, giving the desired expression in (30). Then, (31) follows directly from (36) and also from limλf(λ)=1subscript𝜆𝑓𝜆1\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}f(\lambda)=1roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_λ ) = 1. However, the coefficients bjsubscript𝑏𝑗b_{j}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (and hence ajsubscript𝑎𝑗a_{j}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) are not guaranteed to be non-negative and some of these coefficients may indeed be negative. ∎

Remark.

Although FWE is a sub-case of FWC, we presented the results for FWE separately since in this case the expressions are slightly simpler and the coefficients ajsubscript𝑎𝑗a_{j}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s are shown to be non-negative ensuring concavity of the expression (19).

V-C FWS Model

Theorem 2 provides an expression for f(λ)=𝔼[Fs]𝑓𝜆𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑠f(\lambda)=\mathbb{E}[F_{s}]italic_f ( italic_λ ) = blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] for the FWS model for the CTMC X(t)𝑋𝑡X(t)italic_X ( italic_t ).

Theorem 2.

Let the irreducible CTMC X(t){1,2,,K}𝑋𝑡12𝐾X(t)\in\{1,2,\ldots,K\}italic_X ( italic_t ) ∈ { 1 , 2 , … , italic_K } with generator Q𝑄Qitalic_Q and steady-state vector π𝜋\piitalic_π, be Poisson sampled with sampling rate λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. Then, for the FWS model, the mean freshness f(λ)=𝔼[Fs]𝑓𝜆𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑠f(\lambda)=\mathbb{E}[F_{s}]italic_f ( italic_λ ) = blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] is given by,

f(λ)𝑓𝜆\displaystyle f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) =1i=1Kaiλ+σi,absent1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝐾subscript𝑎𝑖𝜆subscript𝜎𝑖\displaystyle=1-\sum_{i=1}^{K}\frac{a_{i}}{\lambda+\sigma_{i}},= 1 - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (37)

where ai=πiσisubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝜎𝑖a_{i}=\pi_{i}\sigma_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Moreover, f(λ)𝑓𝜆f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) is increasing and strictly concave, and has a continuous derivative f(λ)superscript𝑓𝜆f^{\prime}(\lambda)italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ ) with limλ0+f(λ)=0subscript𝜆superscript0𝑓𝜆0\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0^{+}}f(\lambda)=0roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_λ ) = 0.

Proof.

Consider the two-dimensional process Z(t)=(Fs(t),X(t))𝑍𝑡subscript𝐹𝑠𝑡𝑋𝑡Z(t)=(F_{s}(t),X(t))italic_Z ( italic_t ) = ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) , italic_X ( italic_t ) ), which is Markov. To see this, in FWS, the transition intensity from states (1,j)1𝑗(1,j)( 1 , italic_j ) and (0,j)0𝑗(0,j)( 0 , italic_j ) to the states (1,j)1superscript𝑗(1,j^{\prime})( 1 , italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and (0,j)0superscript𝑗(0,j^{\prime})( 0 , italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), respectively, is qjjsubscript𝑞𝑗superscript𝑗q_{jj^{\prime}}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. On the other hand, the transition intensity from state (0,j)0𝑗(0,j)( 0 , italic_j ) to (1,j)1𝑗(1,j)( 1 , italic_j ) is λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. Let the steady-state solution of the process Z(t)𝑍𝑡Z(t)italic_Z ( italic_t ) be denoted by z𝑧zitalic_z, i.e., zij=limt[Fs(t)=i,X(t)=j],0i1,1jKformulae-sequenceformulae-sequencesubscript𝑧𝑖𝑗subscript𝑡delimited-[]formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑋𝑡𝑗0𝑖11𝑗𝐾z_{ij}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}[F_{s}(t)=i,X(t)=j],0\leq i\leq 1,1% \leq j\leq Kitalic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_i , italic_X ( italic_t ) = italic_j ] , 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ 1 , 1 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_K. We show that the following choice of z𝑧zitalic_z

z0isubscript𝑧0𝑖\displaystyle z_{0i}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =πiσiλ+σi,z1i=πiλλ+σi,formulae-sequenceabsentsubscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝜎𝑖𝜆subscript𝜎𝑖subscript𝑧1𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖𝜆𝜆subscript𝜎𝑖\displaystyle=\frac{\pi_{i}\sigma_{i}}{\lambda+\sigma_{i}},\quad z_{1i}=\frac{% \pi_{i}\lambda}{\lambda+\sigma_{i}},= divide start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (38)

satisfies the following GBE for the states (1,i)1𝑖(1,i)( 1 , italic_i ), 1iK1𝑖𝐾1\leq i\leq K1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_K,

z1iσisubscript𝑧1𝑖subscript𝜎𝑖\displaystyle z_{1i}\sigma_{i}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =z0iλ,absentsubscript𝑧0𝑖𝜆\displaystyle=z_{0i}\lambda,= italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ ,

which is a direct result of (38). In order to show that z𝑧zitalic_z defined as in (38) satisfies the GBE for the states (0,i)0𝑖(0,i)( 0 , italic_i ), 1iK1𝑖𝐾1\leq i\leq K1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_K, we write from (38),

z0i(σi+λ)subscript𝑧0𝑖subscript𝜎𝑖𝜆\displaystyle z_{0i}(\sigma_{i}+\lambda)italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_λ ) =πiσi=jiπjqji,absentsubscript𝜋𝑖subscript𝜎𝑖subscript𝑗𝑖subscript𝜋𝑗subscript𝑞𝑗𝑖\displaystyle=\pi_{i}\sigma_{i}=\sum_{j\neq i}\pi_{j}q_{ji},= italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (39)
=ji(λλ+σj+σjλ+σj)πjqji,absentsubscript𝑗𝑖𝜆𝜆subscript𝜎𝑗subscript𝜎𝑗𝜆subscript𝜎𝑗subscript𝜋𝑗subscript𝑞𝑗𝑖\displaystyle=\sum_{j\neq i}\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+\sigma_{j}}+\frac{% \sigma_{j}}{\lambda+\sigma_{j}}\right)\pi_{j}q_{ji},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (40)
=ji(z0j+z1j)qji.absentsubscript𝑗𝑖subscript𝑧0𝑗subscript𝑧1𝑗subscript𝑞𝑗𝑖\displaystyle=\sum_{j\neq i}(z_{0j}+z_{1j})q_{ji}.= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ≠ italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (41)

Moreover, i=01j=1Kzij=1superscriptsubscript𝑖01superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾subscript𝑧𝑖𝑗1\sum_{i=0}^{1}\sum_{j=1}^{K}z_{ij}=1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, and therefore, z𝑧zitalic_z as given in (21) is the steady-state solution for the CTMC Z(t)𝑍𝑡Z(t)italic_Z ( italic_t ). The mean freshness is finally expressed as, f(λ)=1j=1Kz0j,𝑓𝜆1superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝐾subscript𝑧0𝑗f(\lambda)=1-\sum_{j=1}^{K}z_{0j},italic_f ( italic_λ ) = 1 - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , which yields (37). Since the form of expression is the same as in the FWE model for time-reversible CTMCs, f(λ)𝑓𝜆f(\lambda)italic_f ( italic_λ ) is an increasing and strictly concave function of λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. Moreover, limλ0+f(λ)=1iπi=0subscript𝜆superscript0𝑓𝜆1subscript𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖0\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0^{+}}f(\lambda)=1-\sum_{i}\pi_{i}=0roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_λ ) = 1 - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 from (37). ∎

VI Optimum Monitoring of Heterogeneous CTMCs

The monitor is resource-constrained, and therefore, there is a constraint ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ on the overall sampling rate of the monitor, i.e., λ=n=1NλnΛ𝜆superscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝜆𝑛Λ\lambda=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\lambda_{n}\leq\Lambdaitalic_λ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ roman_Λ. Let us first focus our attention to the FWE freshness model for time-reversible CTMCs in which case we use the mean freshness metric fn(λn)=𝔼[Fn,e]subscript𝑓𝑛subscript𝜆𝑛𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑛𝑒f_{n}(\lambda_{n})=\mathbb{E}[F_{n,e}]italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] for source-n𝑛nitalic_n, and the weighted sum freshness (or the system freshness) FS=n=1Nwnfn(λn)subscript𝐹𝑆superscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝑤𝑛subscript𝑓𝑛subscript𝜆𝑛F_{S}=\sum_{n=1}^{N}w_{n}f_{n}(\lambda_{n})italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), for the overall monitoring system where the normalized weights wn,n=1,,N,nwn=1,formulae-sequencesubscript𝑤𝑛𝑛1𝑁subscript𝑛subscript𝑤𝑛1w_{n},n=1,\ldots,N,\;\sum_{n}w_{n}=1,italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n = 1 , … , italic_N , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 , reflect the relative importance of the freshness of the information processes. Thus, we have the following optimization problem for weighted sum freshness maximization, {maxi} λ_n ≥0∑_n=1^N w_n f_n(λ_n) = 1 - ∑_n=1^N ∑_j=1^K_n - 1 wnan,jλn+ dn,j \addConstraint ∑_n=1^N λ_n≤Λ In (VI), the coefficients an,j,dn,j>0subscript𝑎𝑛𝑗subscript𝑑𝑛𝑗0a_{n,j},d_{n,j}>0italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0, for 1jKn11𝑗subscript𝐾𝑛11\leq j\leq K_{n}-11 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 are to be obtained for the CTMC Xn(t)subscript𝑋𝑛𝑡X_{n}(t)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) using the procedure described in Corollary 1 and the expression (19). The function fn(λn)subscript𝑓𝑛subscript𝜆𝑛f_{n}(\lambda_{n})italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is increasing and strictly concave, and has a continuous first order derivative fn(λn)superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑛subscript𝜆𝑛f_{n}^{\prime}(\lambda_{n})italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) that monotonically decreases from the value \infty at λn=dnsubscript𝜆𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑑𝑛\lambda_{n}=-d_{n}^{\ast}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to zero as λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is increased to \infty, where dn=minjdn,jsuperscriptsubscript𝑑𝑛subscript𝑗subscript𝑑𝑛𝑗d_{n}^{\ast}=\min_{j}d_{n,j}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This optimization problem is known to have a water-filling solution [27] on the basis of which Algorithm 1 provides an efficient solution to the optimization problem (VI) which requires at most N1𝑁1N-1italic_N - 1 iterations until termination. Step 2 of Algorithm 1 can be solved by using the two-dimensional bisection search algorithm detailed in [27].

The algorithm is outlined as follows. Initially, In=1subscript𝐼𝑛1I_{n}=1italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 for n=1,,N𝑛1𝑁n=1,\ldots,Nitalic_n = 1 , … , italic_N. Then, for a given μ>0𝜇0\mu>0italic_μ > 0 and for each n𝑛nitalic_n such that In=1subscript𝐼𝑛1I_{n}=1italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, we iteratively find the value of λn(dn,)subscript𝜆𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑑𝑛\lambda_{n}\in(-d_{n}^{\ast},\infty)italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( - italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∞ ) that satisfies wnfn(λn)=μsubscript𝑤𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑛subscript𝜆𝑛𝜇w_{n}f_{n}^{\prime}(\lambda_{n})=\muitalic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_μ using an inner bisection search algorithm. Once λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s are obtained, we check whether n=1NλnIn<Λsuperscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝜆𝑛subscript𝐼𝑛Λ\sum_{n=1}^{N}\lambda_{n}I_{n}<\Lambda∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < roman_Λ or not, and we vary the value of μ𝜇\muitalic_μ according to an outer bisection search algorithm, which iteratively finds the value of μ𝜇\muitalic_μ such that n=1NλnIn=Λsuperscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝜆𝑛subscript𝐼𝑛Λ\sum_{n=1}^{N}\lambda_{n}I_{n}=\Lambda∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Λ. If λn0subscript𝜆𝑛0\lambda_{n}\leq 0italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 0 at this step, then Insubscript𝐼𝑛I_{n}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are set to zero for all such n𝑛nitalic_n and the procedure above is repeated.

For the special case of two-state CTMCs, i.e., Kn=2subscript𝐾𝑛2K_{n}=2italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2, a closed-form solution is available for the solution of the equations in Step 2 since the inverse function of fn()superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑛f_{n}^{\prime}(\cdot)italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) can be written in closed form. In this case, it is not difficult to show that the choices of μ𝜇\muitalic_μ and λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for sources with In=1subscript𝐼𝑛1I_{n}=1italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1,

μ=(n=1Nwn,1an,1InΛ+n=1Ndn,1In)2,λn=wnan,1μdn,1,formulae-sequence𝜇superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝑤𝑛1subscript𝑎𝑛1subscript𝐼𝑛Λsuperscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝑑𝑛1subscript𝐼𝑛2subscript𝜆𝑛subscript𝑤𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛1𝜇subscript𝑑𝑛1\displaystyle\mu=\left(\frac{\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sqrt{w_{n,1}a_{n,1}I_{n}}}{\Lambda% +\sum_{n=1}^{N}d_{n,1}I_{n}}\right)^{2},\;\lambda_{n}=\sqrt{\frac{w_{n}a_{n,1}% }{\mu}}-d_{n,1},italic_μ = ( divide start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG roman_Λ + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG end_ARG - italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (42)

provide a single-shot solution for Step 2 of Algorithm 1 without a requirement for bisection search for this step.

We note that, for the FWS model, Algorithm 1 can be used with the only difference being the upper limit of the inner summation changed to Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in (VI). For the FWC model, since the coefficients aisubscript𝑎𝑖a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s in (31) can be negative, concavity of the freshness function is not proven. However, we propose to use the same water-filling algorithm also for the FWC model based on the observation that the expression (31) turned out to be concave in all the examples we studied.

Algorithm 1 Water-filling algorithm for the optimization problem (VI) based on [27].
  Step 1: Initialize In=1subscript𝐼𝑛1I_{n}=1italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 for n=1,,N𝑛1𝑁n=1,\ldots,Nitalic_n = 1 , … , italic_N.
  Step 2: Solve the following equations for the water level μ>0𝜇0\mu>0italic_μ > 0 and λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT when In=1subscript𝐼𝑛1I_{n}=1italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1,
wnfn(λn)=μ,n=1NλnIn=Λ.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑤𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑛subscript𝜆𝑛𝜇superscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝜆𝑛subscript𝐼𝑛Λ\displaystyle w_{n}f_{n}^{\prime}(\lambda_{n})=\mu,\;\sum_{n=1}^{N}\lambda_{n}% I_{n}=\Lambda.italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_μ , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Λ . (43)
  Step 3: If λn>0subscript𝜆𝑛0\lambda_{n}>0italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 for all n𝑛nitalic_n such that In=1subscript𝐼𝑛1I_{n}=1italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, then terminate while returning λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s.
  Step 4: Otherwise, set In=0subscript𝐼𝑛0I_{n}=0italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 and λn=0subscript𝜆𝑛0\lambda_{n}=0italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 for all n𝑛nitalic_n such that In=1subscript𝐼𝑛1I_{n}=1italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 and λn0subscript𝜆𝑛0\lambda_{n}\leq 0italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 0, and go to Step 2.

VII Numerical Examples

The first numerical example is presented to validate the analytical expressions obtained for mean freshness in corollaries 1 and 2, and Theorem 2. A time-reversible birth-death CTMC with three states is considered with generator

Q=(1.951.95012.951.95022).𝑄matrix1.951.95012.951.95022\displaystyle Q=\begin{pmatrix}-1.95&1.95&0\\ 1&-2.95&1.95\\ 0&2&-2\end{pmatrix}.italic_Q = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - 1.95 end_CELL start_CELL 1.95 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL - 2.95 end_CELL start_CELL 1.95 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 2 end_CELL start_CELL - 2 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . (44)

For the FWC model, we use the proximity matrix of Fig. 2. The mean freshness is first obtained in Fig. 3 as a function of λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ for the three freshness models FWE, FWC, and FWS, using the analytical expressions in (19), (31), and (37), respectively, which is termed as the analytical (A) method. Note that in the analytical method, the expressions are first obtained once for the CTMC which are then used to obtain the metrics for any given sampling rate λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. On the other hand, the same freshness metrics can also be obtained by numerically solving the two-dimensional Markov chains (used in the proofs of theorems 1 and 2) constructed for each given λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. The results match perfectly, validating the analytical method.

In the second numerical example, we focus on FWE and FWS in a scenario of N=50𝑁50N=50italic_N = 50 heterogeneous two-state Markov chains with πn,1=0.3subscript𝜋𝑛10.3\pi_{n,1}=0.3italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.3, πn,2=0.7subscript𝜋𝑛20.7\pi_{n,2}=0.7italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.7 and linearly spaced transition intensities, i.e., rn=rn1+δsubscript𝑟𝑛subscript𝑟𝑛1𝛿r_{n}=r_{n-1}+\deltaitalic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ, n=2,,N𝑛2𝑁n=2,\ldots,Nitalic_n = 2 , … , italic_N. In the numerical example, we set r1=0.01subscript𝑟10.01r_{1}=0.01italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.01 and the average transition intensity 1Nr=1Nn=1Nrn1𝑁𝑟1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝑟𝑛\frac{1}{N}r=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}r_{n}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG italic_r = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is set to 10 which yields the choice of δ=0.4078𝛿0.4078\delta=0.4078italic_δ = 0.4078. We denote by κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ the ratio of the overall sampling rate ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ to the system transition intensity, i.e., κ=Λr𝜅Λ𝑟\kappa=\frac{\Lambda}{r}italic_κ = divide start_ARG roman_Λ end_ARG start_ARG italic_r end_ARG. Obviously, the sampling ratio κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ should be sufficiently large so as to keep the remote estimates of all the information sources fresh. The source weights are assumed to be the same with wn=1Nsubscript𝑤𝑛1𝑁w_{n}=\frac{1}{N}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG. Algorithm 1 is used for both FWE and FWS models, whereas for FWE, (42) is employed for Step 2 of the algorithm to obtain the optimum sampling rates λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s under an overall sampling rate constraint ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ which is chosen to attain a given sampling ratio κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: The mean freshness as a function of the sampling rate λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ for the FWE, FWC, and FWS freshness models using the numerical (N) and analytical (A) methods.

We compare our proposed water-willing solution, namely WF, with three baseline policies: i) UNIFORM policy samples each source-n𝑛nitalic_n uniformly likely, i.e., λn=ΛNsubscript𝜆𝑛Λ𝑁\lambda_{n}=\frac{\Lambda}{N}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG roman_Λ end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG, ii) PROP policy chooses the sampling rate λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT proportional with the source’s transition intensity rnsubscript𝑟𝑛r_{n}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i.e., λnrnproportional-tosubscript𝜆𝑛subscript𝑟𝑛\lambda_{n}\propto r_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∝ italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, iii) INVPROP policy chooses the sampling rate λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT inversely proportional with the source’s transition intensity rnsubscript𝑟𝑛r_{n}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i.e., λn1rnproportional-tosubscript𝜆𝑛1subscript𝑟𝑛\lambda_{n}\propto\frac{1}{r_{n}}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∝ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. Fig. 4 depicts the system freshness FSsubscript𝐹𝑆F_{S}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a function of the sampling ratio κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ when the WF, UNIF, PROP, and INVPROP sampling policies are employed for both FWE and FWS freshness models. For both models, we observe that the WF policy outperforms all the other three baseline policies. The UNIFORM policy yields very close to optimum freshness performance when the sampling ratio increases. However, for low sampling ratios, it is substantially outperformed by the WF policy. The PROP and INVPROP sampling policies perform poorly for small and large sampling ratios, respectively, against all other policies.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: The system freshness FSsubscript𝐹𝑆F_{S}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a function of the sampling ratio κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ for the WF, UNIFORM, PROP, and INVPROP sampling policies: (a) FWE (b) FWS.

Fig. 5 depicts the optimum sampling rate λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divided by the sampling ratio κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ as a function of the source index n𝑛nitalic_n for different values of the sampling ratio κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ for both freshness models. We observe that, for low sampling ratios, the water-filling solution chooses not to sample at all, a portion of the sources with high transition intensities, for both models. However, when the sampling ratio is sufficiently high, e.g., κ=10𝜅10\kappa=10italic_κ = 10, the optimum sampling rate for a given source appears to be monotonically increasing with the transition intensity of the source. Although the general behavior of the optimum sampling rate with respect to source index is quite similar for FWE and FWS models, in the latter model, the optimum sampling rate is more uniform across the sources for FWS than FWE.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: The optimum sampling rate λnsubscript𝜆𝑛\lambda_{n}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divided by κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ as a function of the source index n𝑛nitalic_n for four values of the sampling ratio κ𝜅\kappaitalic_κ: (a) FWE (b) FWS.
Refer to caption
Figure 6: System freshness FSsubscript𝐹𝑆F_{S}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the FWC model as a function of the number of users, N𝑁Nitalic_N, for the WF and UNIFORM sampling policies for four different choices of the proximity matrix, i.e., v{0,1,2,3}𝑣0123v\in\{0,1,2,3\}italic_v ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 }.

In the final example, we focus on the FWC model and the choice of the proximity matrix P𝑃Pitalic_P in terms of a proximity parameter v𝑣vitalic_v such that pij=1subscript𝑝𝑖𝑗1p_{ij}=1italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 when |ij|v𝑖𝑗𝑣|i-j|\leq v| italic_i - italic_j | ≤ italic_v, and is zero otherwise. It is clear that FWC with v=0𝑣0v=0italic_v = 0 reduces to FWE. We consider an independent collection of N𝑁Nitalic_N CTMCs each of which corresponds to the number of active servers in a multi-server M/M/c/c queuing system with c𝑐citalic_c servers, with common service rate γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ, and arrival rate ξnsubscript𝜉𝑛\xi_{n}italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for source-n𝑛nitalic_n. The load for source-n𝑛nitalic_n is denoted by ρn=ξn/cγsubscript𝜌𝑛subscript𝜉𝑛𝑐𝛾\rho_{n}=\xi_{n}/c\gammaitalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_c italic_γ. In this example, we assume linearly spaced loads, ρn=ρn1+δsubscript𝜌𝑛subscript𝜌𝑛1𝛿\rho_{n}=\rho_{n-1}+\deltaitalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ, n=2,,N𝑛2𝑁n=2,\ldots,Nitalic_n = 2 , … , italic_N and the parameter δ𝛿\deltaitalic_δ is chosen so that the average load is fixed to ρavg=1Nn=1Nρnsubscript𝜌𝑎𝑣𝑔1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝜌𝑛\rho_{avg}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\rho_{n}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_v italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In this example, we fix γ=1𝛾1\gamma=1italic_γ = 1 and ρavg=0.9subscript𝜌𝑎𝑣𝑔0.9\rho_{avg}=0.9italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_v italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.9. The source weights are identical as in the previous examples. The overall sampling rate bound is fixed to Λ=20Λ20\Lambda=20roman_Λ = 20. The weighted sum freshness FS=1Nn=1N𝔼[Fn,c(t)]subscript𝐹𝑆1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝐹𝑛𝑐𝑡F_{S}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathbb{E}[F_{n,c}(t)]italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) ] is plotted in Fig. 6 as a function of the number of users N𝑁Nitalic_N for FWC with the proximity parameter v{0,1,2,3}𝑣0123v\in\{0,1,2,3\}italic_v ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 } and for two values of ρ1subscript𝜌1\rho_{1}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the WF and UNIFORM policies. We have the following observations: When ρ1subscript𝜌1\rho_{1}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is close to ρavgsubscript𝜌𝑎𝑣𝑔\rho_{avg}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a italic_v italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then all the sources have similar statistical behaviors and therefore the performances of WF and UNIFORM policies should be similar which is evident from Fig. 6(b). However, WF substantially outperforms the UNIFORM sampling policy in Fig. 6(a) where the smallest load source-1 has a load ρ1=0.01subscript𝜌10.01\rho_{1}=0.01italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.01 and consequently the sources are statistically dissimilar from each other. We have observed similar outperformance behavior of WF over the UNIFORM policy for the four values of the proximity parameter v𝑣vitalic_v we have investigated. The weighted sum freshness decreases with increased N𝑁Nitalic_N since the sampling rate parameter ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_Λ is fixed for any choice of N𝑁Nitalic_N. Therefore, sources are sampled at a lower intensity, on the average, as N𝑁Nitalic_N is increased in our example.

VIII Conclusions

We investigated a remote monitoring system which samples a heterogeneous collection of finite-state irreducible CTMCs according to a Poisson process, under an overall sampling rate constraint, employing a remote martingale estimate of the states of each of the CTMCs. Three binary freshness models are studied and expressions for mean freshness are obtained for all the freshness models of interest. Subsequently, the optimum sampling rates for all CTMCs are obtained using water-filling based optimization while maximizing the weighted sum freshness. The worst case computational complexity of the proposed method is quadratic in the number of CTMCs making it possible to solve for scenarios even with very large numbers of CTMCs. The optimum monitoring policy is shown to outperform a number of heuristic baseline policies especially when there is diversity in the statistical characteristics of the underlying sources. Future work will consist of the study of estimators other than the martingale estimator, information sources other than CTMCs, and the case of partially known source dynamics. Study of optimization techniques other than water-filling, especially for more general information sources (not necessarily time-reversible), is an interesting research direction. Another possibility is to take into consideration the most recently taken sample values while making a decision on which source to sample.

References

  • [1] R. D. Yates and S. K. Kaul, “The age of information: Real-time status updating by multiple sources,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1807–1827, March 2019.
  • [2] M. Moltafet, M. Leinonen, and M. Codreanu, “On the age of information in multi-source queueing models,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 5003–5017, August 2020.
  • [3] Y. Sang, B. Li, and B. Ji, “The power of waiting for more than one response in minimizing the age-of-information,” in IEEE Globecom, December 2017.
  • [4] F. Li, Y. Sang, Z. Liu, B. Li, H. Wu, and B. Ji, “Waiting but not aging: Optimizing information freshness under the pull model,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 465–478, February 2021.
  • [5] S. Kaul, R. Yates, and M. Gruteser, “Real-time status: How often should one update?” in IEEE Infocom, March 2012.
  • [6] A. Kosta, N. Pappas, and V. Angelakis, “Age of information: A new concept, metric, and tool,” Foundations and Trends in Networking, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 162–259, 2017.
  • [7] R. D. Yates, Y. Sun, D. R. Brown, S. K. Kaul, E. Modiano, and S. Ulukus, “Age of information: An introduction and survey,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1183–1210, May 2021.
  • [8] A. Maatouk, S. Kriouile, M. Assaad, and A. Ephremides, “The age of incorrect information: A new performance metric for status updates,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2215–2228, 2020.
  • [9] J. Zhong, R. D. Yates, and E. Soljanin, “Two freshness metrics for local cache refresh,” in IEEE ISIT, June 2018.
  • [10] H. Tang, J. Wang, Z. Tang, and J. Song, “Scheduling to minimize age of synchronization in wireless broadcast networks with random updates,” in IEEE ISIT, July 2019.
  • [11] C. Deng, J. Yang, and C. Pan, “Timely synchronization with sporadic status changes,” in IEEE ICC, June 2020.
  • [12] B. Abolhassani, J. Tadrous, A. Eryilmaz, and E. Yeh, “Fresh caching for dynamic content,” in IEEE Infocom, May 2021.
  • [13] R. D. Yates, “The age of gossip in networks,” in IEEE ISIT, July 2021.
  • [14] M. Bastopcu and S. Ulukus, “Who should Google Scholar update more often?” in IEEE Infocom, July 2020.
  • [15] B. Buyukates, M. Bastopcu, and S. Ulukus, “Age of gossip in networks with community structure,” in IEEE SPAWC, September 2021.
  • [16] J. Cho and H. Garcia-Molina, “Effective page refresh policies for Web crawlers,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 390–426, December 2003.
  • [17] C. Castillo, “Effective Web crawling,” ACM SIGIR Forum, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 55–56, June 2005.
  • [18] M. Bastopcu and S. Ulukus, “Maximizing information freshness in caching systems with limited cache storage capacity,” in Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, November 2020.
  • [19] P. Kaswan, M. Bastopcu, and S. Ulukus, “Freshness based cache updating in parallel relay networks,” in IEEE ISIT, July 2021.
  • [20] M. Bastopcu and S. Ulukus, “Information freshness in cache updating systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1861–1874, March 2021.
  • [21] E. O. Gamgam and N. Akar, “Water-filling-based scheduling for weighted binary freshness in cache update systems,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 8961–8972, 2024.
  • [22] M. Bastopcu, B. Buyukates, and S. Ulukus, “Gossi** with binary freshness metric,” in IEEE Globecom, December 2021.
  • [23] M. Bastopcu, S. R. Etesami, and T. Başar, “The role of gossi** in information dissemination over a network of agents,” Entropy, vol. 26, no. 1, 2024.
  • [24] M. Bastopcu and S. Ulukus, “Using timeliness in tracking infections,” Entropy, vol. 24, no. 6, p. 779, May 2022.
  • [25] C. Kam, S. Kompella, and A. Ephremides, “Age of incorrect information for remote estimation of a binary Markov source,” in IEEE INFOCOM, 2020.
  • [26] D. Palomar and J. Fonollosa, “Practical algorithms for a family of waterfilling solutions,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 686–695, February 2005.
  • [27] C. Xing, Y. **g, S. Wang, S. Ma, and H. V. Poor, “New viewpoint and algorithms for water-filling solutions in wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 1618–1634, February 2020.
  • [28] D. Palomar and M. Lagunas, “Joint transmit-receive space-time equalization in spatially correlated MIMO channels: a beamforming approach,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 730–743, June 2003.
  • [29] O. Ozel, K. Tutuncuoglu, J. Yang, S. Ulukus, and A. Yener, “Transmission with energy harvesting nodes in fading wireless channels: Optimal policies,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1732–1743, September 2011.
  • [30] K. Huang, W. Liu, M. Shirvanimoghaddam, Y. Li, and B. Vucetic, “Real-time remote estimation with hybrid ARQ in wireless networked control,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 3490–3504, May 2020.
  • [31] Y. Chen and A. Ephremides, “Minimizing age of incorrect information for unreliable channel with power constraint,” in IEEE Globecom, 2021.
  • [32] N. Pappas and M. Kountouris, “Goal-oriented communication for real-time tracking in autonomous systems,” in IEEE ICAS, August 2021.
  • [33] E. Fountoulakis, N. Pappas, and M. Kountouris, “Goal-oriented policies for cost of actuation error minimization in wireless autonomous systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 2323–2327, Sep. 2023.
  • [34] J. P. Champati, M. Skoglund, M. Jansson, and J. Gross, “Detecting state transitions of a Markov source: Sampling frequency and age trade-off,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 3081–3095, May 2022.
  • [35] M. Salimnejad, M. Kountouris, and N. Pappas, “Real-time reconstruction of Markov sources and remote actuation over wireless channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 2701–2715, May 2024.
  • [36] Y. Sun, Y. Polyanskiy, and E. Uysal, “Sampling of the Wiener process for remote estimation over a channel with random delay,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 1118–1135, February 2020.
  • [37] Y. Inoue and T. Takine, “AoI perspective on the accuracy of monitoring systems for continuous-time Markovian sources,” in IEEE Infocom, April 2019.
  • [38] I. Cosandal, N. Akar, and S. Ulukus, “AoII-optimum sampling of CTMC information sources under sampling rate constraints,” 2024, arXiv preprint 2401.18063.
  • [39] R. G. Gallager, Stochastic Processes: Theory for Applications.   Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  • [40] J. Norris, Markov Chains.   Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  • [41] G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, 3rd ed.   The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.