Age of Incorrect Information for Remote
Estimation of a Binary Markov Source
Clement Kam∗ , Sastry Kompella∗ , and Anthony Ephremides‡
∗ InformationTechnology Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
‡ Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Abstract—For monitoring applications, the Age of Information
(AoI) metric has been the primary focus of recent research, but
closely related to monitoring is the problem of real-time or remote
estimation. Age of Information has been shown to be insufficient
for minimizing remote estimation error, but recently a metric
known as Age of Incorrect Information (AoII) was proposed
that characterizes the cost of a monitor being in an erroneous
state over time. In this work, we study the AoII metric in the
simple context of monitoring a symmetric binary information
source over a delay system with feedback. We compare three
different performance metrics: real-time error, AoI, and AoII.
For each metric, we formulate the optimal sampling problem as
a Markov decision process and apply a dynamic programming
algorithm to compute the optimal performance and policy. We
also simulate the system for two sampling policies: sample-at-
change and zero-wait, and we observe which policy coincides
with the optimal policy for each metric. For a variety of delay
distributions and AoII penalty functions, we observe that the
optimal policy for the real-time error and for AoII are equal to
the sample-at-change policy, whereas the optimal policy for AoI
is a threshold policy.
I. I NTRODUCTION
In applications ranging from Internet of Things to timely
data analysis, there has been a surge in interest in the freshness
of information for real-time remote monitoring applications.
These studies have been formalized in the analysis of the
Age of Information (AoI) metric [1]–[7]. Although the AoI
characterizes the freshness according to the data with the
most recent generation time, it may be more useful to use the
received data to estimate the status of the source in real time.
In this work, we focus on this problem of real-time remote
estimation and its relation to Age of Information.
There have been a number of studies on real-time remote es-
timation and Age of Information. In [8], the authors studied the
problem of remotely estimating a Wiener process over a delay
channel, and they showed that the policy that optimizes the
mean squared error (MSE) performance is a signal-dependent
threshold policy, and minimizing MSE is not equivalent to
minimizing AoI. Later, they showed in [9] that if the sampling
policy must be independent of the observed process, the age-
optimal policy is also the MSE-optimal policy. This work was
extended for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process and nonlinear
age metrics [10]. In [11], two sampling policies, sample-at-
change and zero-wait, were compared for the discrete-time
case, and the age and error performance were analyzed. This
analysis proved once again that age and error performance
1
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Chinese University of Hong Kong CUHK(Shenzhen). Downloaded on October 10,2022 at 06:14:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
are not directly correlated, and various effective age metrics
were proposed which are designed to correlate with error
performance.
In considering alternative metrics to age, there have been
some studies on nonlinear age penalties. In [12], the authors
propose two related metrics characterizing the possibly non-
linear cost of having stale information. In [13], the authors
optimized the continuous-time sampling for non-negative, non-
decreasing functions of age [13]. They extended this work
in [14] to include possibly negative non-decreasing functions
of age, and both continuous- and discrete- time versions of
the sampling problem [14].
In this work, we focus on a recent remote estimation
metric called Age of Incorrect Information (AoII), which was
proposed in [15]. In contrast to real-time error performance,
AoII is designed to capture the application-dependent cost
of not having a correct estimate for some amount of time.
The authors studied a basic AoII metric and optimized the
sampling policy with and without energy constraints, and
they showed that AoI-optimal policy does not do as well as
directly minimizing the AoII policy. One difference in the
work presented here is that our system does not allow samples
chosen for transmission to be preempted before being received
at the monitor.
Our contributions in this work include deriving the optimal
sampling policy for the real-time error, AoI, and AoII metrics
for remotely estimating a symmetric binary Markov source.
We formulate the problems as Markov decision processes, and
we compute the optimal policies for the infinite horizon, av-
erage cost problem using dynamic programming. We generate
numerical results for a variety of delay distributions and AoII
penalties, and compare with simulation results for the sample-
at-change and zero-wait policies. Our results show that in the
cases studied, the optimal sampling policy for AoII coincides
with that of real-time error, which is the sample-at-change
policy.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In
Sec. II, we present the system model for the remote monitoring
system and the source signal. In Sec. III, we present the three
performance metrics that we consider, formulate the optimal
sampling problem as an MDP for each metric, and provide
the dynamic programming solutions. We also describe how the
algorithms are altered to handle different delay distributions.
In Sec. IV, we present numerical results for each of the
 ACK
Y(t) Real-Time
X(t) Channel
Estimator
Fig. 1. Real-time estimation system with feedback.
p reception at the monitor in a given slot is equal to ps .
p 0 1 p
p
Fig. 2. Symmetric binary Markov source.
metrics and for different delay distributions and AoII penalty
functions. Lastly, we present some conclusions based on these
results in Sec. V.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. Remote Monitoring Model
The real-time remote estimation model that we study is
shown in Fig. 1. We consider a slotted-time system in which
the source decides at the beginning of a slot whether or not to
sample a signal X(t), provided the channel is not busy (i.e.,
a sample being transmitted cannot be preempted). The sample
enters the channel, and after a delay of a random number of
slots, it is received error-free at the monitor, which uses the
samples to estimate the current state of the source. Initially,
we consider a geometrically distributed delay, but also extend
it to more general distributions. Once the monitor receives
the sample, it sends an instantaneous acknowledgment to the
source, letting it know that the channel is free to transmit
another sample, which eliminates the need for queueing. This
system was considered in our previous work [11], in which
we showed that the sampling policy that minimizes AoI does
not minimize the real-time error performance, and vice versa.
B. Source Model
The source model is a symmetric binary Markov source
shown in Fig. 2, where the probability of changing state is p
and remaining in the same state is p = 1 − p. The source
state transitions occur just before the sample transmission
opportunities. In this work, for convenience of describing the
problem formulation, we assume p < 1/2, for which we
showed in [11] that the optimal estimator at the monitor is
simply the freshest sample available. If we were to consider
the p > 1/2 case, we could extend the following analysis
using the corresponding best estimator, which alternates every
other slot (since the source is more likely to change than stay
the same in consecutive slots).
III. O PTIMAL S AMPLING P OLICIES
Our goal is to determine the best sampling policy for the
following remote monitoring/estimation performance metrics:
1) real-time error, 2) Age of Information, and 3) Age of Incor-
rect Information. For each performance metric, we formulate
the infinite horizon, discrete time Markov Decision Process
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Chinese University of Hong Kong CUHK(Shenzhen). Downloaded on October 10,2022 at 06:14:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(MDP), for which we need to specify the state space S, the
action space A of whether to transmit or remain idle when
the channel is idle, the cost function g(s), s ∈ S, and the
X̂ (t) state transition probabilities P (sn+1 |sn , u(sn )), u(s) ∈ A. To
determine the probabilities, we first consider a geometrically
distributed random delay, where the probability of successful
A. Real-Time Error
The first performance metricR we consider is the average
real-time error, defined as E = 0 1{X̂(t) 6= X(t)}dt. Since
∞
we are considering a symmetric binary Markov source, the
MDP does not need to track the actual state of the source and
the estimate, so we can reduce the dimensions of the state
space as follows. We define the states as s = (s1 s2 ), where
s1 is 0 if the estimate is correct, and 1 if the estimate is
incorrect; s2 is i if the transmitter is idle, 0 if the update in
transmission is correct, and 1 if the update in the transmission
is incorrect. For the actions, if s2 6= i, there is no action
to take since the channel is busy. If s2 = i, then the action
is either to begin transmission or remain idle until the next
decision point at the next slot. (The actions are the same for
all three performance metrics.) Here, the cost at each stage
is g(s1 s2 ) = s1 , i.e., whether or not the current estimate is
correct. Lastly, the transition probabilities Pr(sn+1 |sn , u(sn ))
are functions of the probabilities of the source changing its
state p and the success probability ps for the geometrically
distributed delay. These probabilities are worked out in our
dynamic programming algorithm in the following paragraph.
To solve the average cost MDP, we use the relative
value iteration (RVI) [16] algorithm which, if convergent,
yields the optimal average cost (and policy) for finite
state andh action spaces. We denotei the mapping T h(x) =
P
minu∈A g(x) + j∈S pxj (u)h(j) , x ∈ S. This is the
dynamic programming mapping that will be applied in our
RVI algorithm. Using state 0i as the arbitrary reference state,
the kth iteration of the RVI for minimizing the real-time error
is given as follows (RVIE ):
T hk (0i) = min{phk (0i) + phk (1i), ps (phk (00) + phk (11))
+ ps (phk (0i) + phk (1i))}
k+1
h (1i) =1 + min{phk (1i) + phk (0i), ps (phk (10)
+ phk (01)) + ps (phk (0i) + phk (1i))} − T hk (0i)
hk+1 (00) =ps (phk (0i) + phk (1i)) + ps (phk (00) + phk (11))
− T hk (0i)
hk+1 (01) =ps (phk (1i) + phk (0i)) + ps (phk (01) + phk (10))
− T hk (0i)
hk+1 (10) =1 + ps (phk (0i) + phk (1i)) + ps (phk (10)
+ phk (01)) − T hk (0i)
hk+1 (11) =1 + ps (phk (1i) + phk (0i)) + ps (phk (11)
+ phk (00)) − T hk (0i),
where for T hk (xi), the first term in the min is for remaining
idle, and the second term is for sampling and transmitting. All
2
 other states do not have an action to take. After the algorithm penalty e(·) is just whether the estimate is incorrect or not
has converged, the optimal cost is given by T hk (0i). (this AoII is the form introduced and analyzed in [15]). To
As an example of how these transition probabilities are com- formulate the MDP, the states are defined as (s1 s2 ), where s1
puted, for state 0i, if we choose to remain idle, remaining in is the current AoII at the end of the slot, and s2 is the same
state 0i occurs with probability Pr(0i|0i, i) = p and changing as in the real-time error case (i: channel is idle, 0: update in
to state 1i occurs with probability Pr(1i|0i, i) = p. However transmission is correct, 1: update in transmission is incorrect).
if we choose to transmit, transmission may be unsuccessful The cost at each stage is equal to the average AoII over the
with probability ps , in which case, the source state transitions time slot:
with probability p, so Pr(11|0i, t) = ps p, and so on.
s1 − 21 s1 6= 0

g(s1 s2 ) =
B. Age of Information 0 otherwise.
The second performance metric is the average R ∞Age of Infor- As with AoI, we need a finite state space and therefore
mation, which is defined as ∆ = limT →∞ T1 0 (t − u(t))dt, truncate the states so that the AoII never exceeds xmax . Using
where u(t) is the time stamp of the freshest packet at the state 0i as the arbitrary reference state, the kth iteration of the
monitor. To formulate the MDP, the states are defined as RVI for minimizing AoII is shown as follows (RVIAoII ):
(s1 s2 ), where s1 is the current AoI at the start of the slot,
and s2 is the current AoI of the update in transmission or i T hk (0i) = min{phk (0i) + phk (1i), ps (phk (00)
if the channel is idle. The cost at each stage is equal to the + phk (11)) + ps (phk (0i) + phk (1i))}
average AoI over the time slot g(s1 s2 ) = s1 + 21 . The transition 1
probabilities depend only on the probability of successful hk+1 (xi) = x − + min{phk ((x + 1)i) + phk (0i),
2
reception in each slot, since the AoI does not depend on the ps (phk ((x + 1)0) + ph(01)) + ps (phk (0i)
correctness of the estimate. They transition probabilities are
+ phk ((x + 1)i))} − T hk (0i),
shown in the RVI algorithm below.
Since the RVI requires a finite state space, we truncate the 0 ≤ x < xmax
states such that the AoI never exceeds some maximum value 1
hk+1 (xmax i) = xmax − + min{phk (xmax ) + phk (0i),
xmax . We will see in our numerical results that the xmax need 2
not be very large (=20) to approach the optimal performance. ps (phk (xmax 0) + ph(01)) + ps (phk (0i)
Using state 1i as the arbitrary reference state, the kth iteration + phk (xmax i))} − T hk (0i)
of the RVI for minimizing AoI is shown as follows (RVIAoI ): hk+1 (00) = ps (phk (0i) + phk (1i)) + ps (phk (00)
3 + phk (11)) − T hk (0i)
T hk (1i) = + min{hk (2i), ps hk (21) + ps hk (1i)}
2 h k+1
(01) = ps (phk (1i) + phk (0i)) + ps (phk (01)
1
hk+1 (xi) = x + + min{hk ((x + 1)i), ps hk ((x + 1)1) + phk (10)) − T hk (0i)
2
+ ps hk (1i)} − T hk (1i), 0 ≤ x < xmax 1
hk+1 (x0) = x − + ps (phk (0i) + phk ((x + 1)i))
1 2
hk+1 (xy) = x + + ps hk ((x + 1)(y + 1)) + ps hk (1i) + ps (phk ((x + 1)0) + phk (01)) − T hk (0i)
2
− T hk (1i), 0 ≤ x < xmax , 0 ≤ y < x 1
hk+1 (x1) = x − + ps (phk ((x + 1)i) + phk (0i))
1 2
hk+1 (xmax i) = xmax + + min{hk (xmax i), ps hk (xmax 1) + ps (phk ((x + 1)1) + phk (00)) − T hk (0i),
2
+ ps hk (1i)} − T hk (1i), 0 ≤ x < xmax 0 ≤ x < xmax
1 k+1 1
hk+1 (xmax y) = xmax + + ps hk (xmax (y + 1)) + ps hk (1i) h (xmax 0) = xmax − + ps (phk (0i) + phk (xmax i))
2 2
− T hk (1i), 0 ≤ y < xmax + ps (phk (xmax 0) + phk (01)) − T hk (0i)
1 1
hk+1 (xmax xmax ) = xmax + + ps hk (xmax xmax ) hk+1 (xmax 1) = xmax − + ps (phk (xmax i) + phk (0i))
2 2
+ ps hk (1i) − T hk (1i) + ps (phk (xmax 1) + phk (00)) − T hk (0i)

C. Age of Incorrect Information D. Other Delay Distribution

The third performance metric is the average Age of In-
correct Information,
R∞ which is generally defined as ∆AoII =
limT →∞ T1 0 f (t)e(X(t), X̂(t))dt [15], where f (t) is a
time penalty function and e(X, X̂) is an estimate penaltyR ∞func-
tion. Initially, we use the form ∆AoII = limT →∞ T1 0 (t −
v(t))1{X̂(t) 6= X(t)}dt, so that the time penalty is just the
time since the estimate was last correct (v(t)), and the estimate
To determine the behavior for a non-geometrically dis-
tributed delay, we consider a random delay with pmf Pr(D =
d) ≥ 0 for 1 ≤ d ≤ dmax , and Pr(D = d) = 0 otherwise. To
handle this, we augment the state spaces above as (s1 s2 s3 ),
where s3 is the residual delay for the update in transmission.
We alter the three RVI algorithms above to accommodate
the transition to the appropriate state when a sample is

3
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Chinese University of Hong Kong CUHK(Shenzhen). Downloaded on October 10,2022 at 06:14:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 0.5
0.5 Transmit
Idle

Average RT Error
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

p
Change, Sim. 0.2
0.2 Zero Wait, Sim.
RVI, 0.1
0.1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5
AoII
p
Fig. 4. Optimal policy for RVIAoII .
(a) Real-time error.

sampling policy that is induced by the RVIE and RVIAoII

20 Change, Sim. algorithm (shown in Fig. 4) is confirmed to be sample-at-
Zero Wait, Sim.
Average AoI

15 RVI, AoI change. The policy at p = 0.5 does not affect performance
because the signal is now independent of the past.
10
B. Zipf Distributed Delay
5 We would like to test various other settings to see if the
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 optimal AoII policy deviates from the optimal E policy. First
p we consider different delay distributions. Here we use the Zipf
distribution, which has the following pmf:
(b) Age of Information.
d−a
Pr(D = d) = Pdmax , a > 0.
i=1 i−a
0.6
Average AoII

In our numerical results, we set a = 3 and dmax = 20. The

0.4 Change, Sim.
Zero Wait, Sim.
0.2 RVI, AoII
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
p
(c) Age of Incorrect Information.
Fig. 3. Geometrically distributed delay, ps = 0.5.
taken and a random delay is drawn. These modifications are
straightforward and thus are not shown in this paper.
IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
A. Geometrically Distributed Delay
We run the RVI algorithms to determine the optimal per-
formance for each metric. The parameters used are ps = 0.5
and xmax = 20. We also simulate the system for two sampling
policies: 1) sample-at-change, which samples when the source
signal changes state, and 2) zero-wait, which immediately
samples after the previous sample has been received and the
channel is free.
Fig. 3 plots the three performance metrics for the two
simulated policies and the optimal performance from the RVI
algorithm. For the real-time error and Age of Incorrect Infor-
mation, the optimal performance coincides with the sample-at-
change policy, while for the Age of Information, the optimal
performance coincides with the zero-wait policy. We see that
this performance is essentially achieved by the RVI even with
xmax only equal to 20. In this and all of the cases tested, the
results of the simulations and RVI algorithms are shown in
Fig. 6. The AoI plot is least affected by the delay distribution,
but the values for E and AoII are noticeably lower than in
the geometric case in Fig. 3. However, the optimal policy for
E and AoII are still the sample-at-change policy.
C. Two-State Delay Distribution
We also consider a simple two-state delay distribution,
which has the pmf Pr(D = 1) = Pr(D = 20) = 21 . The
results of the simulations and RVI algorithms are shown in
Fig. 6. The AoI plot shows that the zero-wait policy is no
longer optimal, as has been shown in [14], and the optimal
sampling policy induced by the RVI is a threshold policy
(as proven in [14]), where a sample is only taken when
s1 ≥ 8. However, for E and AoII, the optimal policy is still the
sample-at-change policy. Note that for the AoII, the penalty
is decreasing as p increases from 0.05 to 0.5, so using the
received information to estimate is actually detrimental to AoII
performance compared to simply randomly guessing the state,
in which case, the sampling policy does not impact the AoII
performance.
D. Scaled Linear Time Penalty
We also investigate the impact of the time penalty f (t) on
the optimal sampling policy. Instead of f (t) = t − v(t), we
consider scaling this penalty as f (t) = α(t − v(t)), and we
update the cost function calculation in the RVI algorithm to
be the average penalty over the slot:
α(s1 − 21 ) s1 6= 0

g(s1 s2 ) =
0 otherwise.

4
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Chinese University of Hong Kong CUHK(Shenzhen). Downloaded on October 10,2022 at 06:14:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 0.5 0.50

Average RT Error

Average RT Error
0.4 0.45
0.3 0.40
0.2 Change, Sim. Change, Sim.
Zero Wait, Sim. 0.35 Zero Wait, Sim.
0.1 RVI, RVI,
0.30
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
p p
(a) Real-time error. (a) Real-time error.

20 Change, Sim. 30 Change, Sim.

Zero Wait, Sim. Zero Wait, Sim.
Average AoI

Average AoI
15 RVI, AoI 25 RVI, AoI
10 20
5
15
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
p p
(b) Age of Information. (b) Age of Information.

Change, Sim. Change, Sim.

0.6 Zero Wait, Sim. 3 Zero Wait, Sim.
Average AoII

RVI, AoII Average AoII RVI, AoII

0.4 2
0.2
1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
p p
(c) Age of Incorrect Information. (c) Age of Incorrect Information.
Fig. 5. Zipf distributed delay, a = 3, dmax = 20 1
Fig. 6. Delay with Pr(D = 1) = Pr(D = 20) = 2
.

The results for the AoII for α = 0.5, 1, 3 are shown in Fig. 7
for the geometrically, Zipf, and two-state distributed delays.
Although the AoII values change, the policy that optimizes the
AoII is still the sample-at-change policy, with the exception
that the two-state delay is a degenerate case where randomly
guessing yields better AoII performance.
E. Power Law Time Penalty
We also consider a nonlinear time penalty, following a
power law as f (t) = (t − v(t))α . The average penalty over
the slot used in the RVI algorithm is now as follows:
( α+1
s1 −(s1 −1)α+1
g(s1 s2 ) = α+1 s1 6= 0
0 otherwise.
The results for the AoII for α = 1, 2, 3 are shown in Fig. 8
for the geometrically, Zipf, and two-state distributed penalties.
Again, the AoII values change, but the optimal policy is still
the sample-at-change policy (aside from the random guessing
estimator for the two-state case).
V. C ONCLUSION
In this work, we studied the problem of remote estimation
of a symmetric binary Markov source and various performance
metrics. For each metric, we formulated the optimal sampling
problems as MDPs and implemented the relative value it-
eration (RVI), the dynamic programming algorithm for the
infinite horizon, average cost stochastic control problem. Our
numerical results verified past results that the optimal policy
for the Age of Information is a threshold policy (in many cases,
the threshold was 0), and the optimal policy for both the real-
time error and the Age of Incorrect Information was to sample
only when the source signal flipped. We showed that the two
policies coincided for different delay distributions1 and penalty
functions. On the one hand, our results suggest that the AoII
is a sufficient metric for minimizing the real-time error for
this binary Markov source. On the other hand, they suggest
1 Aside from the degenerate case where it is better for AoII to randomly
guess the state.

5
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Chinese University of Hong Kong CUHK(Shenzhen). Downloaded on October 10,2022 at 06:14:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 4 =3.0
Change, Sim. 4 Change, Sim. Change, Sim.
3 Zero Wait, Sim. Zero Wait, Sim. 4 Zero Wait, Sim.

Average AoII
Average AoII

Average AoII
RVI, AoII 3 RVI, AoII RVI, AoII
2 2
=3.0 =3.0 2 =1.0
1 1 =0.5
=1.0
=0.5 =1.0
=0.5
0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
p p p
1
(a) Geometric delay, ps = 0.5. (b) Zipf distributed delay, a = 3, dmax = 20. (c) Delay with Pr(D = 1) = Pr(D = 20) = 2
.

Fig. 7. Scaled linear penalty.

15
Change, Sim. Change, Sim. Change, Sim.
Zero Wait, Sim. 4 Zero Wait, Sim. 400 Zero Wait, Sim.
Average AoII

Average AoII

Average AoII
10 RVI, AoII RVI, AoII RVI, AoII
=3.0 2 200
5 =3.0 =3.0
=2.0 =2.0
=1.0 =2.0
=1.0
0
=1.0 0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
p p p
1
(a) Geometric delay, ps = 0.5. (b) Zipf distributed delay, a = 3, dmax = 20. (c) Delay with Pr(D = 1) = Pr(D = 20) = 2
.

Fig. 8. Power law penalty.

that the specifics of the AoII function, such as the time penalty
function f (t), do not matter in optimizing the sampling policy
for the system studied here, provided the penalty function is
non-negative and non-decreasing in time. The similarity in the
dynamic programming mapping T h(x) for the two metrics,
as seen by a number of identical equations in the RVIE
and RVIAoII algorithms, also supports this hypothesis. We
plan to continue investigating the AoII for different source
models with more states, different estimation error metrics,
and a multiuser setting with different AoII penalty definitions.
We also plan to apply reinforcement learning under different
models to see how different metrics impact the learning rate.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Kaul, R. Yates, and M. Gruteser, “Real-time status: How often should
one update?” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Orlando, FL, Mar. 2012, pp.
2731–2735.
[2] C. Kam, S. Kompella, and A. Ephremides, “Age of information under
random updates,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Informa-
tion Theory (ISIT), Istanbul, Turkey, Jul. 2013, pp. 66–70.
[3] L. Huang and E. Modiano, “Optimizing age-of-information in a multi-
class queueing system,” in 2015 IEEE International Symposium on
Information Theory (ISIT), June 2015, pp. 1681–1685.
[4] K. Chen and L. Huang, “Age-of-information in the presence of error,”
in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT),
July 2016, pp. 2579–2583.
[5] C. Kam, S. Kompella, G. D. Nguyen, J. E. Wieselthier, and
A. Ephremides, “Age of information with a packet deadline,” in In-
formation Theory (ISIT), 2016 IEEE International Symposium on, July
2016.
[6] A. M. Bedewy, Y. Sun, and N. B. Shroff, “Optimizing data freshness,
throughput, and delay in multi-server information-update systems,” in
2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), July
2016, pp. 2569–2573.
[7] R. D. Yates, E. Najm, E. Soljanin, and J. Zhong, “Timely updates over an
erasure channel,” in 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory (ISIT), June 2017, pp. 316–320.
[8] Y. Sun, Y. Polyanskiy, and E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, “Remote estimation of
the wiener process over a channel with random delay,” in 2017 IEEE
International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), June 2017, pp.
321–325.
[9] “Optimal sampling and remote estimation of the wiener process over
a channel with random delay,” CoRR, vol. abs/1707.02531, 2017,
withdrawn. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.02531
[10] T. Z. Ornee and Y. Sun, “Sampling for remote estimation through
queues: Age of information and beyond,” CoRR, vol. abs/1902.03552,
2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03552
[11] C. Kam, S. Kompella, G. D. Nguyen, J. E. Wieselthier, and
A. Ephremides, “Towards an effective age of information: Remote
estimation of a Markov source,” to appear in 2018 IEEE Conference
on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), Apr.
2018.
[12] A. Kosta, N. Pappas, A. Ephremides, and V. Angelakis, “Age and
value of information: Non-linear age case,” in 2017 IEEE International
Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), June 2017, pp. 326–330.
[13] Y. Sun, E. Uysal-Biyikoglu, R. D. Yates, C. E. Koksal, and N. B. Shroff,
“Update or wait: How to keep your data fresh,” IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 7492–7508, Nov 2017.
[14] Y. Sun and B. Cyr, “Sampling for data freshness optimization:
Non-linear age functions,” CoRR, vol. abs/1812.07241, 2018. [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.07241
[15] A. Maatouk, S. Kriouile, M. Assaad, and A. Ephremides, “The
age of incorrect information: A new performance metric for status
updates,” CoRR, vol. abs/1907.06604, 2019. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06604
[16] D. P. Bertsekas, D. P. Bertsekas, D. P. Bertsekas, and D. P. Bertsekas,
Dynamic programming and optimal control. Athena scientific Belmont,
MA, 1995, vol. 2, no. 2.

6
Authorized licensed use limited to: The Chinese University of Hong Kong CUHK(Shenzhen). Downloaded on October 10,2022 at 06:14:22 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.