Content Popularity Prediction Towards Location-Aware Mobile Edge CachingThanks: P. Yang and L. Yu are with the School of Electronic Information and Communications, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China (e-mail: yangpeng@hust.edu.cn; hustlyu@hust.edu.cn).Thanks: N. Zhang is with the Department of Computing Sciences, Texas A & M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA (e-mail: ning.zhang@tamucc.edu).Thanks: S. Zhang is with Beijing Key Laboratory of Computer Networks, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China (e-mail: zhangshan18@buaa.edu.cn).Thanks: J. Zhang is with the School of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA (e-mail: junshan.zhang@asu.edu).Thanks: X. Shen is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada (e-mail: sshen@uwaterloo.ca).Thanks: This paper was accepted in part by IEEE GLOBECOM 2017 [23].

Mobile edge computing can enhance mobile user’s capacity by provisioning storage, computing and networking resources in their proximity. Capacity-augmented base stations, WiFi access points and other devices with excess capacity can be exploited for edge node deployment [1]. In this paper, the storage resources at edge nodes are harnessed for content caching services. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 1, a set of edge nodes $\mathcal{N}=\{1,2,\dotsc,N\}$ is deployed with separated backhaul links connecting to the mobile core network. Online contents are dynamically pushed to edge nodes so that user’s content requests can be processed with reduced latency. Each edge node serves a disjoint set of mobile users.

A simple yet effective caching strategy is to push the most popular contents to the network edge. Hence, local content hit rate is maximized and user’s requests are served with reduced latency and improved QoE. Extensive works have been done on the popularity of contents, especially video files [9, 22, 25]. According to the statistics we crawled from YouTube, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the popularity profile of a video file varies in two-fold. 1) The daily view amount is time-varying. 2) As other videos’ daily view amounts are also varying and new videos are uploaded, the popularity of a video file is constantly fluctuating [21]. Moreover, location diversity also affects the content popularity. As a result, general caching strategies based on fixed popularity profile are not optimal in practice.

Let $\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ be a $d$-dimensional attribute vector of file $f$ associated with EN $n$. For example, the attributes of video contents may include video quality, genre, length, and historical view statistics. Then, the hit rate¹¹ 1 We define hit rate as the number of content requests rather than a ratio. of file $f$ at EN $n$, denoted by $d_{f,n}$, can be expressed as the following noisy linear combination

where $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is the unknown location feature vector associated with EN $n$. Further, it also represents the location characteristics of EN $n$, which is time-invariant. $w_{n}$ is the random noise associated with EN $n$, which may be affected by various locational features, including social function of the area around EN $n$, the number of users served by EN $n$, the frequency of content update (e.g., hourly or daily). As a result, contents with the same attribute vector are expected to have different view amounts at different ENs. This linear prediction model is widely used in other areas, such as signal processing and financial engineering [26]. It provides a method to predict future hit rate and it is essential when exploiting location diversity for popular-unknown content caching. Without loss of generality, let $||\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}||\leq\zeta$, $||\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n}||\leq\eta$ and $d_{f,n}\leq\gamma$ for all $f\in\mathcal{F}$ and $n\in\mathcal{N}$, where $||\boldsymbol{x}||=\sqrt{\boldsymbol{x}^{\top}\boldsymbol{x}}$ denotes the Euclidean norm of $\boldsymbol{x}$, $\zeta$, $\eta$ and $\gamma$ are positive constants. Also, for notational simplicity, define $||\boldsymbol{x}||_{\boldsymbol{V}}\triangleq\sqrt{\boldsymbol{x}^{\top}\boldsymbol{V}\boldsymbol{x}}$ as the weighted (by a matrix $\boldsymbol{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$) Euclidean norm of $\boldsymbol{x}$.

Consider a set of files $\mathcal{F}=\{1,2,\dotsc,F\}$ that can be cached at ENs, and let $c<F$ be the caching size of each EN. We assume that all the contents are of equal size²² 2 In case contents are of different sizes, they are split into smaller ones of equal size. For example, the widely used DASH (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP) protocol breaks contents into small segments before transmission. This assumption is used to simplify the theoretical analysis, and a similar assumption has been made in [20, 24]. Location-aware edge caching with different content sizes deserves further investigation. and the size is normalized to 1, i.e., each EN can cache up to $c$ contents. As indicated by Fig. 2, content popularity is time-varying. Therefore, contents with higher popularity should be proactively identified and cached at the ENs, and the less popular ones should be evicted so as to improve the local content hit rate. Considering a sequence of time slots $\mathcal{T}=\{1,2,\dotsc,T\}$, and let $\mathcal{F}_{n,t}$ denote the set of contents cached at EN $n$ during time slot $t\in\mathcal{T}$, and $d_{f,n,t}$ be the amount of user demand on file $f$ at EN $n$ during time slot $t$. The objective of a caching policy is to maximize the time-averaged hit rate. Formally, it can be formulated as the following time-averaged hit rate maximization (THRM) problem³³ 3 Without loss of generality, we assume that the underlying process is ergodic.:

As the amount of user demand, i.e., the hit rate of contents at each EN, is unknown a priori, the decision variables $\mathcal{F}_{n,t}$ in problem (2) is intractable directly. For convenience, denoting the optimal caching strategy $\mathcal{F}_{n,t}^{\ast}$ for EN $n$ at time $t$, we have

Define the time-averaged caching regret of a solution respect to the optimal caching strategy as

Then, the THRM problem can be reformulate as a time-averaged regret minimization (TRM) problem:

Given that the optimal set $\mathcal{F}_{n,t}^{\ast}$ is unknown a priori, our goal is to develop a caching policy that constantly makes good estimation of the optimal set $\mathcal{F}_{n,t}^{\ast}$, and therefore minimizes the time-averaged caching regret. As indicated by Eq. (3), the LRM problem boils down to estimating user demands of different contents at each EN. Given the linear model in Eq. (1), if the location feature vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$ can be found in the presence of noise, we can make an accurate prediction on user demand. Unfortunately, there is no established statistical model on the noise processes that impinges the prediction of user demand. In what follows, we propose two online content popularity prediction algorithms by making dynamic estimations on the location feature vectors for different noise processes. In particular, the first algorithm achieves near-optimal performance with the assumption that the model noise is zero-mean, while the second algorithm is designed to provide robust performance guarantees in the case of unknown noise statistics.

When the noise is zero-mean, according to Eq. (1), we have

It can be interpreted that, at time slot $t$, given the attribute vector $\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n,t}$, the hit rate of file $f$ at EN $n$ is predicted to be the linear combination of its attributes, which provides a feasible way to predict the content hit rate. Since the location feature vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$ of EN $n$ is time-invariant, a good estimation of $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$ will lead to accurate prediction of the content hit rate.

Let the attribute matrix $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$ be the historical data up to time slot $t$, where $m$ is the frequency of file $f$ being cached at EN $n$ up to time slot $t$, and the $m$-th row of $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}$ is the corresponding attribute vector $\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n,m}$. Denote by $\boldsymbol{y}_{f,n}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ the $m$-time empirical hit rate of file $f$ at EN $n$. By applying the standard ordinary least square linear regression, i.e., $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}={\operatornamewithlimits{arg\,min}}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}}||\boldsymbol{y}_{f,n}-\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}||^{2}$, we can obtain the unique solution $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}=(\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}^{\top}\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n})^{-1}\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}^{\top}\boldsymbol{y}_{f,n}$, which is unbiased. However, when there are correlated variables in the attribute vector, the matrix $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}^{\top}\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}$ may not be invertible. As a result, the estimated $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}$ can be poorly determined and will exhibit high variance.

In contrast to the unbiased estimation, ridge regression makes biased estimation by adding a control parameter that “penalizes” the magnitude of estimated $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}$, which helps to improve estimation stability. Specifically, ridge regression aims at minimizing a penalized sum

where $\mu>0$ controls the size of $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}$: the larger the value of $\mu$, the greater the shrinkage of the magnitude of $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}$ [27]. Consequently, the estimation of $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$ can be explicitly given as

where $\boldsymbol{I}_{d}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ is the identity matrix. The accuracy of the estimation depends on the amount of data and the selection of $\mu$. For convenience, let $\boldsymbol{V}_{f,n}=\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}^{\top}\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{f,n}+\mu\boldsymbol{I}_{d}$ for all $f\in\mathcal{F}$ and $n\in\mathcal{N}$. The following lemma, which is slightly manipulated from [31], gives an upper bound on the estimation error of ridge regression.

Please refer to Appendix A for the proof. The probabilistic upper bound of estimation error provided in Lemma 1 indicates that, the true hit rate $\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n}^{\top}\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$ falls into the confidence interval around the estimation $\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n}^{\top}\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{n}$ with high probability. The righthand side of Eq. (9) gives the length of the confidence interval, which is crucial to the following content popularity prediction and caching algorithm.

The location-aware edge caching algorithm is sketched in Algorithm 1. After initialization, the algorithm iteratively performs the following three phases.

1. 1.

   Predict: During each time slot $t$, the location feature vector $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{n,t}$ is firstly updated according to the demand information observed in time slot $t-1$. Then, based on the linear prediction model, the estimated demand $\tilde{d}_{f,n,t}$ is obtained. Considering the impact of random noises, a perturbation is added to the estimation, i.e., the ultimate hit rate is predicted to be

   $$\hat{d}_{f,n,t}=\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n,t}^{\top}\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{n,t}+p_{f,n,t}\,,$$

   (10)

   where the perturbation $p_{f,n,t}$ is given by

   $$p_{f,n,t}=\alpha_{t}||\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n,t}||_{\boldsymbol{V}_{f,n}^{-1}},$$

   (11)

   and $\alpha_{t}=\big[\ln(tF^{\frac{1}{2}})\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}+\mu\zeta$.

2. 2.

   Optimize and cache: Based on the predicted hit rate $\hat{d}_{f,n,t}$ of each content, a set of contents $\mathcal{F}_{n,t}$ that maximizes the content hit rate at EN $n$ during time slot $t$ is identified and cached respectively. Note that, certain contents may be cached in multiple ENs simultaneously.

3. 3.

   Observe and update: At the end of time slot $t$, the empirical hit rate information of cached files $\mathcal{F}_{n,t}$ on each EN is recorded, which is then used to update the parameter matrices for subsequent estimation and prediction.

The rationale of the perturbation is that Eq. (6) only gives a mean value of the hit rate which omits the potential random fluctuation, while Lemma 1 provides a probabilistic upper bound of the demand estimation error. The perturbation given in Eq. (11) is inline with the righthand side of Eq. (9) and can be regarded as the optimism in face of uncertainty, or equivalently, the upper confidence of the demand estimation. By adding a perturbation according to Eq. (11), we have $\delta=\big[\ln(tF^{\frac{1}{2}})\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}$. According to Lemma 1, the upper bound holds with probability at least $1-2F^{-1}t^{-2}$, which approximates to $1$ rapidly as $t$ increases.

The content hit rate of the RPUC algorithm highly depends on the accuracy of prediction. This subsection gives a theoretical upper bound on its time-averaged caching regret $R(T)$.

In mobile edge caching, let $c$ be the caching size of each EN, and $F$ be the size of ground file set. Note that content hit rate satisfies the linear model, and content attribute vectors and user demands are bounded by $||\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n,t}||\leq\eta$ and $d_{f,n,t}\leq\gamma$ for all $f\in\mathcal{F}$, $n\in\mathcal{N}$ and $t\in\mathcal{T}$, we have the following theorem.

The proof has been relegated to Appendix B. Basically, the root-cause of regret is two-fold: the estimation error and the perturbation. Particularly, the estimation error consists of the linear model error and the intended bias incurred by $\mu>0$ in ridge regression. The perturbation term is well managed by the time-varying control parameter $\alpha_{t}$. Theorem 1 indicates that under RPUC algorithm, the content hit rate asymptotically approaches the optimal caching policy in the long term.

Denoted by $w_{n,t}$ the additive noise added to the linear model. The linear model is rewritten as

If the noise process $w_{n,t}$ follows white Gaussian distribution and its mean and correlation are always known, Kalman filtering technique can be applied to estimate $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$, which achieves the smallest possible standard deviation of the estimation error [28]-[30]. Since there is no established model on the statistics of the noise structure, robust estimators on the location feature vector that can tolerate noise uncertainty are needed. Next, we will introduce the $H_{\infty}$ filtering technique for location feature vector estimation, which requires no a priori information on the noise process. The only assumption is that, the magnitude of the noise process is finite, which is true since the total demand $d_{f,n,t}$ is always finite in reality.

When locational features are time-invariant, the true location feature vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$ remains the same across the time span. For notational simplicity, in this subsection, we focus on a specific content on a certain EN and neglect indices $f$ and $n$. Based on Eq. (12), the location feature vector estimation problem is reformulated as

Different from Kalman filter, we aim at providing a uniformly small estimation error, $e_{t}=|d_{t}-\tilde{d}_{t}|$, for any form of noise process. Notice that estimation of the location feature vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}$ is crucial to minimizing the estimation error $e_{t}$. Then, we define the following cost function of estimation [28]:

where $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$ is a symmetric positive definite matrix reflecting the confidence of the a priori knowledge of the initial state. A ’smaller’ choice of $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$ indicates larger uncertainty of the initial condition and vice versa. The objective is to make a sequence of estimation on $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{t}$ such that the above cost is minimized. The denominator of the cost function can be regarded as a combined norm of all possible initial states and noises affecting the system. Given that there is no established stochastic model for $w_{t}$, the cost function in Eq. (14) allows us to make robust estimation of content popularity from game-theoretical perspective. Suppose that there is an unrestricted adversary, who can control the initial state $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{0}$ and the magnitude of $w_{t}$ to maximize the error of our estimation. While we focus on minimizing the numerator of Eq. (14), the adversary may incur infinite magnitude of disturbances. The form of $\mathcal{J}_{0}$ prevents the adversary from using brute force to maximize $||\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{t}||$. Instead, the adversary needs to carefully choose $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{0}$ and $w_{t}$ as it tries to maximize $||\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{t}||$. Formally, this game can be generalized as a minmax problem, and the optimal estimation on $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{t}$ achieves the minimal cost $\mathcal{J}_{0}^{\ast}$ as

Given the cost function in Eq. (14), directly minimizing $\mathcal{J}_{0}$ is challenging. In practice, a better approach for $H_{\infty}$ filtering is to seek a sub-optimal estimation that meets a given threshold. Specifically, one can try to find $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{t}$ such that the optimal estimate of $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{t}$ among all possible $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{t}$ (even including the worst-case performance measure) should satisfy

where $\psi>0$ is the prescribed performance bound. Eq. (16) indicates that $H_{\infty}$ filter guarantees the smallest estimation error over all possible finite disturbances of the noise magnitude [28]. Rearranging Eq. (16) gives the following equivalent minmax problem

This minmax problem can be interpreted as a zero-sum game against the adversary. With a given $\psi$, our goal is to find an estimation that wins the game (i.e., achieve a negative cost $\mathcal{J}<0$). By resorting to the Lagrange multiplier method for the dynamic constrained optimization problem (17), the $H_{\infty}$ filter approach results in the following iterative algorithm to find the optimal estimates $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{t}$ for all $t\in\mathcal{T}$:

where $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{t}$ is initialized as $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{0}=\boldsymbol{0}_{d}$, $\boldsymbol{R}_{t}$ is the $H_{\infty}$ filter gain, given by

and

with $\boldsymbol{M}_{t}^{-1}$ initialized by $\boldsymbol{M}_{0}^{-1}={\boldsymbol{P}_{0}}-\psi^{-2}\boldsymbol{I}_{d}$. The detailed proof of this solution can be found in [30]. With the aid of $H_{\infty}$ filter, we are able to make performance-guaranteed estimation on the location feature vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}$, regardless of the detailed noise structure. Based on the estimation of location feature vector, content popularity prediction and caching algorithm can be further devised.

The performance of $H_{\infty}$ filter highly depends on the prescribed threshold $\psi$. A smaller $\psi$ results in a smaller estimation error. However, if $\psi$ is too small, $\boldsymbol{M}_{t}^{-1}+\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top}-\psi^{-2}\boldsymbol{I}_{d}$ in Eq. (20) may be singular, which renders the iterative solution infeasible. Hence, the value of $\psi$ should be carefully selected. An adaptive scheme for threshold selection was proposed in [28], which makes online iterative prediction possible. Denote by $\psi_{t+1}$ the threshold on the $(t+1)$-th iteration, it should be properly chosen to guarantee $\boldsymbol{M}_{t+1}^{-1}$ is positive definite, i.e.,

Denote by $\lambda_{\max}(\boldsymbol{A})=\lambda_{1}(\boldsymbol{A})\geq\cdots\geq\lambda_{k}(\boldsymbol{A})\cdots\geq\lambda_{d}(\boldsymbol{A})=\lambda_{\min}(\boldsymbol{A})$ the eigenvalues of $d\times d$ matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$, and $\lambda_{k}(\boldsymbol{A})$ is the $k$-th largest eigenvalue. According to the min-max theorem on matrix eigenvalues, the adaptive threshold $\psi_{t+1}$ should satisfy

for all $k\in\{1,2,\cdots,d\}$. Since $\lambda_{k}(\psi_{t+1}^{-2}\boldsymbol{I}_{d})=\psi_{t+1}^{-2}$ holds for all $k$, equivalently, we have $\lambda_{\min}(\boldsymbol{M}_{t}^{-1}+\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top})>\psi_{t+1}^{-2}$. We may let

where $\xi$ is a constant very close to but larger than one, so that $\lambda_{\min}(\boldsymbol{M}_{t}^{-1}+\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top}-\psi_{t+1}^{-2}\boldsymbol{I}_{d})$ is guaranteed to be positive and hence $\boldsymbol{M}_{t+1}^{-1}$ is nonsingular. Meanwhile, the magnitude of $\psi_{t}$ is also suppressed.

With the aid of $H_{\infty}$ filter technique, we are able to make performance-guaranteed estimation on the location feature vectors. Therefore, more precise prediction on content popularity can be made, and hence differentiated caching policies can be devised on each EN. The corresponding prediction and caching algorithm is sketched in Algorithm 2. Similar to Algorithm 1, the iteration of the HPDT algorithm can be generalized into the following three steps after initialization.

1. 1.

   Predict: During time slot $t$, estimation of the location feature vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$ of each EN is predicted based on the updated location feature vector by the end of time slot $t-1$.

2. 2.

   Optimize and cache: Based on the predicted content hit rate profile, the set of contents with maximized predicted content hit rate are cached on each EN respectively. Certain contents may be cached in multiple ENs simultaneously.

3. 3.

   Observe and update: At the end of time slot $t$, the empirical hit rate of the cached files on each EN is observed, which is then used to update the input of the $H_{\infty}$ filtering process, yielding the updated location feature vector.

The adaptive adjustment of $\psi$ in Eq. (23) is crucial to the online HPDT algorithm. It is tuned to its minimum at each iteration, so that $\boldsymbol{M}_{t}$ is guaranteed to be positive definite, and meanwhile the upper bound of the cost function $J_{0}$ is minimized.

The $H_{\infty}$ filter technique provides a robust estimation of the location feature vector regardless of the statistical model of the noise process. However, this approach is also conservative since it needs to accommodate the disturbances of all kinds of noise processes. In this subsection, the performance bound of $H_{\infty}$ filter based prediction and caching algorithm is given.

Note that the prescribed performance threshold is crucial to the prediction accuracy, the adaptive threshold $\psi_{t}$ in HPDT algorithm is firstly characterized in this subsection. Note that $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$ is initialized as a $d\times d$ symmetric and positive definite matrix, and $\boldsymbol{M}_{t}^{-1}$ is also guaranteed to be symmetric and positive definite with the help of $\psi_{t}$. According to Weyl’s monotonicity theorem [33], the smallest eigenvalue of $\boldsymbol{M}_{t}^{-1}+\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top}$ can be bounded as:

where $\lambda_{1}(\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top})$ is the largest eigenvalue of $\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top}$, and can be simple bounded by matrix trace as $\lambda_{1}(\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top})\leq\tr(\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top})=||\boldsymbol{x}_{t}||^{2}\leq\eta^{2}$. As $\boldsymbol{M}_{t+1}^{-1}$ is positive definite, we have

where $\xi^{-2}$ is very close to but smaller than one. According to Eq. (20), the smallest eigenvalue of $\boldsymbol{M}_{t+1}^{-1}$ equals to $(1-\xi^{-2})\lambda_{d}(\boldsymbol{M}_{t}^{-1}+\boldsymbol{x}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}^{\top})$, which is suppressed to be small but positive. Hence, $\boldsymbol{M}_{t+1}^{-1}$ is guaranteed to be nonsingular. Iteratively, $\boldsymbol{M}_{t}^{-1}$ is positive definite for all $t\in\mathcal{T}$.

In the following, a theorem is given to provide a bound on the caching regret of the HPDT algorithm. Let $c$ be the caching size of each EN, and $F$ be the cardinality of the ground file set. Suppose content hit rate satisfies the linear model given by Eq. (13), and note that the attribute vectors are bounded as $||\boldsymbol{x}_{f,n,t}||\leq\eta$ for all $f\in\mathcal{F}$, $n\in\mathcal{N}$ and $t\in\mathcal{T}$. Let $\Theta$ and $w$ be the upper bound of $||\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n,0}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{n,0}||_{\boldsymbol{P}_{n,0}}^{2}$ and $w_{n,t}$ for all $n\in\mathcal{N}$ and $t\in\mathcal{T}$, respectively. Then, we have the following theorem.

Please refer to Appendix C for the proof. Theorem 2 indicates that, if the linear model is free of noises, the time-averaged regret of the HPDT algorithm tends to zero as $T$ grows to infinity. Otherwise, the HPDT algorithm may not approach the optimal solution, and its performance depends on the noise magnitude. This is due to the characteristics inherited from the $H_{\infty}$ filter. Since $H_{\infty}$ filter makes no assumption on the noise feature, to minimize the worst-case estimation error, it needs to accommodate all possible noise processes, which turns out to be over-conservative. However, when the noise is zero-mean, the regret of exploiting HPDT algorithm reduces to the order of $O(c\eta\psi N\sqrt{\frac{\Theta}{T}})$, which is smaller than that using the RPUC algorithm. In the next section, we will further evaluate the proposed two algorithms by numerically decomposing the estimation errors, and examine the algorithms by experiments on real dataset.

The proposed two algorithms can be used for content caching with different user demand features. In essence, they are estimating the location feature vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{n}^{\ast}$, which specifies the location characteristics and user preferences on each EN. Given the linear model of user demand, the performance of the proposed algorithms highly depends on the accuracy of the estimation. We use mean square error (MSE) to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed algorithms. For notational simplicity, the indices $n$ and $t$ are omitted in this section. Let $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ be the underlying feature vector, and $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ be the estimation of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ by using the proposed algorithms. Denote $\mathbb{E}[\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}]=\bar{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, then, the MSE can be defined in Euclidean norm as

The two terms in Eq. (26) turn out to be the variance and bias of $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, respectively.

Note that the RPUC algorithm is based on ridge regression. Unlike the ordinary least square linear regression, which makes an unbiased estimation on the feature vector, ridge regression intentionally introduces bias so as to reduce variance of the estimation. Moreover, the RPUC algorithm adds a perturbation to the estimation of ridge regression to account for noise uncertainty, which further increases the bias.

In contrast, the HPDT algorithm makes no assumption on the statistical model of the underlying noise process. It is able to meet the prescribed performance threshold even if the noise process leads to the worst case. Moreover, the HPDT algorithm makes unbiased estimation on the feature vector. This can be observed from the definition of the cost function $\mathcal{J}_{0}$ in Eq. (14). By decomposing the numerator of $\mathcal{J}_{0}$, we have

As $H_{\infty}$ filter makes robust estimation over all kinds of noise structures and initial conditions, given any $\epsilon>0$, there exists a combination of initial condition $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{0}$ and noise $\{w_{t}\}_{t=0}^{T}$ such that $\epsilon>||\boldsymbol{\theta}_{0}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{0}||_{\boldsymbol{P}_{0}}^{2}+\sum_{t=0}^{T}|w_{t}|^{2}\neq 0$. Since this is true for all $\epsilon>0$, according to Eq. (27), the cost function $\mathcal{J}_{0}\geq T||\bar{\boldsymbol{\theta}}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}||^{2}/\epsilon$, which will grow linearly if $||\bar{\boldsymbol{\theta}}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}||^{2}\neq 0$. Consequently, any algorithm that bounds the cost function $\mathcal{J}_{0}$ must be unbiased, i.e., $||\bar{\boldsymbol{\theta}}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{\ast}||^{2}=0$.

On the other hand, the performance of the HPDT algorithm also depends on the a priori confidence on the estimation of the initial state, i.e., the selection of $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$. A smaller matrix (eigenvalue) should be chosen if the estimation of initial condition is made with larger uncertainty, and vice versa.

We conduct simulation based on synthesized time sequences, which is generated according to a prescribed linear model with zero-mean noise and non-zero-mean noise, respectively. Since the proposed RPUC algorithm is perturbed intentionally, we only present the comparison between ridge regression and the HPDT algorithm. Fig. 3 shows that, under all scenarios, ridge regression provides a more stable estimation as it achieves smaller variance than that using HPDT algorithm when the amount of historical data is small. Such stability advantage of ridge regression benefits from its intentional penalty. However, the HPDT algorithm performs much better in terms of bias and MSE under varying sampling rate in all scenarios, which proves the robustness of the HPDT algorithm. Moreover, with the increase of noise magnitude, the gain of HPDT over ridge regression also increases.

To demonstrate the impact of $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$ on the performance of HPDT, estimation results of the HPDT algorithm with different initialization matrices are presented. $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$ is initialized as diagonal matrix with positive elements on the main diagonal. When the confidence on the initial state is small, a larger $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$ with bigger eigenvalues is used. As shown in Table I, $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$ with larger eigenvalue achieves better performance than the others, which means that the initial guess $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{0}$ is close to the prescribed vector. In practice, the matrix $\boldsymbol{P}_{0}$ can be selected according to the prior information regarding the initial condition.