1

Bandwidth Partitioning and Downlink Analysis
in mmWave Integrated Access and Backhaul
for 5G
arXiv:1802.08776v1 [] 24 Feb 2018

Chiranjib Saha, Mehrnaz Afshang, and Harpreet S. Dhillon

Abstract
With the increasing network densification, it has become exceedingly difficult to provide traditional
fiber backhaul access to each cell site, which is especially true for small cell base stations (SBSs).
The increasing maturity of millimeter wave (mmWave) communication has opened up the possibility of
providing high-speed wireless backhaul to such cell sites. Since mmWave is also suitable for access links,
the third generation partnership project (3GPP) is envisioning an integrated access and backhaul (IAB)
architecture for the fifth generation (5G) cellular networks in which the same infrastructure and spectral
resources will be used for both access and backhaul. In this paper, we develop an analytical framework for
IAB-enabled cellular network using which we provide an accurate characterization of its downlink rate
coverage probability. Using this, we study the performance of three backhaul bandwidth (BW) partition
strategies, (i) equal partition: when all SBSs obtain equal share of the backhaul BW, (ii) instantaneous
load-based partition: when the backhaul BW share of an SBS is proportional to its instantaneous load,
and (iii) average load-based partition: when the backhaul BW share of an SBS is proportional to its
average load. Our analysis shows that depending on the choice of the partition strategy, there exists
an optimal split of access and backhaul BW for which the rate coverage is maximized. Further, there
exists a critical volume of cell-load (total number of users) beyond which the gains provided by the
IAB-enabled network disappear and its performance converges to that of the traditional macro-only
network with no SBSs.
Index Terms
Integrated access and backhaul, heterogeneous cellular network, mmWave, 3GPP, wireless backhaul.

The authors are with Wireless@VT, Department of ECE, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA. Email: {csaha, mehrnaz,
hdhillon}@vt.edu. The support of the US National Science Foundation (Grant CNS-1617896) is gratefully acknowledged. This
paper will be presented in part at the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2018 [1].
Manuscript last updated: February 27, 2018.

2

I. I NTRODUCTION
With the exponential rise in data-demand far exceeding the capacity of the traditional macroonly cellular network operating in sub-6 GHz bands, network densification using mmWave base
stations (BSs) is becoming a major driving technology for the 5G wireless evolution [2]. While
heterogeneous cellular networks (HetNets) with low power SBSs overlaid with traditional macro
BSs improve the spectral efficiency of the access link (the link between a user and its serving
BS), mmWave communication can further boost the data rate by offering high bandwidth. That
said, one of the main hindrances in the way of large-scale deployment of small cells is that the
existing high-speed optical fiber backhaul network that connects the BSs to the network core
is not scalabale to the extent of ultra-densification envisioned for small cells [3]–[5]. However,
with recent advancement in mmWave communication with highly directional beamforming [6],
[7], it is possible to replace the so-called last-mile fibers for SBSs by establishing fixed mmWave
backhaul links between the SBS and the MBS equipped with fiber backhaul, also known as the
anchored BS (ABS), thereby achieving Gigabits per second (Gbps) range data rate over backhaul
links [8]. While mmWave fixed wireless backhaul is targetted to be a part of the first phase of the
commercial roll-out of 5G [9], 3GPP is exploring a more ambitious solution of IAB where the
ABSs will use the same spectral resources and infrastructure of mmWave transmission to serve
cellular users in access as well as the SBSs in backhaul [10]. In this paper, we develop a tractable
analytical framework for IAB-enabled mmWave cellular networks using tools from stochastic
geometry and obtain some design insights that will be useful for the ongoing pre-deployment
studies on IAB.
A. Background and related works
Over recent years, stochastic geometry has emerged as a powerful tool for modeling and
analysis of cellular networks operating in sub-6 GHz [11]. The locations of the BSs and users
are commonly modeled as independent Poisson point processes (PPPs) over an infinite plane.
This model, initially developed for the analysis of traditional macro-only cellular networks [12],
was further extended for the analysis of HetNets in [13]–[16]. In the followup works, this
PPP-based HetNet model was used to study many different aspects of cellular networks such
as load balancing, BS cooperation, multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO), energy harvesting,
and many more. Given the activity this area has seen over the past few areas, any attempt
towards summarizing all key relevant prior works here would be futile. Instead, it would be

3

far more beneficial for the interested readers to refer to dedicated surveys and tutorials [17]–
[20] that already exist on this topic. While these initial works were implicitly done for cellular
networks operating in the sub-6 GHz spectrum, tools from stochastic geometry have also been
leveraged further to characterize their performance in the mmWave spectrum [21]–[24]. These
mmWave cellular network models specifically focus on the mmWave propagation characteristics
which signifantly differ from those of the sub-6 GHz [6], such as the severity of blocking
of mmWave signals by physical obstacles like walls and trees, directional beamforming using
antenna arrays, and inteference being dominated by noise [25]. These initial modeling approaches
were later extended to study different problems specific to mmWave cellular networks, such as,
cell search [26], antenna beam alignment [27], and cell association in the mmWave spectrum [28].
With this brief introduction, we now shift our attention to the main focus of this paper which is
IAB in mmWave cellular networks. In what follows, we provide the rationale behind mmWave
IAB and how stochastic geometry can be used for its performance evaluation.
For traditional cellular networks, it is reasonable to assume that the capacity achieved by the
access links is not limited by the backhaul constraint on the serving BS since all BSs have
access to the high capacity wired backhaul. As expected, backhaul constraint was ignored in
almost all prior works on stochastic geometry-based modeling and analysis of cellular networks.
However, with the increasing network densification with small cells, it may not be feasible
to connect every SBS to the wired backhaul network which is limited by cost, infrastructure,
maintenance, and scalability. These limitations motivated a significant body of research works
on the expansion of the cellular networks by deploying relay nodes connected to the ABS by
wireless backhaul links, e.g. see [29]. Among different techniques of wireless backhaul, 3GPP
included layer 3 relaying as a part of the long term evolution advanced (LTE-A) standard in
Release 10 [30], [31] for coverage extension of the cellular network. Layer 3 relaying follows
the principle of IAB architecture, which is often synonymously referred to as self-backhauling,
where the relay nodes have the functionality of SBS and the ABS multiplexes its time-frequency
resources to establish access links with the users and wireless backhaul links with SBSs that
may not have access to wired backhaul [32]. However, despite being the part of the standard,
layer 3 relays have never really been deployed on a massive scale in 4G mostly due to the
spectrum shortage in sub-6 GHz. For instance, in urban regions with high capacity demands,
the operators are not willing to relinquish any part of the cellular bandwidth (costly and scarce
resource) for wireless backhaul. However, with recent advancement in mmWave communication,

4

IAB has gained substantial interest since spectral bottleneck will not be a primary concern once
high bandwidth in mmWave spectrum (at least 10x the cellular BW in sub-6 GHz) is exploited.
Some of the notable industry initiatives driving mmWave IAB are mmWave small cell access
and backhauling (MiWaveS) [33] and 5G-Crosshaul [34]. In 2017, 3GPP also started working on
a new study item to investigate the performance of IAB-enabled mmWave cellular network [10].
Although backhaul is becoming a primary bottleneck of cellular networks, there is very
little existing work on the stochastic geometry-based analyses considering the backhaul constraint [35]–[37]. While these works are focused on the traditional networks in sub-6 GHz,
contributions on IAB-enabled mmWave HetNet are even sparser, except an extension of the
PPP-based model [38], where the authors modeled wired and wirelessly backhauled BSs and
users as three independent PPPs. In [39], [40], similar modeling approach was used to study IAB
in sub-6 GHz using full duplex BSs. The fundamental shortcoming of these PPP-based models
is the assumption of independent locations of the BSs and users which are spatially coupled
in actual networks. For instance, in reality, the users form spatial clusters, commonly known
as user hotspots and the centers of the user hotspots are targetted as the potential cell-cites of
the short-range mmWave SBSs [41]. Not surprisingly, such spatial configurations of users and
BSs are at the heart of the 3GPP simulation models [42]. To address this shortcoming of the
analytical models, in this paper, we propose the first 3GPP-inspired stochastic geometry-based
finite network model for the performance analysis of HetNets with IAB. The key contributions
are summarized next.
B. Contributions and outcomes
1) New tractable model for IAB-enabled mmWave HetNet: We develop a realistic and tractable
analytical framework to study the performance of IAB-enabled mmWave HetNets. Similar to
the models used in 3GPP-compliant simulations [10], we consider a two-tier HetNet where
a circular macrocell with ABS at the center is overlaid by numerous low-power small cells.
The users are assumed to be non-uniformly distributed over the macrocell forming hotspots
and the SBSs are located at the geographical centers of these user hotspots. The non-uniform
distribution of the users and the spatial coupling of their locations with those of the SBSs
means that the analysis of this setup is drastically different from the state-of-the-art PPP-based
models. Further, the consideration of a single macrocell (justified by the noise-limited nature
of mmWave communications), allows us to glean crisp insights into the coverage zones, which

5

further facilitate a novel analysis of load on ABS and SBSs1 . Assuming that the total system
BW is partitioned into two splits for access and backhaul communication, we use this model
to study the performance of three backhaul BW partition strategies, namely, (i) equal partition,
where each SBS gets equal share of BW irrespective of its load, (ii) instantaneous load-based
partition, where the ABS frequently collects information from the SBSs on their instantaneous
loads and partitions the backhaul BW proportional to the instantaneous load on each SBS, and
(iii) average load-based partition, where the ABS collects information from the SBSs on their
average loads and partitions the backhaul BW proportional to the average load on each SBS.
2) New load modeling and downlink rate analysis: For the purpose of performance evaluation
and comparisons between the aforementioned strategies, we evaluate the downlink rate coverage
probability i.e. probability that the downlink data rate experienced by a randomly selected user
will exceed a target data rate. As key intermediate steps of our analysis we characterize the
two essential components of rate coverage, which are (i) signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR)-coverage
probability, and (ii) the distribution of ABS and SBS load, which directly impacts the amount of
resources allocated by the serving BS to the user of interest. We compute the probability mass
functions (PMFs) of the ABS and the SBS loads assuming the number of users per hotspot is
fixed. We then relax this fixed user assumption by considering independent Poisson distribution
on the number of users in each hotspot. Due to a significantly different spatial model, our
approach of load modeling is quite different from the load-modeling in PPP-based networks [43].
3) System design insights: Using the proposed analytical framework, we obtain the following
system design insights.
•

We compare the three backhaul BW partition strategies in terms of three metrics, (i)
rate coverage probability, (ii) median rate, and (iii) 5th percentile rate. Our numerical
results indicate that for a given combination of the backhaul BW partition strategy and
the performance metric of interest, there exists an optimal access-backhaul BW split for
which the metric is maximized.

•

Our results demonstrate that the optimal access-backhaul partition fractions for median and
5th percentile rates are not very sensitive to the choice of backhaul BW partition strategies.
Further, the median and 5th percentile rates are invariant to system BW.

1

In our discussion, BS load refers to the number of users connected to the BS.

6

Mmwave backhaul link

Mmwave access link

Mmwave backhaul link
Macrocell

useraccess
hotspot
Mmwave
link

user hotspot
Small cell BS

Macrocell

Small cell BS

𝑅
𝑅
Mobile
Anchored BS
Core
Mobile
a.
User
and
locationsBS
Anchored
Core (a) User and BS
BS locations

Access
(shared by users)
and BW
BS locations
⌘)W a. User
Access BW (shared by users)
⌘)W Backhaul
BW (partitioned into
𝑛 shares)
Backhaul BW (partitioned into
b. Resource allocation
𝑛 shares)

… …

(1
(1

𝑅"
𝑅" 𝑅"
𝑅"

b. Resource allocation

(b) Resource Allocation
Fig. 1. Illustration of the system model.

•

For given infrastructure and spectral resources, the IAB-enabled network outperforms the
macro-only network with no SBSs up to a critical volume of total cell-load, beyond which
the performance gains disappear and its performance converges to that of the macro-only
network. Our numerical results also indicate that this critical total cell-load increases almost
linearly with the system BW.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL

A. mmWave Cellular System Model
1) BS and user locations: Inspired by the spatial configurations used in 3GPP simulations [10],
[42] for a typical outdoor deployment scenario of a two-tier HetNet, we assume that n SBSs
are deployed inside a circular macrocell of radius R (denoted by b(0, R)) with the macro BS
at its center. We assume that this BS is connected to the core network with high speed optical
fiber and is hence an ABS. Note that, in contrast to the infinite network models (e.g. the PPPbased networks defined over R2 ) which are suitable for interference-dominated networks (such
as conventional cellular networks in sub-6 GHz), we are limiting the complexity of the system
model by considering single macrocell. This assumption is justified by the noise-limited nature
of mmWave communications [25]. Moreover, as will be evident in the sequel, this setup will

7

allow us to glean crisp insights into the properties of this network despite a more general user
distribution model (discussed next) compared to the PPP-based model.
We model a user hotspot at x as b(x, Rs ), i.e., a circle of radius Rs centered at x. We assume
that the macrocell contains n user hotspots, located at {xi ≡ (xi , ϕi ), i = 1, . . . , n}, which are

distributed uniformly at random in b(0, R − Rs ).2 Thus, {xi } is a sequence of independently
and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random vectors with the distribution of xi being:


 xi 2 , when 0 < xi ≤ R − Rs , 0 < ϕi ≤ 2π,
π(R−Rs )
fX (xi ) =

0,
otherwise.

(1)

The marginal probability density function (PDF) of xi is obtained as: fX (xi ) = 2xi /(R − Rs )2

for 0 < xi ≤ R − Rs and ϕi is a uniform random variable in (0, 2π]. Note that this construction
ensures that all hotspots lie entirely inside the macrocell, i.e., b(xi , Rs ) ∩ b(0, R)c = ∅, ∀ i. We
assume that the number of users in the hotspot centered at xi is Nxi , where
is fixed and equal for all i = 1, . . . , n and

CASE

CASE

1: Nxi = m̄

2: {Nxi } is a sequence of i.i.d. Poisson

random variables with mean m̄. These Nxi users are assumed to be located uniformly at random
independently of each other in each hotspot. Thus, the location of a user belonging to the hotspot
at xi is denoted by xi + u, where u ≡ (u, ξ) is a random vector in R2 with PDF:


 u 2 , when 0 < u ≤ Rs , 0 < ξ ≤ 2π
πRs
fU (u) =

0,
otherwise.

(2)

The marginal PDF of u is: fU (u) = 2u/Rs2 for 0 < u ≤ Rs and ξ is a uniform random variable

in (0, 2π]. We assume that the SBSs are deployed at the center of user hotspots, i.e., at {xi }.
The ABS provides wireless backhaul to these SBSs over mmWave links. See Fig. 1(a) for an
illustration. Having defined the spatial distribution of SBSs and users, we now define the typical
user for which we will compute the rate coverage probability. The typical user is a user chosen
uniformly at random from the network. The hotspot to which the typical user belongs is termed
as the representative hotspot. We denote the center of representative hotspot as x, where x = xn ,
without loss of generality and the location of the typical user as x+u. For CASE 1, the number of
users in the representative cluster is Nx = Nxn = m̄. For

CASE

2, although Nxi is i.i.d. Poisson,

Nx does not follow the same distribution since the typical user will more likely belong to a
2

For notational simplicity, we use x ≡ kxk, ∀ x ∈ R2 .

8

hotspot with more number of users [44]. If n → ∞, Nx follows a weighted Poisson distribution
with PMF P(Nx = k) =

m̄k−1 e−m̄
,
(k−1)!

where, k ∈ Z+ . It can be easily shown that if Nx follows a

weighted Poisson distribution, we have Nx = Nxn + 1. Hence, for n → ∞, one can obtain the
distribution of Nx by first choosing a hotspot uniformly at random and then adding one user to
it. However, when n is finite, Nx will lie between Nxn and Nxn + 1 (Nxn ≤ Nx ≤ Nxn + 1).
The lower bound on Nx is trivially achieved when n = 1. Since the actual distribution of Nx for
finite number of hotspots (n > 1) is not tractable, we fix the typical user for

CASE

2 according

to the following Remark.
Remark 1. For

CASE

2, we first choose a hotspot centered at x uniformly at random from n

hotspots, call it the representative hotspot, and then add the typical user at x + u, where u
follows the PDF in (2). Although this process of selecting the typical user is asymptotically
i.i.d.

exact when Nxi ∼ Poisson(m̄), ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . , n, and n → ∞, it will have negligible impact
on the analysis since our interest will be in the cases where the macrocells have moderate to
high number of hotspots [45].
2) Propagation assumptions: All backhaul and access transmissions are assumed to be performed in mmWave spectrum. We assume that a BS at y ∈ R2 transmits at a constant power spectral density (PSD) P/W over a system BW W , where P = Pm and Ps are the transmission powers
of the ABS and SBS, respectively. The received power at z is given by P ψhL(z, y)−1 , where ψ is
the combined antenna gain of the transmitter and receiver and L(z, y) = 10((β+10α log10 kz−yk)/10)
is the associated pathloss. We assume that all links undergo i.i.d. Nakagami-m fading. Thus,
h ∼ Gamma(m, m−1 ).
3) Blockage model: Since mmWave signals are sensitive to physical blockages such as buildings, trees and even human bodies, the LOS and NLOS path-loss characteristics have to be
explicitly included into the analysis. On similar lines of [46], we assume exponential blocking
model. Each mmWave link of distance r between the transmitter (ABS/SBS) and receiver
(SBS/user) is LOS or NLOS according to an independent Bernoulli random variable with
LOS probability p(r) = exp(−r/µ), where µ is the LOS range constant that depends on the
geometry and density of blockages. Also, LOS and NLOS links may likely follow different
fading statistics, which is incorporated by assuming different Nakagami-m parameters for LOS
and NLOS, denoted by mL and mN L , respectively.
We assume that all BSs are equipped with steerable directional antennas and the user equip-

9

ments have omni-directional antenna. Let G be the directivity gain of the transmitting and
receiving antennas of the BSs (ABS and SBS). Assuming perfect beam alignment, the effective
gains on backhaul and access links are G2 and G, respectively. We assume that the system is
noise-limited, i.e., at any receiver, the interference is negligible compared to the thermal noise
with PSD N0 . Noticing that the SNR on a link with BW W 0 is proportional to

P
W0
W
N0 W 0

= P/N0 W ,

the SNR-s of a backhaul link from ABS to SBS at x, access links from SBS at x to user at
x + u, and ABS to user at x + u are respectively expressed as:
Pm G2 hb L(0, x)−1
,
N0 W
Ps Ghs L(x, x + u)−1
SNRSBS
(x
+
u)
=
,
a
N0 W
Pm Ghm L(0, x + u)−1
SNRABS
(x
+
u)
=
,
a
N0 W
SNRb (x) =

(3a)
(3b)
(3c)

where {hb , hs , hm } are the corresponding small-scale fading gains.
4) User association: We assume that the SBSs operate in closed-access, i.e., users in hotspot
can only connect to the SBS at hotspot center, or the ABS. Given the complexity of user
association in mmWave using beam sweeping techniques, we assume a much simpler way of
user association which is performed by signaling in sub-6 GHz, analogous to the current LTE
standard [27]. In particular, the BSs broadcast paging signal using omni-directional antennas in
sub-6 GHz and the user associates to the candidate serving BS based on the maximum received
power over the paging signals. Since the broadcast signaling is in sub-6 GHz, we assume the
same power-law pathloss function for both LOS and NLOS components with path-loss exponent
α due to rich scattering environment. We define the association event for the typical user E as:


1
if Ps kuk−α > Pm kx + uk−α ,
E=
(4)

0, otherwise,
where {0, 1} denote association to ABS and SBS, respectively. The typical user at x + u is

under coverage in the downlink if either of the following two events occurs:
E = 1 and SNRb (x) > θ1 , SNRSBS
a (u) > θ2 , or,
E = 0 and SNRABS
(x + u) > θ3 ,
a
where {θ1 , θ2 , θ3 } are the coverage thresholds for successful demodulation and decoding.

(5)

10

B. Resource allocation
The ABS is assumed to be capable of transmitting on both mmWave and sub-6 GHz bands.
The sub-6 GHz band is reserved for control channel and the mmWave band is kept for datachannels. The total mmWave BW W for downlink transmission is partitioned into two parts,
Wb = ηW for backhaul and Wa = (1 − η)W for access, where η ∈ [0, 1) determines the
access-backhaul split. Each BS is assumed to employ a simple round robin scheduling policy
for serving users, under which the total access BW is shared equally among its associated users,
referred to alternatively as load on that particular BS. On the other hand, the backhaul BW is
shared amongst n SBSs by either of the three strategies as follows.
1) Equal partition. This is the simplest partition strategy where the ABS does not require
any load information from the SBSs and divides Wb equally into n splits.
2) Instantaneous load-based partition. In this scheme, the SBSs regularly feed back the ABS
its load information and accordingly the ABS allocates backhaul BW proportional to the
instantaneous load on each small cell.
3) Average load-based partition. Similar to the previous strategy, the ABS allocates backhaul
BW proportional to the load on each small cell. But in this scheme, the SBSs feed back
the ABS its load information after sufficiently long intervals. Hence the instantaneous
fluctuations in SBS load are averaged out.
If the SBS at x gets backhaul BW Ws (x), then

Wb


,
for equal partition,

n




NxSBS

Wb ,
for instantaneous load-based partition,
n−1
Ws (x) = NxSBS + P NxSBS
i

i=1


SBS

E[Nx ]


Wb , for average load-based partition,

P
 E[N SBS ]+n−1
E[N SBS ]
x

i=1

(6)

xi

where NxSBS and NxSBS
denote the load on the SBS of the representative hotspot and load on the
i
SBS at xi , respectively. The BW partition is illustrated in Fig. 1(b). To compare the performance
of these strategies, we define the network performance metric of interest next.
C. Downlink data rate
The maximum achievable downlink data rate, henceforth referred to as simply the data rate,
on the backhaul link between the ABS and the SBS, the access link between SBS and user, and

11

the access link between ABS and user can be expressed as:
= Ws (x) log2 (1 + SNRb (x)),
RABS
b


Wa
RABS
b
SBS
SBS
Ra = min
log2 (1 + SNRa (u)), SBS ,
NxSBS
Nx
Wa
RABS
=
log2 (1 + SNRABS
(x + u)),
a
a
n−1
P
NxABS +
NxABS
i

(7a)
(7b)
(7c)

i=1

)
where Ws (x) is defined according to backhaul BW partition strategies in (6) and NxABS (NxABS
i
denotes the load on the ABS due to the macro users of the representative hotspot (hotspot at
xi ). In (7b), the first term inside the min-operation is the data rate achieved under no backhaul
constraint when the access BW Wa is equally partitioned between NxSBS users. However, due to
finite backhaul, RSBS
is limited by the second term.
a
III. R ATE C OVERAGE P ROBABILITY A NALYSIS
In this Section, we derive the expression of rate coverage probability of the typical user
conditioned on its location at x + u and later decondition over them. This deconditioning step
averages out all the spatial randomness of the user and hotspot locations in the given network
configuration. We first partition each hotspot into SBS and ABS association regions such that
the users lying in the SBS (ABS) association region connects to the SBS (ABS). Note that
the formation of these mathematically tractable association regions is the basis of the distancedependent load modeling which is one of the major contributions of this work.
A. Association Region and Association Probability
We first define the association region in the representative user hotspot as follows. Given the
representative hotspot is centered at x, the SBS association region is defined as: Sx = {x + u ∈
b(x, Rs ) : Pm kx+uk−α < Ps u−α } and the ABS association area is b(x, Rs )∩Sxc . In the following
Proposition, we characterize the shape of Sx .
Proposition 1. The SBS association region Sx for the SBS at x can be written as:

 
kp
kp x

2
−1

0 < x < 1+k
Rs ,
b (1 − kp ) x, 1−k2 ,

p

p


 
kp
kp
Sx = b (1 − kp2 )−1 x, kp x2 ∩ b(x, Rs ),
R ≤ x ≤ 1−k
Rs ,
1−kp
1+kp s
p





kp
b(x, R ),
x > 1−k
Rs ,
s
p

(8)

12

Hotspot at x

x

k px
k2p
1
✓
◆
X1
X2
,
1 kp2 1 kp2

1

0.8

(X1 , X2 )

Rs

As (x)

SBS Association region

Rs p
k
1+

0.6

0.4

0.2

50

100

150

200

Distance from ABS, (x)

1

R

0

kp

s

0

Fig. 3. Variation of association probability to SBS
with distance from ABS.
Fig. 2. An illustration of association regions.

where kp =



Ps
Pm

1/α

.

Proof: Let x = (X1 , X2 ) be the Cartesian representation of x. Let, Sx = {(X1 +t1 , X2 +t2 )}.

2 −α/2
2
≤ Ps ((t1 − X1 )2 + (t2 − X2 )2 )−α/2 ⇒
Then,
following

 Sx , P2m (t1 + t2 )
2 the definition
2 of
kp x
X1
X2
t1 − 1−k
+ t2 − 1−k
≤ 1−k
. Thus, {(t1 , t2 )} = b((1−kp2 )−1 x, kp x/(1−kp2 )). Since,
2
2
2
p
p
p


kp x
kp
2 −1
Sx can not spread beyond b(x, Rs ), Sx = b (1−kp ) x, 1−k2 ∩b(x, Rs ). When 0 < x < 1+k
Rs ,
p
p


kp x
b (1 − kp2 )−1 x, 1−k
⊂ b(x, Rs ). Beyond this limit of x, a part of b((1 − kp2 )−1 x, kp x/(1 − kp2 ))
2
p

lies outside of b(x, Rs ). Finally, when x >

kp
R,
1−kp s

b((1 − kp2 )−1 x, kp x/(1 − kp2 )) ⊃ b(x, Rs ).

This formulation of Sx is illustrated in Fig. 2. We now compute the SBS association probability
as follows.
Lemma 1. Conditioned on the fact that the user belongs to the hotspot at x, the association
probability to SBS is given by:

As (x) = As (x) =

Z

0

2π



min Rs , x

kp (

√

1−kp2 . sin2 ξ+kp cos ξ) 
1−kp2

2πRs2

2

dξ

(9)

13

=

where
C(r1 , r2 , d) =

r12

−1

tan




kp2 x2



2 2 2
(1−k

p ) Rs


kp x
C Rs ,








1

2x
kp
2 , 1−k2
1−kp
p
πRs2



if 0 < x <
if

kp
R
1+kp s

if x >

kp
R,
1+kp s

≤x≤

kp
R,
1−kp s

,

(10)

kp
R
1−kp s




t
t
2
−1
+ r2 tan
d2 + r12 − r22
d2 − r12 + r22
p
− 1/2 (d + r1 + r2 )(d + r1 − r2 )(d − r1 + r2 )(−d + r1 + r2 )

is the area of intersection of two intersecting circles of radii r1 , and r2 and distance between
centers d. The association probability to the ABS is given by Am (x) = 1 − As (x).
Proof: Conditioned on the location of the hotspot center at x,
As (x)=P(E = 1|x) = E[1(Pm kx + uk−α < Ps kuk−α )|x] = P(x + u ∈ Sx |x)
= P(Pm (x2 + u2 + 2xu cos ξ)−α/2 < Ps u−α )|x)
= P(u2 (1 − kp2 ) − 2x cos ξkp2 u − kp2 x2 < 0|x)
q



2 sin2 ξ + k cos ξ
1
−
k
xk
p
p

p
(a)
, ξ ∈ (0, 2π] x
= P u ∈ 0,
1 − kp2
q

Z 2π Z Rs 
xkp 1 − kp2 sin2 ξ + kp cos ξ 
1
fU (u)du dξ,
1 0≤u<
=
2
1 − kp
2π
0
0
where ξ = arg(u − x) and is uniformly distributed in (0, 2π]. Here, (a) follows from solving
the quadratic inequality inside the indicator function. The last step follows from deconditioning
over u and ξ. Finally, (9) is obtained by evaluating the integration over u. Note that, due to
angular symmetry, As (x) = As (x). Alternatively,
Z
1
|Sx |
As (x) =
.
fU (u)du dξ =
2π
πRs2
Sx
The final result in (10) is obtained by using Proposition 1.
In Fig. 3, we plot As (x) as a function of x. We now evaluate the coverage probability of a
typical user which is the probability of the occurrence of the events defined in (5).

14

Theorem 1. The coverage probability is given by:
Pc =

R−R
Z s
0


Pcs (θ1 , θ2 |x) + Pcm (θ3 |x) fX (x)dx,

(11)

where Pcs (θ1 , θ2 |x) =
 αL

 αN L

Z2π umax
Z (x,ξ)
x βN0 W θ1
x βN0 W θ1
p(x)Fh
, mL + (1 − p(x))Fh
, mN L
×
Pm G2
Pm G2
0
0

 αN L


 αL
u βN0 W θ2
fU (u)
u βN0 W θ2
, mL + (1 − p(u))Fh
, mN L
du dξ,
p(u)Fh
Ps G
Ps G
2π


√
(1−kp2 sin2 ξ)+kp cos ξ)
where umax (x, ξ) = min Rs , xkp
and Fh (·) is the complementary cumu1−k2
p

lative distribution function (CCDF) of Gamma distribution, and Pcm (θ3 |x) =
Z2π

ZRs

0 umax (x,ξ)




κ(x,u,ξ)αL βN0 W θ3
, mL
p(κ(x, u, ξ))Fh
Pm G

+ (1 − p(κ(x, u, ξ)))Fh



κ(x,u,ξ)αN L βN0 W θ3
, mN L
Pm G



fU (u)du dξ
,
2π

where κ(x, u, ξ) = (x2 + u2 + 2xu cos ξ)1/2 .
Proof: See Appendix A.
As expected, coverage probability is the summation of two terms, each corresponding to the
probability of occurrences of the two mutually exclusive events appearing in (5).
B. Load distributions
While the load distributions for the PPP-based models are well-understood [38], [47], they
are not directly applicable to the 3GPP-inspired finite model used in this paper. Consequently, in
this Section, we provide a novel approach to characterize the ABS and SBS load for this model.
As we saw in (7c), the load on the ABS has two components, one is due to the contribution of
the number of users of the representative hotspot connecting to the ABS (denoted by NxABS ) and
the other is due to the macro users of the other clusters, which we lump into a single random
P
Pn−1 SBS
ABS
SBS
variable, NoABS = n−1
and NoSBS = i=1
Nxi respectively
i=1 Nxi . On the other hand, Nx

denote the load on the SBS at x and sum load of all SBSs except the one at x. First, we obtain
the PMFs of NxABS and NxSBS using the fact that given the location of the representative hotspot

15

centered at x, each user belongings to the association regions Sx or b(x, Rs ) ∩ Sxc according to
an i.i.d. Bernoulli random variable.
Lemma 2. Given the fact that the representative hotspot is centered at x, load on the ABS due
to the macro users in the hotspot at x (NxABS ) and load on the SBS at x (NxSBS ) are distributed
as follows:
CASE

1 (Nxi = m̄, ∀ i = 1, . . . , n).
P(NxABS
P(NxSBS




m̄ − 1
= k|x) =
Am (x)k−1 As (x)m̄−k ,
k−1


m̄ − 1
= k|x) =
As (x)k−1 Am (x)m̄−k ,
k−1

(12a)
(12b)

where k = 1, 2, . . . , m̄.
CASE

i.i.d.

2 (Nxi ∼ Poisson(m̄), ∀ i = 1, . . . , n).
P(NxABS

(m̄Am (x))k−1 −m̄Am (x)
= k|x) =
e
,
(k − 1)!

P(NxSBS = k|x) =

(m̄As (x))k−1 −m̄As (x)
e
,
(k − 1)!

(13a)
(13b)

where k ∈ Z+ .
Proof: See Appendix B.
We present the first moments of these two load variables in the following Corollary which
will be required for the evaluation of the rate coverage for the average load-based partition and
the derivation of easy-to-compute approximations of rate coverage in the sequel.
Corollary 1. The conditional means of NxABS and NxSBS given the center of the representative
hotspot at x are
CASE

1: E[NxABS ] = (m̄ − 1)Am (x) + 1, E[NxSBS ] = (m̄ − 1)As (x) + 1,

CASE

2: E[NxABS ] = m̄Am (x) + 1, E[NxSBS ] = m̄As (x) + 1.

We now obtain the PMFs of NoABS and NoSBS in the following Lemma. Note that, since xi s are i.i.d., NoABS and NoSBS are independent of x. In what follows, the exact PMF of NoABS
(NoSBS ) is in the form of (n − 1)-fold discrete convolution and hence is not computationally
efficient beyond very small values of n. We present an alternate easy-to-use expression of this

16

PMF by invoking central limit theorem (CLT). In the numerical results Section, we verify that
this approximation is tight even for moderate values of n.
Lemma 3. Given the fact that the typical user belongs to a hotspot at x, load on the ABS due
to all other n − 1 hotspots is distributed as:

NoABS −υm
σm

∼ N (0, 1) (for large n) and sum of the

loads on the other SBSs at x1 , x2 , . . . , xn−1 is distributed as:

NoSBS −υs
σs

∼ N (0, 1) (for large n),

where N (0, 1) denotes the standard normal distribution, υm = (n − 1)m̄E[Am (X)], υs = (n −
1)m̄E[As (X)], and
for

CASE

1,

for

CASE

2,

Here,
E[Am (X)] =

Z



2
σm
= (n − 1) m̄E[Am (X)As (X)] + m̄2 Var[Am (X)] = σs2 ,


2
σm
= (n − 1) m̄E[Am (X)] + m̄2 Var[Am (X)] ,


σs2 = (n − 1) m̄E[As (X)] + m̄2 Var[As (X)] .

R−Rs

0

Am (x)fX (x)dx, and Var[Am (X)] =

R−R
Z s
0

2
Am (x) fX (x)dx − (E[Am (X)])2 ,

and E[As (X)], Var[As (X)] can be similarly obtained by replacing Am (X) with As (X) in the
above expressions.
Proof: See Appendix C.
C. Rate Coverage Probability
We first define the downlink rate coverage probability (or simply, rate coverage) as follows.
Definition 1 (Rate coverage probability). The rate coverage probability of a link with BW W̃ is
defined as the probability that the maximum achievable data rate (R) exceeds a certain threshold
ρ, i.e., P(R > ρ) =


P W̃ log2 (1 + SNR) > ρ = P(SNR > 2ρ/W̃ − 1).

(14)

Hence, we see that the rate coverage probability is the coverage probability evaluated at a
modified SNR-threshold. We now evaluate the rate coverage probability for different backhaul
BW partition strategies for a general distribution of Nxi and Nx in the following Theorem. We
later specialize this result for

CASE s

1 and 2 for numerical evaluation.

17

Theorem 2. The rate coverage probability for a target data rate ρ is given by:
Pr = Prm + Prs ,

(15)

where Prm (Prs ) denotes the ABS rate coverage (SBS rate coverage) which is the probability
that the typical user is receiving data rate greater than or equal to ρ and is served by the ABS
(SBS). The ABS rate coverage is given by:

Prm




Z∞ R−R
Z s
ABS )
ρ(t+Nx
− 1|x fX (x)dx
=
ENxABS Pcm 2 Wa
−∞

0

1
√

−

σm 2π

e

(t−υm )2
2
2σm

dt.

(16)

The SBS rate coverage depends on the backhaul BW partition strategy. For equal partition,
Prs =

R−R
Z s

ENxSBS

0




 ρnN SBS
SBS
ρNx
x
Wb
− 1, 2 Wa − 1 x fX (x)dx,
Pcs 2

(17)

for instantaneous load-based partition,
  ρ(N SBS +t)

Z s
Z∞ R−R
SBS
(t−υs )2
ρNx
x
1
−
Wb
W
ENxSBS Pcs 2
Prs =
− 1, 2 a − 1 x fX (x)dx √ e 2σs2 dt,
σs 2π
−∞

(18)

0

and for average load-based partition,

  ρNxSBS (E[NxSBS ]+m̄t)
Z∞ R−R
Z s
SBS
ρNx
SBS ]
Wb E[Nx
Prs =
ENxSBS Pcs 2
− 1, 2 Wa − 1 x fX (x)dx×
−∞

0

1

Proof: See Appendix D.

p
e−
2π(n − 1)Var[As (X)]

2

t−(n−1)E[As (X)]

2(n−1)Var[As (X)]

dt. (19)

Having derived the exact expressions of rate coverage in Theorem 2, we present approximations of these expressions by replacing (i) NxABS in Prm with its mean E[NxABS ], and (ii) NxSBS
in Prs with its mean E[NxSBS ] in the following Lemma.
Lemma 4. The ABS rate coverage can be approximated as

Prm



Z∞ R−R
Z s
ABS ])
ρ(t+E[Nx
Wa
=
Pcm 2
− 1|x fX (x)dx
−∞

0

(t−υm )2
1
−
√ e 2σm2 dt.
σm 2π

(20)

18

The SBS rate coverage can be approximated as follows. For equal partition,
Prs =

R−R
Z s



Pcs 2

0

SBS ]
ρnE[Nx
Wb

− 1, 2

SBS ]
ρE[Nx
Wa



− 1 x fX (x)dx,

(21)

for instantaneous load-based partition,

Z∞ R−R
Z s  ρ(E[N SBS ]+t)
SBS ]
(t−υs )2
ρE[Nx
x
1
−
Wb
− 1, 2 Wa − 1 x fX (x)dx √ e 2σs2 dt,
Prs =
Pcs 2
σs 2π
−∞

(22)

0

and for average load-based partition,

Prs =

2

 ρ(E[NxSBS ]+m̄t)

SBS ]
ρE[Nx
e− 2(n−1)Var[As (X)]
Wb
W
a
Pcs 2
− 1, 2
− 1 x fX (x)dx p
dt.
2π(n − 1)Var[As (X)]

Z s
Z∞ R−R

−∞

0

t−(n−1)E[As (X)]

(23)

We now specialize the result of Theorem 2 for
Corollary 2. For

Prm

CASE

CASE s

1 and 2 in the following Corollaries.

1, i.e., when Nxi = m̄, ∀ i = 1, . . . , n, the ABS rate coverage is


 Z∞ R−R

Z s
m̄ 
X
ρ(t+k)
m̄ − 1
Pcm 2 Wa − 1|x Am (x)k−1 As (x)m̄−k ×
=
k
−
1
k=1
−∞

0

(t−υm )2
1
−
fX (x)dx √ e 2σm2 dt. (24)
σm 2π

The SBS rate coverages for the three backhaul BW parition strategies are expressed as follows.
(i) For equal partition,
 R−R

Z s 
m̄ 
X
ρnk
ρk
m̄ − 1
Wb
Prs =
Pcs 2
− 1, 2 Wa − 1 x As (x)k−1 Am (x)m̄−k fX (x)dx,
k
−
1
k=1

(25)

0

(ii) for instantaneous load-based partition,
 Z∞ R−R

Z s  ρ(k+t)
m̄ 
X
ρk
m̄ − 1
Wb
Prs =
Pcs 2
− 1, 2 Wa − 1 x As (x)k−1 Am (x)m̄−k ×
k
−
1
k=1
−∞

0

(t−υs )2
1
−
fX (x)dx √ e 2σs2 dt, (26)
σs 2π

19

and (iii) for average load-based partition,
 Z∞ R−R

Z s  ρk(1+(m̄−1)A (x)+m̄t)
m̄ 
X
s
ρk
m̄ − 1
Wb (1+(m̄−1)As (x))
W
Prs =
Pcs 2
− 1, 2 a − 1 x As (x)k−1 Am (x)m̄−k ×
k
−
1
k=1
−∞

0

1
e−
fX (x)dx p
2π(n − 1)Var[As (X)]

2

t−(n−1)E[As (X)]

2(n−1)Var[As (X)]

dt. (27)

Proof: The result can be obtained from Theorem 2 by using the PMFs of NxABS , NxSBS ,
NoABS and NoABS from Lemmas 2 and 3 and substituting E[NxSBS ] from Corollary 1 for

CASE

1.

i.i.d.

Corollary 3. For CASE 2, i.e., when Nxi ∼ Poisson(m̄), ∀ i = 1, . . . , n, the ABS rate coverage
is expressed as

Prm



Z∞ R−R
Z s
∞
(t−υm )2
X
ρ(t+k)
m̄k−1
1
−
k−1 −m̄Am (x)
W
a
√
=
−1|x fX (x)dx
e 2σm2 dt.
(Am (x)) e
Pcm 2
(k − 1)!
σm 2π
k=1
−∞

0

(28)
The SBS rate coverages for the three backhaul BW parition strategies are expressed as follows.
(i) For equal partition,
R−R


Z s
∞
X
ρnk
ρk
m̄k−1
k−1 −m̄As (x)
Wb
W
− 1, 2 a − 1 x fX (x)dx,
Prs =
(As (x)) e
Pcs 2
(k − 1)!
k=1

(29)

0

(ii) for instantaneous load-based partition,


Z s
Z∞ R−R
∞
(t−υs )2
X
ρ(k+t)
ρk
m̄k−1
1
−
k−1 −m̄As (x)
Wb
W
a
(As (x)) e
Pcs 2
Prs =
− 1, 2 − 1 x fX (x)dx √ e 2σs2 dt,
(k − 1)!
σs 2π
k=1
−∞

0

(30)
and (iii) for average load-based partition,


Z∞ R−R
Z s
∞
X
ρk(1+m̄As (x)+m̄t)
ρk
m̄k−1
k−1 −m̄As (x)
Wb (1+m̄As (x))
W
Prs =
(As (x)) e
Pcs 2
− 1, 2 a − 1 x ×
(k
−
1)!
k=1
−∞

0

1

fX (x)dx p
e−
2π(n − 1)Var[As (X)]

2

t−(n−1)E[As (X)]

2(n−1)Var[As (X)]

dt. (31)

1

Rate coverage probability (Pr )

Rate coverage probability (Pr )

20

0.8

0.6

0.4

W = 300 MHz
W = 600 MHz
W = 1000 MHz
Case 1
Case 2

0.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

W = 300 MHz
W = 600 MHz
W = 1000 MHz
Case 1
Case 2

0.2

0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

Access-Backhaul Partition (η)

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

W = 300 MHz
W = 600 MHz
W = 1000 MHz
Case 1
Case 2
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.8

1

1

W = 1000 MHz
0.8

0.6

0.4

W = 600 MHz
W = 300 MHz
0.2

Instantaneous Load-based Partition
Average Load-based Partition
Equal Partition

0

0
0

0.4

(b) Instantaneous load-based partition.

Rate coverage probability (Pr )

Rate coverage probability (Pr )

(a) Equal partition.

0.2

0.2

Access-Backhaul Partition (η)

0.8

Access-Backhaul Partition (η)

(c) Average load-based partition.

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Access-Backhaul Partition (η)
(d) Comparison of backhaul partition strategies for
CASE 1.

Fig. 4. Rate coverage probability for different bandwidths for CASE 1 and 2 obtained by Corollaries 2 and 3 (ρ = 50 Mbps,
n = 10). Lines and markers indicate theoretical and simulation results, respectively. Theoretical results for CASEs 1 and 2 are
obtained from Corollaries 2 and 3, respectively.

Proof: The result can be similarly obtained from Theorem 2 by using the PMFs of NxABS ,
NxSBS , NoABS and NoABS from Lemmas 2 and 3, and substituting E[NxSBS ] from Corollary 1 for
CASE

2.
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION

A. Trends of rate coverage
In this Section we verify the accuracy of our analysis of rate coverage with Monte Carlo
simulations of the network model delineated in Section II with parameters listed in Table I. For
each simulation, the number of iterations was set to 106 . The rate coverages for different user
distributions (CASEs 1 and 2) for three different backhaul BW partition strategies are presented
in Figs. 4(a)-4(c). Recall that one part of ABS and SBS load was approximated using CLT

1

Rate coverage probability (Pr )

Rate coverage probability (Pr )

21

Instantaneous Load-based Partition
Average Load-based Partition
Equal Partition

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

Instantaneous load-based partition
Average load-based partition
Equal partition

0.2

0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Access-Backhaul Partition (η)

Access-Backhaul Partition (η)

1

800

Instantaneous Load-based Partition
Average Load-based Partition
Equal Partition

0.8

m̄ = 5

Total cell-load (nm̄)

Rate coverage probability (Pr )

Fig. 5. Comparision of backhaul BW parition strategies Fig. 6. Comparison of the exact expression (Corollary 2) and
(ρ = 50 Mbps, n = 10, W = 600 MHz) for CASE 1 and approximate expression (Lemma 4) of rate coverage probability
for CASE 1 (ρ = 50 Mbps, W = 600 MHz, n = 10). Lines and
µ = 30 m. The results are obtained from Corollary 2.
markers indicate exact and approximate results, respectively.

m̄ = 10

0.6
0.4

m̄ = 15

0.2

m̄ = 20

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

600

IAB-infeasible region
400

IAB-feasible region

200

0

0.8

500

1

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

W (in MHz)

Access-Backhaul Partition (η)

Fig. 7. Rate coverage for different numbers of users per hotspot Fig. 8. Total cell-load upto which IAB-enabled network
for CASE 1 (W = 600 MHz, ρ = 50 Mbps). The values of Pr outperforms macro-only network (for instantaneous load-based
partition).
are computed using Lemma 4.

in Lemma 3 for efficient computation. Yet, we obtain a perfect match between simulation and
analysis even for n = 10 for

CASE

1 and

CASE

2. Further, we observe that, (i) Pr = 0 for η = 1

since this corresponds to the extreme when no BW is given to access links, (ii) the rate coverage
is maximized for a particular access-backhaul BW split (η ∗ = arg max{η} Pr ). Also note that the
rate coverage trends for
than Pr of
CASE

CASE

2 than in

results of

CASE

CASE s

1 and 2 are the same, although Pr for

CASE

1 is slightly higher

2 since the representative cluster, on average, has more number of users in

CASE

1 (see Corollary 1). However, for space constraint, we only present the

1 for subsequent discussions.

22

1) Comparison of backhaul BW partition strategies: In Fig. 4(d), we overlay Pr for three
different backhaul BW partition strategies. We observe that the maximum rate coverage, Pr ∗ =
Pr (η ∗ ) (marked as ‘*’ in the figures) for instantaneous load-based partition dominates Pr ∗ in
average load-based partition, and Pr ∗ in average load-based partition dominates Pr ∗ in equal
partition. Also note that η ∗ is different for different combination of BW partition strategy and
W . We further compared these three strategies in a high blocking environment in Fig. 5 by setting
µ = 30 m and observe the same ordering of performance of the three strategies. As expected,
Pr is in general lower for this case. That said, it should be kept in mind that instantaneous loadbased partition requires more frequent feedback of the load information from the SBSs and hence
has the highest signaling overhead among the three strategies. The average load-based partition
requires comparatively less signaling overhead since it does not require frequent feedback. On
the other hand, equal partition does not have this overhead at all. This motivates an interesting
performance-complexity trade-off for the design of cellular networks with IAB.
2) Effect of system BW: We observe the effect of increasing system BW on rate coverage
in Fig 4(d). As expected, Pr increases as W increases. However, the increment of Pr ∗ saturates
for very high values of W since high noise power degrades the link spectral efficiency. Another
interesting observation is that starting from η = 0 to η ∗ , Pr does not increase monotonically.
This is due to the fact that sufficient BW needs to be steered from access to backhaul so that
the network with IAB performs better than the macro-only network (corresponding to η = 0).
3) Accuracy of approximation: We now plot Pr obtained by the approximations in Lemma 4
in Fig. 6. It is observed that the approximation is surprisingly close to the exact values of Pr
obtained by Corollary 2. Motivated by the tightness of the approximation, we proceed with
the easy-to-compute expressions of Pr obtained by Lemma 4 instead of the exact expressions
(Corollary 2) for the metrics evaluated in the sequel, namely, critical load, median rate, and 5th
percentile rate. It is important to note that each numerical evaluation of these metrics requires
high number of computations of Pr and is highly inefficient if Pr is computed by simulation,
which further highlights the importance of analytical expressions derived in this paper.
B. Critical load
We plot the variation of Pr with m̄ in Fig. 7. We observe that as m̄ increases, more number
of users share the BW and as a result, Pr decreases. However, the optimality of Pr completely
disappears for very large value of m̄ (10 < m̄ < 20 in this case). This implies that for given

23

TABLE I
K EY SYSTEM PARAMETERS

Notation
Pm , Ps
αL , αN L
β
G
µ

Parameter
BS transmit powers
Path-loss exponent
Path loss at 1 m
Main lobe gain
LOS range constant

N0 W

Noise power

mL , mN L
R, Rs
m̄
ρ

Parameter of Nakagami distribution
Macrocell and hotspot radius
Average number of users per hotspot
Rate threshold

Value
50, 20 dBm
2.0, 3.3
70 dB
18 dB
170 m
-174 dBm/Hz+ 10 log10 W
+10 dB (noise-figure)
2, 3
200 m, 30 m
5
50 Mbps

BW W there exists a critical total cell-load (nm̄) beyond which the gain obtained by the IAB
architecture completely disappears. Observing Fig. 8, we find that the critical total cell-load
varies linearly with the system BW. The reason of the existence of the critical total cell-load can
be intuitively explained as follows. Recall that the SBS rate RSBS
was limited by the backhaul
a

constraint RABS
/NxSBS . When m̄ is high, NxSBS is also high and this puts stringent backhaul
b

constraint on RSBS
a . Hence, an ABS can serve more users by direct macro-links at the target
rate instead of allocating any backhaul partition.
C. Median and 5th percentile rates
We now shift our attention to two more performance metrics of interest, the median (50th
percentile) and 5th percentile rate, which are denoted as ρ50 and ρ95 , respectively. These rates
are defined as the values where the rate CDF attains 0.5 and 0.05, respectively, i.e., Pr = 0.5 at
ρ = ρ50 and Pr = 0.95 at ρ = ρ95 . Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate ρ50 and ρ95 respectively for different
W . We first observe that for a given η, these rates increase linearly with W . This is because of
the fact that in all the expressions of rate coverage, ρ and W appear as a ratio (ρ/W ). Thus,
once we find a desired rate coverage at a particular ρ for a given W , same rate coverage will
be observed for kW at target data rate kρ (where k is a positive constant). Further, we notice
that the median rate is relatively flat around the maximum compared to the 5th percentile rate.
Also, the optimal η does not vary significantly (stays close to 0.4 in our setup) for median and
5th percentile rates. In Figs. 11 and 12, we have compared the three backhaul BW partition
strategies in terms of these two rates. As expected, the ordering in performance is similar to the
one observed for Pr ∗ . Interestingly, from Fig. 12, it appears that the average and instantaneous
load-based partition policies have almost similar performance in terms of 5th percentile rate. This

24

W = 300 MHz
W = 600 MHz
W = 1000 MHz

150

100

50

50

5th percentile rate (in Mbps)

Median rate (in Mbps)

200

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

W = 300 MHz
W = 600 MHz
W = 1000 MHz

40

30

20

10

0

1

0

Access-backhaul partition (η)

Fig. 9. Median rate for
partition (n = 10).

CASE

0.4

0.6

1 for instantaneous load-based Fig. 10. 5th percentile rate for
based partition (n = 10).

0.8

1

CASE

1 for instantaneous load-

30

5th percentile rate (in Mbps)

120

Median rate (in Mbps)

0.2

Access-backhaul partition (η)

100
80
60
40

Instantaneous load-based partition
Average load-based partition
Equal partition

20
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

25
20
15
10

Instantaneous load-based partition
Average load-based partition
Equal partition

5
0
0

Access-backhaul partition (η)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Access-backhaul partition (η)

Fig. 11. Median rate for CASE 1 for different backhaul BW Fig. 12. 5th percentile rate for CASE 1 for different backhaul
partition strategies (n = 10, W = 600 MHz).
BW partition strategies (n = 10, W = 600 MHz).

is because of the fact that ρ95 is towards the tail of the rate distribution which is not significantly
affected by difference between instantaneous or average load. However, the performance gap
becomes prominent once median rate is considered.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we proposed the first 3GPP-inspired analytical framework for two-tier mmWave
HetNets with IAB and investigated three backhaul BW partition strategies. In particular, our
model was inspired by the spatial configurations of the users and BSs considered in 3GPP
simulation models of mmWave IAB, where the SBSs are deployed at the centers of user hotspots.
Under the assumption that the mmWave communication is noise limited, we evaluated the
downlink rate coverage probability. As a key intermediate step, we characterized the PMFs
of load on the ABS and SBS for two different user distributions per hotspot. Our analysis leads

25

to two important system-level insights: (i) for three performance metrics namely, downlink rate
coverage probability, median rate, and 5th percentile rate, the existence of the optimal accessbackhaul bandwidth partition splits for which the metrics are maximized, and (ii) maximum total
cell-load that can be supported using the IAB architecture.
This work has numerous extensions. From the modeling perspective, this framework can be
used to study IAB-enabled cellular networks where the control signalling for cell association
is also performed in mmWave. Under this setup, the problems of mmWave beam sweeping
and corresponding cell association delays can be studied. Another useful extension of this work
is to consider data signaling in both mmWave and sub-6 GHz bands and study the effect of
user offloading from the sub-6 GHz to mmWave and vice-versa on rate coverage. From the
stochastic geometry perspective, it will be useful to develop analytical generative models for
correlated blocking of the mmWave signals making these analytical models more accurate. As
said earlier, this work also lay the foundations of analytical characterization of cell-load in the
3GPP-inspired HetNet models. Using this load modeling approach, analytical frameworks can
be developed for other relevant problems whose studies extensively rely on the 3GPP simulation
models of HetNets, such as user mobility and hand-off rates.
A PPENDIX
A. Proof of Theorem 1
Conditioned on the location of the typical user at u = (u, ξ) and its hotspot center at x,
Pcs (θ1 , θ2 |x) =
SBS
P(SNRSBS
a (u) > θ2 , SNRb (x) > θ1 , E = 1|x) = P(SNRa (u) > θ2 , E = 1|x)P(SNRb (x) > θ1 |x)





Ps β −1 Ghs(NL) u−αN L
Ps Gβ −1 hs(L) u−αL
(a)
> θ2 + (1 − p(u))P
> θ2
×
= E p(u)P
N0 W
N0 W
q

 



 xk
1 − kp2 sin2 ξ + kp cos ξ 
p
Pm β −1 G2 hb(L) x−αL
, ξ ∈ (0, 2π] x p(x)P
1 u ∈ 0,
> θ1 |x
1 − kp2
N0 W


Pm β −1 G2 hb(NL) x−αN L
+ (1 − p(x))P
> θ1 |x .
N0 W

Here (a) follows from step (a) in the proof of Lemma 1. The final form is obtained by evaluating
the expectation with respect to u and ξ. We can similarly obtain
Pcm (θ3 |x) = P(SNRABS
(x + u) > θ3 , E = 0|x)
a

26
αL
 p


Pm Gβ −1 hm(L) (x2 + u2 + 2xu cos ξ)− 2
2
2
= E p( x + u + 2xu cos ξ)P
> θ2
N0 W
αN L

 
p
Pm β −1 Ghm(NL) (x2 + u2 + 2xu cos ξ)− 2
2
2
> θ2 x ,
+ (1 − p( x + u + 2xu cos ξ))P
N0 W

followed by deconditioning over u and ξ.
B. Proof of Lemma 2
Conditioned on the fact that the representative hotspot is centered at x and the typical user
connects to the ABS, NxABS = 1 + NxABS,o , where NxABS,o is the load due to rest of the users in
the representative hotspot connecting to the ABS, where,


E[PNx −1 1(Pm kx + uj k−α > Ps kuj k−α )|x] for
j=1
ABS,o
Nx
=
P

E[ Nx 1(Pm kx + uj k−α > Ps kuj k−α )|x]
for
j=1

CASE

1,

CASE

2.

Note that the difference between the above two expressions is the upper bound of the summation.
Recall that, Nx = Nxn = m̄ for

1, and Nx = Nxn + 1 for

CASE

CASE

2 (by Remark 1). Hence,

the number of other users except the typical user in the representative cluster is Nx − 1 for
CASE

1 and Nx for

2. For

CASE

CASE

1, the conditional moment generating function (MGF)

of NxABS,o is:
sNxABS,o

E[e

 m̄−1
 m̄−1
Y
Y
−α
−α
s1(Pm kx+uj k−α >Ps kuj k−α )
|x] = E
e
|x =
E[es1(Pm kx+uj k >Ps kuj k ) |x]
j=1

m̄−1
Y

=

j=1

j=1

es P(Pm kx + uj k−α > Ps kuj k−α |x) + P(Ps kuj k−α > Pm kx + uj k−α |x)

= (Am (x)es + (1 − Am (x)))m̄−1 ,
which is the MGF of a Binomial distribution with (m̄ − 1, Am (x)). Here, the first step follows
from the fact that uj -s are i.i.d. Similarly for
sNxABS,o

E[e
=

∞
X
k=0

|x] = E

Y
Nx

E[e

CASE

2,

s1(Pm kx+uj k−α >Ps kuj k−α )

j=1

(Am (x)es + (1 − Am (x)))k



|x] = E[(Am (x)es + (1 − Am (x)))Nx ]

m̄k e−m̄
s
= em̄Am (x)(e −1) ,
k!

27

which is the MGF of a Poisson distribution with mean m̄Am (x). From the PMF of NxABS,o , one
can easily obtain the PMF of NxABS . The PMF of NxSBS can be obtained on similar lines by
altering the inequality in the first step of the above derivation.
C. Proof of Lemma 3
Following the proof of Lemma 2, conditioned on the location of a hotspot at xi , NxABS
becomes
i
1. a Binomial random variable with (m̄, Am (xi )), or (ii) CASE 2. a Poisson random
P
ABS
ABS
variable with m̄Am (xi ). Now, NoABS = n−1
i=1 Exi [Nxi ], where Exi [Nxi ]-s are i.i.d. with
(i)

CASE

P(Exi [NxABS
]
i

= k) =


R

 R−Rs
0

R

 R−Rs
0

m̄
k


Am (xi )k As (xi )m̄−k fX (xi )dxi , for

e−m̄Am (xi ) (m̄Am (xi ))k
fX (xi )dxi ,
k!

for

CASE

1

CASE

2

,

where k ∈ Z+ . The exact PMF of NoABS is obtained by the (n − 1)-fold discrete convolution of
this PMF. We avoid this complexity of the exact analysis by first characterizing the mean and
Pn−1
]] = (n − 1)m̄Am (X), and
E[Exi [NxABS
variance of NoABS as: υm = E[NoABS ] = i=1
i
X
(a) X
2
]])2
])2 ] − (E[Exi [NxABS
]]
=
E[(Exi [NxABS
σm
= Var[NoABS ] =
Var[Exi [NxABS
i
i
i
n−1

n−1

i=1

i=1


R

Pn−1 R−Rs (m̄Am (xi )As (xi ) + (m̄Am (xi ))2 )fX (xi )dxi − (m̄E[Am (X)])2 , for
i=1 0
= P
R

 n−1 R−Rs (m̄Am (xi ) + (m̄Am (xi ))2 )fX (xi )dxi − (m̄E[Am (X)])2 ,
for
i=1 0

CASE

1

CASE

2

,

]-s are i.i.d. The final result follows from some algebraic
where (a) is due to the fact that Exi [NxABS
i
manipulation. Having derived the mean and variance of NoABS , we invoke CLT to approximate
the distribution of NoABS since it can be represented as a sum of i.i.d. random varables with
finite mean and variance. Similar steps can be followed for the distribution of NoSBS .
D. Proof of Theorem 2
First we evaluate Prm as:

Wa
ABS
log2 (1 + SNRa (x + u)) > ρ
> ρ) = P
Prm =
NxABS + NoABS




ABS +N ABS )
ABS +N ABS )
ρ(Nx
ρ(Nx
o
o
ABS
W
W
a
a
= P SNRa (x + u) > 2
− 1 = Pcm 2
−1 ,
P(RABS
a



28

where, the first step follows from (7c). The final form is obtained by deconditioning with respect
to NxABS , NoABS and x. We now evaluate Prs for equal partition.

 

Wb
Wa
(a)
SBS
SBS
log2 (1 + SNRb (x)) > ρ P
Prs = P(Ra > ρ) = P
log2 (1 + SNRa (u)) > ρ
NxSBS n
NxSBS

 

  ρnN SBS

SBS
SBS
SBS
ρnNx
ρNx
ρNx
x
SBS
= P SNRb (x) > 2 Wb − 1 P SNRa (u) > 2 Wa − 1 = E Pcs 2 Wb − 1, 2 Wa − 1 x .
Here step (a) follows from (7b) and the fact that the two rate terms appearing under the min
operator are independent. The final form is obtained by deconditioning with respect to NxSBS
and x. For instantaneous load-based partition,


 

Wb
Wa
SBS
Prs = P
log2 (1 + SNRb (x)) > ρ P
log2 (1 + SNRa (u)) > ρ
NxSBS + NoSBS
NxSBS
 

  ρ(N SBS +N SBS )


SBS +N SBS )
SBS
SBS
ρ(Nx
ρNx
ρNx
x
o
o
SBS
Wb
W
b
−1 P SNRa (u) > 2 Wa −1 = E Pcs 2
−1, 2 Wa −1 x .
= P SNRb (x) > 2
The final form is obtained by deconditioning with respect to NxSBS , NoSBS and x. For average
load-based partition, Prs =

 
Wa
Wb E[NxSBS ]
SBS
log2 (1+SNRa (u)) > ρ
log2 (1+SNRb (x)) > ρ P
P
P
SBS
NxSBS
NxSBS (E[NxSBS ] + n−1
i=1 E[Nxi ])

 

Wb E[NxSBS ]
Wa
SBS
=P
log2 (1+SNRb (x)) > ρ P
log2 (1+SNRa (u)) > ρ ,
P
NxSBS
NxSBS (E[NxSBS ] + m̄ n−1
i=1 As (xi ))


] = m̄E[As (X)] and E[NxSBS ] depends
where the last step is obtained by using the fact that E[NxSBS
i
P
on the underlying distribution of Nx . Since the random variable n−1
i=1 As (xi ) is a summation
of n − 1 i.i.d. random variables with mean (n − 1)E[As (X)] and variance (n − 1)Var[As (X)],
we again invoke CLT instead of resorting to the exact expression that would have involved the
(n − 1)-fold convolution of the PDF of As (X).
R EFERENCES

[1] C. Saha, M. Afshang, and H. S. Dhillon, “Integrated mmwave access and backhaul in 5G: Bandwidth partitioning and
downlink analysis,” to be presented in IEEE Intl. Conf. on Commun. (ICC), May, 2018.
[2] C. Dehos, J. L. González, A. De Domenico, D. Ktenas, and L. Dussopt, “Millimeter-wave access and backhauling: the
solution to the exponential data traffic increase in 5G mobile communications systems?” IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 52,
no. 9, pp. 88–95, 2014.
[3] T. Q. S. Quek, G. de la Roche, I. Gven, and M. Kountouris, Small Cell Networks: Deployment, PHY Techniques, and
Resource Management. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
[4] O. Tipmongkolsilp, S. Zaghloul, and A. Jukan, “The evolution of cellular backhaul technologies: Current issues and future
trends,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 97–113, 2011.
[5] H. S. Dhillon and G. Caire, “Wireless backhaul networks: Capacity bound, scalability analysis and design guidelines,”
IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 6043–6056, Nov. 2015.

29

[6] S. Rangan, T. S. Rappaport, and E. Erkip, “Millimeter-wave cellular wireless networks: Potentials and challenges,” Proc.
IEEE, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 366–385, Mar. 2014.
[7] A. Ghosh, T. A. Thomas, M. C. Cudak, R. Ratasuk, P. Moorut, F. W. Vook, T. S. Rappaport, G. R. MacCartney, S. Sun,
and S. Nie, “Millimeter-wave enhanced local area systems: A high-data-rate approach for future wireless networks,” IEEE
Journal on Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1152–1163, Jun. 2014.
[8] Z. Gao, L. Dai, D. Mi, Z. Wang, M. A. Imran, and M. Z. Shakir, “MmWave massive-MIMO-based wireless backhaul for
the 5G ultra-dense network,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 13–21, Oct. 2015.
[9] E. Dahlman, G. Mildh, S. Parkvall, J. Peisa, J. Sachs, Y. Selén, and J. Sköld, “5G wireless access: requirements and
realization,” IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 42–47, Dec. 2014.
[10] 3GPP TR 38.874, “NR; Study on integrated access and backhaul,” Tech. Rep., 2017.
[11] M. Haenggi, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[12] J. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. on
Commun., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, 2011.
[13] H. S. Dhillon, R. K. Ganti, F. Baccelli, and J. G. Andrews, “Modeling and analysis of K-tier downlink heterogeneous
cellular networks,” IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 550–560, Apr. 2012.
[14] S. Mukherjee, “Distribution of downlink SINR in heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in
Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 575–585, Apr. 2012.
[15] P. Madhusudhanan, J. G. Restrepo, Y. Liu, and T. X. Brown, “Downlink coverage analysis in a heterogeneous cellular
network,” in Proc., IEEE Globecom, Dec. 2012, pp. 4170–4175.
[16] H. S. Jo, Y. J. Sang, P. Xia, and J. G. Andrews, “Heterogeneous cellular networks with flexible cell association: A
comprehensive downlink SINR analysis,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 3484–3495, Oct. 2012.
[17] H. Elsawy, E. Hossain, and M. Haenggi, “Stochastic geometry for modeling, analysis, and design of multi-tier and cognitive
cellular wireless networks: A survey,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 996–1019, 3th quarter 2013.
[18] H. ElSawy, A. Sultan-Salem, M. S. Alouini, and M. Z. Win, “Modeling and analysis of cellular networks using stochastic
geometry: A tutorial,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 167–203, Firstquarter 2017.
[19] J. G. Andrews, A. K. Gupta, and H. S. Dhillon, “A primer on cellular network analysis using stochastic geometry,” 2016,
available online: arxiv.org/abs/1604.03183.
[20] S. Mukherjee, Analytical Modeling of Heterogeneous Cellular Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[21] J. G. Andrews, T. Bai, M. N. Kulkarni, A. Alkhateeb, A. K. Gupta, and R. W. Heath, “Modeling and analyzing millimeter
wave cellular systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 403–430, Jan. 2017.
[22] M. D. Renzo, “Stochastic geometry modeling and analysis of multi-tier millimeter wave cellular networks,” IEEE Trans.
on Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 5038–5057, Sep. 2015.
[23] T. Bai and R. W. Heath, “Coverage and rate analysis for millimeter-wave cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless
Commun., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1100–1114, Feb. 2015.
[24] E. Turgut and M. C. Gursoy, “Coverage in heterogeneous downlink millimeter wave cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. on
Commun., vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 4463–4477, Oct. 2017.
[25] S. Singh, M. N. Kulkarni, and J. G. Andrews, “A tractable model for rate in noise limited mmwave cellular networks,” in
Proc. IEEE Asilomar, Nov. 2014, pp. 1911–1915.
[26] Y. Li, F. Baccelli, J. G. Andrews, and J. C. Zhang, “Directional cell search delay analysis for cellular networks with static
users,” 2017, available online: arXiv.org/abs/1709.00779.
[27] A. Alkhateeb, Y. H. Nam, M. S. Rahman, J. Zhang, and R. W. Heath, “Initial beam association in millimeter wave cellular
systems: Analysis and design insights,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2807–2821, May 2017.
[28] H. Elshaer, M. N. Kulkarni, F. Boccardi, J. G. Andrews, and M. Dohler, “Downlink and uplink cell association with
traditional macrocells and millimeter wave small cells,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 6244–6258,
Sep. 2016.
[29] H. Raza, “A brief survey of radio access network backhaul evolution: part I,” IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 49, no. 6,
pp. 164–171, Jun. 2011.
[30] 3GPP TR 36.116, “Evolved universal terrestrial radio access (E-UTRA); Relay radio transmission and reception,” Tech.
Rep., Mar. 2017.
[31] 3GPP TR 36.117, “Evolved universal terrestrial radio access (E-UTRA); Relay conformance testing,” Tech. Rep., Mar.
2017.

30

[32] N. Johansson, J. Lundsjö, G. Mildh, A. Ràcz, and C. Hoymann, “Self-backhauling in LTE,” U.S. Patent 8 797 952, Aug.
5, 2014.
[33] MiWaveS White Paper, “Heterogeneous wireless network with millimetre wave small cell access and backhauling,” Tech.
Rep., Jan. 2016.
[34] A. D. La Oliva, X. C. Perez, A. Azcorra, A. D. Giglio, F. Cavaliere, D. Tiegelbekkers, J. Lessmann, T. Haustein, A. Mourad,
and P. Iovanna, “Xhaul: toward an integrated fronthaul/backhaul architecture in 5G networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun.,
vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 32–40, Oct. 2015.
[35] G. Zhang, T. Q. S. Quek, M. Kountouris, A. Huang, and H. Shan, “Fundamentals of heterogeneous backhaul design–
Analysis and optimization,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 876–889, Feb. 2016.
[36] V. Suryaprakash and G. P. Fettweis, “An analysis of backhaul costs of radio access networks using stochastic geometry,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC). IEEE, Jun. 2014, pp. 1035–1041.
[37] S. Singh and J. G. Andrews, “Joint resource partitioning and offloading in heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE Trans.
on Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 888–901, Feb. 2014.
[38] S. Singh, M. N. Kulkarni, A. Ghosh, and J. G. Andrews, “Tractable model for rate in self-backhauled millimeter wave
cellular networks,” IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2196–2211, Oct. 2015.
[39] A. Sharma, R. K. Ganti, and J. K. Milleth, “Joint backhaul-access analysis of full duplex self-backhauling heterogeneous
networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1727–1740, Mar. 2017.
[40] H. Tabassum, A. H. Sakr, and E. Hossain, “Analysis of massive MIMO-enabled downlink wireless backhauling for fullduplex small cells,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 2354–2369, Jun. 2016.
[41] C. Saha, M. Afshang, and H. S. Dhillon, “Enriched K-Tier HetNet model to enable the analysis of user-centric small cell
deployments,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1593–1608, Mar. 2017.
[42] ——, “3GPP-inspired HetNet model using poisson cluster process: Sum-product functionals and downlink coverage,” IEEE
Trans. on Commun., to appear.
[43] S. Singh and J. G. Andrews, “Joint resource partitioning and offloading in heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE Trans.
on Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 888–901, Feb. 2014.
[44] J. Qin, Examples and Basic Theories for Length Biased Sampling Problems. Springer Singapore, 2017, pp. 1–9.
[45] 3GPP TR 36.872 V12.1.0 , “3rd generation partnership project; technical specification group radio access network; small
cell enhancements for E-UTRA and E-UTRAN - physical layer aspects (release 12),” Tech. Rep., Dec. 2013.
[46] T. Bai, R. Vaze, and R. W. Heath, “Analysis of blockage effects on urban cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless
Commun., vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 5070–5083, Sep. 2014.
[47] S. Singh, H. S. Dhillon, and J. G. Andrews, “Offloading in heterogeneous networks: Modeling, analysis, and design
insights,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2484–2497, May. 2013.

