Asymptotic Analysis of Normalized SNR-Based
Scheduling in Uplink Cellular Networks with
Truncated Channel Inversion Power Control
Shotaro Kamiya∗‡ , Koji Yamamoto∗§ , Seong-Lyun Kim† , Takayuki Nishio∗ , and Masahiro Morikura∗

arXiv:1802.02193v1 [] 6 Feb 2018

∗ Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Yoshida-honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501 Japan,
† The Radio Resource Management and Optimization Laboratory, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,

Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749, Korea
‡ kamiya@imc.cce.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp, § kyamamot@i.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Abstract—This paper provides the signal-to-interference-plusnoise ratio (SINR) complimentary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) and average data rate of the normalized SNRbased scheduling in an uplink cellular network using stochastic
geometry. The uplink analysis is essentially different from the
downlink analysis in that the per-user transmit power control
is performed and that the interferers are composed of at most
one transmitting user in each cell other than the target cell. In
addition, as the effect of multi-user diversity varies from cell to
cell depending on the number of users involved in the scheduling,
the distribution of the number of users is required to obtain the
averaged performance of the scheduling. This paper derives the
SINR CCDF relative to the typical scheduled user by focusing
on two incompatible cases, where the scheduler selects a user
from all the users in the corresponding Voronoi cell or does
not select users near cell edges. In each case, the SINR CCDF
is marginalized over the distribution of the number of users
involved in the scheduling, which is asymptotically correct if the
BS density is sufficiently large or small. Through the simulations,
the accuracies of the analytical results are validated for both
cases, and the scheduling gains are evaluated to confirm the
multi-user diversity gain.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Stochastic geometry is a powerful mathematical and statistical tool, enabling the tractable modeling of cellular networks
without loss of accuracy, particularly in a multi-cell environment [1]. The success probability P(SINR > θ) (equivalent to
signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) complimentary
cumulative distribution function (CCDF)) can be expressed in
a closed-form for a special case not only in downlink cellular
networks [1] but also in uplink cellular networks [2].
The number of papers using some forms of stochastic
geometry have increased [3], implying that the application
range of stochastic geometry is growing steadily. One of
the novel applications is the analysis of channel-aware user
scheduling [4]. The authors in [4] derived the SINR CCDF
and the average data rate of the channel-aware scheduling
in a downlink cellular network. They assumed that each
transmission in a typical cell follows the normalized SNRbased scheduling [5], in which the resource block in the cell is
assigned to a user giving the highest value of the instantaneous
SNR normalized by the short-term average SNR. They enabled
978-1-5090-3009-5/17/$31.00

c 2017 IEEE

the stochastic geometry analysis by considering the largest
order statistic to model the fading gain of the scheduled user,
while such an analysis was not conducted in other conventional
analyses [5]–[9]. As for the relationship between the stochastic
geometry analysis and the conventional analyses, please refer
to [4].
This paper derives the SINR CCDF and the average data rate
of the typical scheduled user, selected according to the normalized SNR-based scheduling, in an uplink cellular network with
truncated channel inversion power control. The uplink analysis
is essentially different from the typical downlink analysis [1]
in that the truncated channel inversion power control per-user
is performed [2] and that the interferers correspond to the set
of users composed of at most one scheduled user assigned
with the resource block in each cell other than the target cell.
Therefore, we derive the SINR CCDF under the appropriate
system model.
In addition, the derived SINR CCDF is marginalized over
the distribution of the number of users involved in a particular
scheduler. We would like to point out that the SINR CCDF of
the typical scheduled user depends on the number of users
involved in the scheduler because it affects the multi-user
diversity gain. However, the distribution of the number of
potential uplink users varies depending on the maximum transmit power, the minimum receiver sensitivity, and the density
of BSs. Note that the maximum transmit power constraint
is peculiar to the uplink network, which limits the existing
range of the scheduled users to around the corresponding BSs.
This paper considers two distributions of the number of users
involved in the scheduling, for the case where the scheduler
selects a user from all the users in the corresponding Voronoi
cell and for the case where the scheduler does not select users
near cell edges (see Figs. 2(a) and 2(c)). The two distributions
are shown to be asymptotically equal to the true distribution.
The contributions of this paper are as follows:
• By noticing that the multi-user diversity gain depends
on the number of potential uplink users, we give the
SINR CCDF conditioning on the number of potential
uplink users by the sum of Laplace transforms of the
probability density function of the aggregate interference.
Note that unlike the downlink analysis [4], some users

are not assigned with the resource block due to the
maximum transmit power constraint. For some special
cases, the analytical expression reduces to the closedform expression.
• We derive the SINR CCDF and the scheduling gain for
the two incompatible cases, which are asymptotically
meaningful in the limit of high/low density of BSs.
Moreover, for each case, we give the probability that
indicates the accuracy of the corresponding analytical
result as a function of the BS density. The analytical
results enable the design of uplink cellular networks with
taking into account the advantages of channel-aware user
scheduling.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the system model. Section III derives the SINR
CCDF and the average data rate using stochastic geometry.
Section IV shows the simulation results, which validate the
analytical expression. Section V concludes this paper.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
The locations of BSs and users form independent Poisson
point processes (PPPs) in R2 with respective intensities, λBS ,
λUE . Each user is associated with the nearest BS, meaning that
the cell of each BS comprises a Voronoi tessellation on the
plane. We assume that there is one resource block to assign
and that each BS serves only one user in the resource block
at any given time.
We assume that the desired and interference signals experience path loss with a path loss exponent α and quasistatic Rayleigh fading, i.e., the channel gain is constant over
a time slot and is exponentially distributed with mean one.
We assume that the system employs the truncated channel
inversion power control [2]. In this system, each user adjusts
the transmit power such that the averaged received signal
power at the associated BS is equal to a threshold ρo , and
the transmit power is limited so as not to exceed a maximum
value Pu . Note that some users do experience outage due to
insufficient power. The outage probability was given in [2]
2/α
by e−πλBS (Pu /ρo ) , which means the probability of no BS
within (Pu /ρo )1/α , the distance over which a radio signal
transmitted at the maximum transmit power Pu decays to
the threshold ρo on average, from a typical user. We should
note that the distribution of the number of users involved in a
particular scheduling (hereinafter referred to as involved users)
in a typical cell depends on the outage probability, and hence
on Pu , ρo , and λBS , which will be discussed in Section III.
The system includes a scheduler that selects a user using
the resource block. We consider the normalized SNR-based
scheduler [5], which assigns the resource block to the user
with the largest instantaneous SNR normalized by the timeaveraged SNR of the user over a period when variations
induced by fading effects are negligible. Note that if the data
rate is proportional to the SNR [7], the normalized SNRbased scheduler is equivalent to the proportional fair scheduler
[10]. A user currently using the resource block in each cell
is referred to as an scheduled user. Fig. 1 illustrates the

(a) Involved users in typical cell.

(b) Scheduled users.

Fig. 1: Red circles represent each type of users, dashed
circle represents achievable range (see Section III-B), purple
triangles represent BSs, green dots represent users, blue circles
represent outage users in typical cell.

definitions of involved users and scheduled users to clarify
the difference between them. Note that the authors in [4] considered the downlink analysis with the same scheduler, while
this paper discusses the uplink analysis with the truncated
channel inversion power control. We also note that users which
experience outage do not belong to the involved users and that
some BSs may not have scheduled users.
Although the system model for uplink cellular networks is
based on that of [2] in many aspects, there are two essential
differences in this paper: we consider the channel-aware user
scheduling in which a transmitting user is selected according
to the aforementioned manner, while a transmitting user is
randomly chosen in [2]; we take into account the cell including
no transmitting user, while [2] arranges the locations of users
such that each BS has at least one scheduled user, so that the
density of interfering users are reduced as a result.
III. SINR CCDF

AND

AVERAGE DATA R ATE

The objective in this section is obtaining the SINR CCDF
and the average data rate for the described system. The SINR
CCDF of a typical user is the probability that the typical
user achieves some target SINR θ when the typical user is
scheduled, defined as F̄SINR (θ) := P(SINR > θ).
We begin with introducing the SINR with truncated channel
inversion power control. Without loss of generality, we can
assume that a typical scheduled user is located at the origin.
The SINR of the typical scheduled user is denoted by
max

SINR =

h i ρo

i=1,2,...,n
σ2 + I

,

(1)

where hi is the fading gain of the involved user i exponentially
distributed with mean one, and n represents the number of
involved users in the associated cell. The max operator reflects
the fact that the scheduler selects the user with the largest
fading gain. ρo denotes the minimum receiver sensitivity, and
σ 2 is the noise power. As in [2], we assume that each user
adjusts the transmit power such that the average received signal
power at its serving BS is equal to ρo . Note that the truncated
channel inversion power control is performed in advance of the

scheduling, so that the transmit power of each user does not
depend on the user scheduling. I is the aggregate interference
power defined as
X
I=
gu pu du−α ,
(2)
u∈Φiu

where Φiu is a point process formed by the locations of
interfering users. gu , pu , and du represent the fading gain, the
transmit power, and the distance to the typical BS relative to
interfering user u ∈ Φiu , respectively. Note that pu , ∀u ∈ Φiu
is a random variable having the following distribution [2]

2
2 −1 −πλ ( x ) α
BS ρo

α
e
2πλBS
x

 , 0 ≤ x ≤ Pu ;


2
P
2
−πλBS ( u ) α
ρo

(3)
f (x; Pu ) =
αρoα 1−e



0,
otherwise,

which is obtained by a transformation of variables p = ρo rα
(0 ≤ p ≤ Pu ), where r is an uplink
√ distance following the
Rayleigh distribution with mean 1/2 λBS [1], [11]. Note that
[2] pointed out that the transmit powers of the scheduled users
are identically distributed but are not independent.
In normalized SNR scheduling, the fading gain of the typical
scheduled user follows the distribution of the largest order
statistic for the given fading gains of the involved users in the
corresponding cell [4]. The distribution is given by


P
max hi ≤ x = (1 − e−x )n .
(4)
i=1,2,...,n

The above cumulative distribution function (CDF) also appears
in the calculation of the selection combiner output [12]. Note
that unlike the selection combining, n is the random variable
due to the inherent randomness of Poisson cellular networks.
We now state the main result of this paper. Before deriving
the SINR CCDF, we can give the general result by exploiting
the fact that the multiuser diversity gain increases with the
number of involved users associated with the BS. Letting the
number of involved users be a random variable N , we have
F̄SINR (θ) = EN [ P( SINR > θ | n ) ]
∞
X
=
fN (n)P( SINR > θ | n ),

(5)

n=0

where P(SINR > θ | n) denotes the SINR CCDF conditioning
on N = n, and fN (n) is the PMF of the number of involved
users in a typical cell. We first derive P(SINR > θ | n)
(see Lemma 1) as well as some simpler expressions in
Section III-A. We then discuss the details of the distribution
of the number of involved users in Section III-B.
A. SINR CCDF Conditioning on Number of Involved Users
Lemma 1. P(SINR > θ | n) is given by


n  
X
kθσ 2
n
k+1
P(SINR > θ | n) =
(−1)
exp −
ρo
k
k=1
!

2
2θk γ 2, πλBS R2 2 F1 (1, 1 − α ; 2 − α2 ; −θk )

,
× exp −
(α − 2) 1 − e−πλBS R2 /(1 − fN (0))
(6)

where R := (Pu /ρ0 )1/α , θk := kθ, 2 F1 (a, b; c; z) denotes the
Gauss hypergeometric function [13], and γ(a,R b) denotes the
b
lower incomplete gamma function γ(a, b) := 0 ta−1 e−t dt.
Proof: We have

 


θ(σ 2 + I)
max hi >
P(SINR > θ | n) = EI P
I
i=1,2,...,n
ρo
n 



θ(σ 2 + I)
= EI 1 − 1 − exp −
ρo

 


n  
X
kθI
kθσ 2
n
=
EI exp −
(−1)k+1 exp −
ρo
ρo
k
k=1






n
X n
kθ
kθσ 2
LI
,
(7)
=
(−1)k+1 exp −
ρo
ρo
k
k=1

where LI (s) denotes the Laplace transform of the probability
density function of the aggregate interference power. Note that
P(SINR > θ | n) is given based on the expectation of the sum
of exponential functions of interference I because the CDF of
the fading gain of the scheduled user (4) can be written as
a sum of exponential functions from the binomial theorem.
Although this property is true for the downlink analysis [4],
the part regarding the Laplace transform is different due to the
power control and the difference in interference sources.
We can derive LI (kθ/ρo ) in the same way in [2], i.e., by
using two approximations: the scheduled users form a PPP
and their transmit powers are independent. Note that these
approximations are made for the analytical tractability [2].
Considering that the scheduled users constitute a homogeneous
(n>0)
:= (1 − fN (0))λBS , and that their
PPP with intensity λBS
transmit powers are independent random values, we obtain
!
iZ ∞
h
y
(n>0) 2/α
LI (s) = exp −2πλBS s Ep p2/α
dy ,
−1
α
(sρo ) α y + 1
(8)
where Ep [p2/α ] is obtained in [2] with the distribution of
transmit power (3) as

2/α
h
i
ρo γ 2, πλBS R2
.
(9)
Ep p2/α =
πλBS 1 − e−πλBS R2

While the accuracy of these approximations is validated from
[2] for the case without channel-aware scheduling, it is also
validated in Section IV even if the channel-aware scheduling
is employed. It should be noted that compared to the existing
analysis [2], the density of interfering users that appears when
applying the probability generating functional reduces to (1 −
fN (0))λBS due to the absence of users in some cells.
Substituting s = kθ/ρo into (8) yields


R∞
2/α
y
 
−1
2θk γ 2, πλBS R2
α +1 dy
y
α
kθ
θk



= exp −
LI

ρo
1 − e−πλBS R2 /(1 − fN (0))
!

2θk γ 2, πλBS R2 2 F1 (1, 1 − α2 ; 2 − α2 ; −θk )

.
= exp −
(α − 2) 1 − e−πλBS R2 /(1 − fN (0))
(10)

(a) Voronoi cell.

(b) Partial overlap.

(c) Achievable range.

Fig. 2: Existing range of scheduled user; red region represents
existing range, dashed circle represents achievable range,
purple triangles represent BSs.

Finally, substituting (10) into (7) yields (6).
Simpler expressions can be derived for some special
cases. For the interference-limited case, i.e., σ 2 + I ≃ I,
exp(−kθσ 2 /ρo )LI (kθ/ρo ) reduces to LI (kθ/ρo ). When α =
4, the integral
part reduces to the closed-form expression,
√
arctan( kθ)/2. In the case of Pu → ∞ (equivalently
2
R → ∞), γ(2, πλBS R2 ) reduces to 1 and 1 − e−πλBS R → 1.
The simplest form is obtained when the above three conditions
are simultaneously satisfied, which leads to
P(SINR > θ | n)
n  

X
p
p 
n
=
(−1)k+1 exp −(1 − fN (0)) θk arctan θk .
k
k=1
(11)
Note that the above expression is a closed form and only
depends on a threshold θ, and substituting n = 1 yields the
SINR CCDF without the channel-aware scheduling, which was
obtained in [2].
B. Distribution of the Number of Involved Users
The derivation of the SINR CCDF is complete if we have
the distribution of the number of involved users in a typical
cell, fN (n). In fact, the distribution depends on the existing
range of a scheduled user. To discuss the existing range, we
define the achievable region of the BS as the circle centered in
the typical BS with radius R = (Pu /ρo )1/α . A user outside the
achievable range of the serving BS is not admitted to transmit
frames due to the maximum power constraint. In this paper,
we give the distribution for the two incompatible cases, where
the achievable range includes the Voronoi cell and where the
Voronoi cell includes the achievable range, shown as Fig. 2(a)
and Fig. 2(c), respectively.
In the case where the achievable range includes the Voronoi
cell, i.e., where a scheduled user exists anywhere in the
Voronoi cell, the distribution of the number of involved users
is approximately given by
fN1 (n) =

(λUE /cλBS )n
,
cB(n + 1, c − 1)(λUE /cλBS + 1)n+c

(12)

which is the PMF of the number of users in a typical Voronoi
cell [14], where B(α, β) is the beta function and c = 3.5.
The probability that a typical Voronoi cell is included in

Fig. 3: Probabilities indicating validity of distributions when
Pu = 23 dBm, ρo = −70 dBm, and α = 4.
the corresponding achievable range, denoted by g1 (λBS ), is
equivalent to the probability that at least one BS exists within
R from a typical user, yielding
2

g1 (λBS ) = 1 − e−πλBS R .

(13)

The distribution of the number of the involved users in the
typical cell fN (n) in (5) is well approximated by fN1 (n) if
λBS is sufficiently large so that g1 (λBS ) ≃ 1.
In the case where the Voronoi cell includes the achievable
range, i.e., where users at cell edges are not scheduled, the
distribution of the number of involved users is given by
(λUE πR2 )n −λUE πR2
e
,
(14)
n!
which is the PMF of the number of users forming the PPP
with intensity λUE in the range with area πR2 , obtained from
the definition of the PPP [11]. The probability that a typical
Voronoi cell includes the corresponding achievable range,
denoted by g2 (λBS ), is equivalent to the probability that no
cell edges exist within R from the BS. We can find that the
probability is equivalent to the probability that no other BS
exists within the circle centered at the typical BS with radius
2R, yielding
fN2 (n) =

2

g2 (λBS ) = e−4πλBS R .

(15)

fN (n) in (5) is well approximated by fN2 (n) if λBS is
sufficiently small so that g2 (λBS ) ≃ 1.
Two probabilities indicating the validity of the distributions
are shown in Fig. 3. We show the range of the BS density
in which either probability exceeds 0.9, which means more
than 90% of the Voronoi cells includes or is included by
the achievable range, and therefore that either fN1 (n) or
fN2 (n) would approach the true distribution fN (n). In the
simulation part, we show that the Monte Carlo simulation
result is well approximated by the analytical result for the
BS density at which the corresponding probability shown in
Fig. 3 is approximately equal to 0.9. Obtaining the distribution

F̄SINR (θ) =

∞
X

fNi (n)

n=0

n  
X
n
k=1

k

k+1

(−1)

!

2θk γ 2, πλBS R2 2 F1 (1, 1 − α2 ; 2 − α2 ; −θk )
kθσ 2

−
exp −
, i ∈ {1, 2} (16)
ρo
(α − 2) 1 − e−πλBS R2 /(1 − fNi (0))

for the case where the achievable range and the Voronoi cell
partially overlap, shown as Fig. 2(b), will be our future work.
C. Complete SINR CCDF and Average Data Rate
Substituting (7) and (12) or (14) into (5), we obtain (16)
and the following proposition.
Proposition 1. The SINR CCDF F̄SINR (θ) of the normalized
SNR-based scheduling in uplink cellular networks is given by
(16), which is appropriate if gi (λBS ) ≃ 1 (i = 1, 2).
Using the SINR CCDF, we can obtain the average data rate
τs (λBS , λUE ) := E[ln(1 + SINR)] and, therefore, the scheduling gain [15] G(λBS , λUE ) := τs (λBS , λUE )/τr (λBS ), where
τr (λBS ) is the average data rate of round-robin scheduling
given as
τr (λBS ) = (1 − fN (0))

Z

0

∞

xσ2

e− ρo
LI
x+1



x
ρo



dx,

(17)

where the rate is assumed to be zero for cells where there are
no scheduled users. Note that (17) is different from that of [2]
in that we consider BSs having no users to serve.
Corollary 1. The average data rate of the normalized SNRbased scheduling is given by (18).
Proof: We have
Z ∞
P(ln(1 + SINR) > t) dt
E[ln(1 + SINR)] =
0
Z ∞
Z ∞
=
P(SINR > et − 1) dt =
F̄SINR (et − 1) dt
0
0
" n  
Z ∞
X n
EN
=
(−1)k+1
k
0
 
 
k=1 t
k(et − 1)
k(e − 1)σ 2
LI
dt
× exp −
ρo
ρo
" n  
X n
= EN
(−1)k+1
k
k=1
 
 

Z ∞
k(et − 1)
k(et − 1)σ 2
LI
dt
×
exp −
ρo
ρo
 0

2
 
Z ∞ − kxσ
n  
X
n
e ρo
kx
k+1

= EN
(−1)
LI
dx. (18)
k
x+1
ρo
0
k=1

Letting σ 2 = 0, Pu → ∞, α = 4 yields the simplest form:
E[ln(1 + SINR)] =
" n  
Z ∞ −(1−fN (0))√kx arctan(√kx) #
X n
i
dx
e
k+1
.
EN
(−1)
x+1
k
0
k=1
(19)

✶

✥✐✦✉✧★t✩✪♥
❆✫❛✬✯✰✱✲ ✇✳✴✺ ❢✼✾
❀❁❂❃❄❅❇❊ ●❍❏❑ ▲▼❖

✮✛ ✆✝✽
✭
✚
✙✘
✖ ✕ ✗ ✄☎✻
✔
❋
❉
✓ ✁✂✹
❈
❘
◆■
❙ ✿✷
✵
✞✟✠

✡☛☞

✌

✍✎

✏✑

✸✒

❚❤r❡s✜♦❧✢✣ ✤
✶

(a) λBS = 0.2 BSs/km2 .
✥✐✦✉✧★t✩✪♥
❆✫❛✬✯✰✱✲ ✇✳✴✺ ❢✼✾
❀❁❂❃❄❅❇❊ ●❍❏❑ ▲▼❖

✮✛ ✆✝✽
✭
✚
✘✙
✖ ✕ ✗ ✄☎✻
✔
❋
❉
✓ ✁✂✹
❈
❘
◆■
❙ ✿✷
✵
✞✟✠

✡☛☞

✌

✍✎

✏✑

✸✒

❚❤r❡s✜♦❧✢✣ ✤
✶

(b) λBS = 2 BSs/km2 .
✥✐✦✉✧★t✩✪♥
❆✫❛✬✯✰✱✲ ✇✳✴✺ ❢✼✾
❀❁❂❃❄❅❇❊ ●❍❏❑ ▲▼❖

✮✛ ✆✝✽
✭
✚
✘✙
✖ ✕ ✗ ✄☎✻
✔
❋
❉
✓ ✁✂✹
❈
❘
■◆
❙ ✿✷
✵
✞✟✠

✡☛☞

✌

✍✎

❚❤r❡s✜♦❧✢✣ ✤

(c) λBS = 20 BSs/km2 .

Fig. 4: SINR CCDF F̄SINR (θ).

✏✑

✸✒

✞
✮

❆♥✜✢✣s✤✥ ✇✦✧★ ❢◆✩ ✪✫✬✯ ✰ ✱✲ ✳✴✸✺❦♠✼ ✾
❁❃❄❅❈❉❋❍ ■❏❑▲ ▼❖P ◗❘❚❱ ❲ ❳❨❩ ❬❭❪❫❴❵❜ ❥

❊

❯ ✆✝✽
✔❀
✓
❇
✕✭

● ✄☎✻
✒
✑✐
❛✏

❣ ✁✂✹
✎✍
❧
✉
❞❡

✿✷
❤❝
❙
✶
✵

✟

✠

✡

☛

☞✌

✖✗✘ ❂✙✚✛

Fig. 5: Scheduling gain G(λBS , λUE ).

IV. VALIDATION T HROUGH S IMULATIONS
To validate the analytical result, we investigate the SINR
CCDF through simulations. Unless otherwise specified, we set
the user density λUE = 8 BSs/km2 , the path loss exponent α =
4, the noise power σ 2 = −90 dBm, the maximum transmit
power Pu = 23 dBm, and the minimum receiver sensitivity
of BSs ρo = −70 dBm. Each simulation is repeated 10,000
times, and the corresponding result shows the average value.
Figs. 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c) show the SINR CCDFs for the
cases of λBS = 0.2, 2, 20 BSs/km2 , respectively. In all the
cases, we also show two analytical results (16) for i = 1, 2. We
can see that the simulation results coincide with the analytical
result averaged over fN2 (n) for the case of λBS = 0.2 BSs/km2
and with the result averaged over fN1 (n) for the case of
λBS = 20 BSs/km2 . We note that g1 (20 BSs/km2 ) = 0.940
and g2 (0.2 BSs/km2 ) = 0.894, so that the analytical result
with fN1 (n) and that with fN2 (n) are valid when λBS =
20 BSs/km2 and λBS = 0.2 BSs/km2 , respectively. On the
other hand, for the case of λBS = 2 BSs/km2 , neither of the
two analytical results coincides with the simulation result. Obtaining g1 (2 BSs/km2 ) = 0.245 and g2 (2 BSs/km2 ) = 0.325
implies the analytical result using either fN1 (n) or fN2 (n) is
not valid for this case.
Note that the reason why the supremum is less than one is
lim P(SINR > θ) = lim

θ→−∞

=

θ→−∞

∞
X

n=1

∞
X

n=1

fNi (n)P(SINR > θ | n)

fNi (n) = 1 − fNi (0).

The supremum approaches to one if we set the densities λBS
and/or λUE such that fN (0) ≃ 0 according to (12) or (14).
In addition, Fig. 5 shows the scheduling gains for both cases
λBS = 0.2, 20 BSs/km2 . We can see that the scheduling gains
increase along with the ratio λUE /λBS for both cases. Note
that the scheduling gain for λBS = 0.2 BSs/km2 remains small
in the given range λUE /λBS ≤ 10 because the number of
achievable users is still small due to relatively small λUE .

V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we derived the SINR CCDF and the scheduling gain of the normalized SNR-based scheduling in uplink
cellular networks. The SINR CCDF and the average data rate
were obtained in the form of the expected value in terms of
the number of users involved in a particular scheduling, which
affects the multi-user diversity. Noticing that the maximum
transmit power constraint restricts the existing range of a
scheduled user unlike the downlink analysis, we provided the
distributions of the number of users for two incompatible
cases: where all the users in the corresponding cell are
scheduled and where users at cell edges are not scheduled. We
confirmed the accuracy of the analysis through Monte Carlo
simulations for both cases, and we observed that the scheduling gain increased as the involved users per cell increased
owing to the multi-user diversity, as was also observed in the
downlink analysis [4].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Number JP17J04854 and KDDI Foundation.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to
coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59,
no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, Nov. 2011.
[2] H. ElSawy and E. Hossain, “On stochastic geometry modeling of cellular
uplink transmission with truncated channel inversion power control,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 4454–4469, Aug.
2014.
[3] F. Baccelli and B. Błaszczyszyn, Stochastic geometry and wireless
networks: Volume II Applications. Now Publishers, 2009.
[4] T. Ohto, K. Yamamoto, S.-L. Kim, T. Nishio, and M. Morikura,
“Stochastic geometry analysis of normalized SNR-based scheduling in
downlink cellular networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 6, no. 4,
pp. 438–441, Aug. 2017.
[5] L. Yang and M.-S. Alouini, “Performance analysis of multiuser selection
diversity,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1848–1861, Nov.
2006.
[6] S. Borst, “User-level performance of channel-aware scheduling algorithms in wireless data networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 13,
no. 3, pp. 636–647, Jun. 2005.
[7] J.-G. Choi and S. Bahk, “Cell-throughput analysis of the proportional
fair scheduler in the single-cell environment,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 766–778, Apr. 2007.
[8] B. Błaszczyszyn and M. K. Karray, “Fading effect on the dynamic
performance evaluation of OFDMA cellular networks,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Commun. Netw. (ComNet), Hammamet, Tunisia, Nov. 2009, pp.
1–8.
[9] J. Garcı́a-Morales, G. Femenias, and F. Riera-Palou, “Channel-aware
scheduling in FFR-aided OFDMA-based heterogeneous cellular networks,” in Proc. IEEE CIT/IUCC/DASC/PICOM, Liverpool, U.K., Oct.
2015, pp. 44–51.
[10] P. Viswanath, D. N. C. Tse, and R. Laroia, “Opportunistic beamforming
using dumb antennas,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 48, no. 6, pp.
1277–1294, Jun. 2002.
[11] M. Haenggi, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks. Cambridge
Univ. Pr., 2012.
[12] A. Goldsmith, Wireless Communications. Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2005.
[13] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions:
with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, 9th ed.. Dover, 1970.
[14] S. M. Yu and S.-L. Kim, “Downlink capacity and base station density
in cellular networks,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Modeling Optim. Mobile, Ad
Hoc, Wireless Netw. (WiOpt), Tsukuba, Japan, May 2013, pp. 119–124.
[15] F. Berggren and R. Jantti, “Asymptotically fair transmission scheduling
over fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
326–336, Jan. 2004.

