1

The Stochastic Geometry Analyses of Cellular
Networks with α-Stable Self-Similarity

arXiv:1709.05733v1 [] 18 Sep 2017

Rongpeng Li, Zhifeng Zhao, Yi Zhong, Chen Qi, and Honggang Zhang

Abstract—To understand the spatial deployment of base stations (BSs) is the first step to facilitate the performance analyses
of cellular networks, as well as the design of efficient networking
protocols. Poisson point process (PPP) has been widely adopted
to characterize the deployment of BSs and established the
reputation to give tractable results in the stochastic geometry
analyses. However, given the total randomness assumption in
PPP, its accuracy has been recently questioned. On the other
hand, the actual deployment of BSs during the past long evolution
is highly correlated with heavy-tailed human activities. The αstable distribution, one kind of heavy-tailed distributions, has
demonstrated superior accuracy to statistically model the spatial
density of BSs. In this paper, we start with the new findings
on α-stable distributed BSs deployment and investigate the
intrinsic feature (i.e., the spatial self-similarity) embedded in
the BSs. Based on these findings, we perform the coverage
probability analyses and provide the relevant theoretical results.
In particular, we show that for some special cases, our work could
reduce to the fundamental work by J. G. Andrews in [1]. We also
examine the network performance under extensive simulation
settings and validate that the simulations results are consistent
with our theoretical derivations.
Index Terms—Stochastic geometry, coverage probability, cellular networks, Poisson point process (PPP), α-stable distributions,
self-similarity

I. I NTRODUCTION
As a key enabler in the information and communications
technology (ICT) industry, cellular networks play a decisive
role in delivering communication messages and entertainment
content [2]. In order to meet the increasing traffic demand,
cellular network operators gradually deploy different types of
necessary infrastructure including lots of base stations (BSs).
To understand the spatial deployment of BSs is the first step
to facilitate the performance analyses of cellular networks,
as well as the design of efficient networking protocols. In
the earliest stages, a two-dimensional hexagonal grid model
was used, implying that BSs were deployed regularly, which
deviates from the real scenarios. In the recent stages, Poisson
point process (PPP) [1], [3]–[5] was assumed, which could
roughly model the randomness in the realistic deployment
of BSs in cellular networks, meanwhile leading to tractable
results. However, given the total randomness assumption in
PPP, its practical accuracy has been recently questioned [6],
[7]. Consequently, in order to reduce the modeling gap between the PPP model and the realistic spatial deployment of
R. Li, Z. Zhao, C. Qi and H. Zhang are with Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China (email:{lirongpeng, zhaozf, qichen7c, honggangzhang}@zju.edu.cn).
Y. Zhong is with Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan
430073, China (email: yzhong@hust.edu.cn).

BSs, other kinds of point processes have been exploited to
obtain more precise analytical results [8]. In particular, Poisson
cluster processes [9], [10] and Gauss-Poisson process [11] are
exploited to model the attractive behavior between BSs, while
Matérn hard core point process (MHCP) [12], Ginibre point
process (GPP) [8], [13], [14], and determinantal point process
[15] are studied to characterize the repulsive feature between
BSs [7], [16]–[18].
On the other hand, the actual deployment of BSs during the
past long evolution is highly correlated with human activities
[19]. Humans tend to live together with societal relationship,
and their social behaviors lead to mobile traffic hotspots, thus
causing BSs to be more densely deployed in certain areas.
Interestingly, according to an observation named “preferential
attachment” [20], Barabási et al. argued that many large
networks should grow to be heavy-tailed. As its names implies,
a heavy-tailed distribution has non-exponential bounded tail.
Mathematically, for a heavy-tailed random variable X, the
probability Pr(X > x) satisfies lim eκx Pr(X > x) = ∞,
x→∞
for all κ > 0. Many well-known statistical distributions including power-law distribution (also named as generalized Pareto
distribution), Weibull distribution, log-normal distribution, and
α-stable distribution [6], [21], [22] belong to the heavy-tailed
family. Therefore, heavy-tailed distributions appear to be more
suitable to capture the societal feature and clustering property
for the practical BSs.
Based on the practical BS deployment information, we have
validated that the α-stable distributions demonstrate superior
accuracy to statistically model the spatial density of BSs and
also outperform other aforementioned heavy-tailed distributions [7], [19], [23]–[25]. But the spatial density alone cannot
reach some intuitive conclusions. Fortunately, the α-stable
distributions, which have been widely adopted to characterize
the distribution of aggregated traffic at the BS level in cellular
networks and at the switch level in wired broadband networks,
often imply the self-similarity of traffic [22], [26]. As a popular
property in complex networks [27], the self-similarity of traffic
in the temporal domain means that the distribution of traffic
remains invariant under different temporal scales. Similar to
the case of traffic, as the practically deployed BSs are αstable distributed, it is natural to ask whether the spatial selfsimilarity holds in cellular networks. Furthermore, compared
to other point process models, the inhomogeneous PPP with αstable distributed density becomes applicable with significant
merit. The system model based on multiple tiers of PPPs
may lead to some tractable results, but it lacks the reasonable
explanation to divide the gradually deployed and increasingly

2

denser heterogeneous cells [28] into different tiers. On the
contrary, α-stable distributions contribute to understanding the
spatial self-similarity and bridging the gap between cellular
networks and other social behavior-based complex networks.
A. Related Works
Stochastic geometry tools have successfully established the
reputation to model and analyze wireless networks, as they
are able to capture the topological randomness in the network
geometry and lead to tractable analytical results [1], [3]–
[5], [9]–[18]. There is no doubt that the PPP belongs to
the most popular point process used in the literature because of its tractability and has led to a lot of meaningful
research results for cellular networks with different kinds of
cutting-edge techniques. The baseline operations in singletier and/or multiple-tier downlink cases are examined in [1],
[29]–[32] (and references therein) while their counterparts
in uplink cases are considered in references like [33]–[38].
User association and load balancing are examined in [39]–
[42]. Cognitive, cooperative and intelligent cellular networks
are taken into account in [18], [43]–[47]. Energy efficiency,
energy harvesting, and BS sleeping for green cellular networks
are investigated in [48]–[52]. Besides, multiple-input multipleoutput (MIMO) antenna and in-band full-duplex (FD) systems
are studied in [53]–[62]. Also, the PPP-related works have
been extended to mobile ad hoc networks [63]. Along with
the continuous progress in techniques for physical-layer and
network management in wireless networks, the PPP model
offers a useful theoretical platform for the initial performance
calibration, so as to save economic expenditure and avoid timeconsuming large-scale setup for realistic tests. For example,
FD communication, which benefits from the advance in signal
processing and self-interference cancellation techniques, is
optimistically promoted to double the spectral efficiency for
wireless networks [64]. However, given the more complicated
interference in FD networks, it is essential to conduct a careful
re-examination. Consistent with the system-level simulation
results in [64], [65] has taken advantage of the PPP model
and demonstrated the potential negative effect that FD communications might impose on the uplink transmission.
Although the PPP model provides many useful performance
trends, the concern about total independence between nodes
(e.g., BSs) has never stopped. Hence, in order to reduce the
modeling gap between the PPP model and the practical BS
deployment, point processes with either attractive or repulsive
spatial correlations have been explored as well.
• For attractive point processes, [66] has shown that Poisson cluster process is more suitable to model the spatial
distribution of BSs in urban areas. The general clustering
nature of deployed BSs in highly populated urban areas
clearly reflects the aggregation property of ever-growing
traffic demands in cellular networks [7]. [10] has further
verified the aggregated interference when the transmitting
nodes are modeled by Poisson cluster process and compared the corresponding results with that in the classical
PPP model.
• On the contrary, [29] and [67] have argued that BSs,
in particular macro BSs, in cellular networks tend to be

deployed systematically, such that any two BSs are not
too close. Thus, a spatial model based on a point process
with the repulsive nature seems to be more desirable
[29], [67]. Furthermore, the MHCP model [12] possesses
limited tractability and leaves many open challenges to
be addressed. The GPP model, one typical example of
determinantal point processes on the complex plane,
has been widely adopted and shows a promising tradeoff between accuracy and tractability [8], [13], [14]. In
particular, Deng et al. [8] have shown that the GPP leads
to the same trend curve of coverage probability1 as the
PPP.
Hence, we can come to the following conclusion that the
spatial BS density of large-scale cellular networks simultaneously possesses two conflicting features, that is, the density is
very large in some clustering regions while being significantly
smaller in others. The conclusion is also consistent with our
common sense. Furthermore, the heavy-tailed distributions,
which generate small values with the high probability but
still allow comparatively larger values, fit well to model the
spatial BS density. Our previous works [6], [7], [23]–[25] have
shown that the α-stable distribution, one kind of heavy-tailed
distributions, could be used to perfectly model the spatial BS
density in China and Italy, especially in urban areas.
In fact, α-stable distributions are not totally new to researchers in the communications field. On one hand, a distribution is called stable if a linear combination of two
independent identically distributed random variables has the
same distribution [21]. In particular, the Gaussian distribution,
which is one specific kind of α-stable distributions with α = 2,
has been widely adopted to model the distribution of channel
noise. On the other hand, α-stable distributions have been
observed for the distribution of wired broadband network
traffic [68] since two decades ago, and have recently been
found in modeling the cellular network traffic [22], [26]. αstable distributions also owe their importance in both theory
and practice to the generalization of the central limit theorem
[21] and the accompanying self-similarity [27], [69]–[71] of
the stable family. Furthermore, the well-known self-similarity
lays the very foundation for the traffic predictability, thus
making it possible to perform some actions beforehand. For
example, [70] has highlighted the practicability to perform
resource reservation schemes for the broadband network traffic
with self-similarity. Hence, as the spatial BS density could be
better modeled by the α-stable distributions, it is essential to
theoretically examine the spatial self-similarity and understand
its impact on coverage probability. In other words, we will take
the very first step to investigate the spatial self-similarity in the
BS deployment and perform stochastic geometry analyses of
cellular networks when the BS density is α-stable distributed.
B. Contributions
Different from the previous works, this paper aims at
explaining the implications to statistically model the spatial
1 The coverage probability indicates the probability that the signal-tointerference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) for a mobile user achieves a target
threshold.

3

BS density by α-stable distributions and to build the theory
to derive the coverage probability mathematically. Belonging
to one of the precursor works, we take advantage of a large
amount of practical BS deployment records and provide the
following key insights:
• Firstly, this paper visits and confirms the self-similarity in
the spatial deployment of BSs. To our best knowledge, it
is the first work in the literature to validate the spatial selfsimilarity among BSs in cellular networks. Therefore, this
paper lays the foundation to apply the advance in complex
network theory to examine cellular networks.
• Secondly, this paper provides the approach to characterize the coverage probability and derive the computable
representation when the spatial BS deployment satisfies
the self-similarity and the density of the practical BSs
obeys α-stable distributions.
• Thirdly, this paper theoretically proves that for some special cases, our result could be reduced to the fundamental
work by J. G. Andrews in [1]. Besides, this paper studies
the coverage probability performance under extensive
simulation settings and validates that the simulations
results are consistent with our theoretical derivations. The
paper also evaluates the impact of self-similarity on the
coverage probability performance.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we present some necessary mathematical background,
introduce the realistic dataset of spatial BS deployment and
validate the spatial self-similarity. In Section III, we provide
the analyses of coverage probability. Section IV evaluates the
computable representation obtained by the theoretical analysis
and compares it with the classical PPP model. Finally, we
conclude this paper in Section V.

Our previous works [6], [23] have validated that β = 1
holds for the fitting results of actual spatial BS density in
both Hangzhou, China and Rome, Italy. For simplicity of
representation, we use the operator b ∼ c to denote that b and
c have the same distribution and further have λ ∼ S(α, σ, µ)
to indicate that the spatial BS density λ follows the α-stable
distributions with β = 1.
2) The self-similarity: The self-similarity has been mostly
applied to model time series [69]. Given zero-mean, stationary
time series Y = (Yt , t = 1, 2, 3, · · · ), Y is called as self(m)
similar process if its m-aggregated series Y (m) = (Yt , t =
tm
P
(m)
Yk satisfy
1, 2, 3, · · · ) with each element Yt
=
k=(t−1)m+1

(m)
Yt

H

∼ m Yt for all m > 0, where H ∈ (0, 1) is the Hurst
parameter indicating the decay rate of statistical dependence
of two points with increasing time interval. In other words,
the self-similarity implies that the time series is exactly or
approximately similar to a part of itself.
The concept of self-similarity is also applicable to spatial
scenarios. For example, H. ElSawy et al. [16] have shown
the aggregated interference from distributed nodes to a receiver obey α-stable distributions, while X. Ge et al. [72]
have verified that the statistical characteristics of the wireless
cellular coverage boundary possess the self-similarity or fractal
property.
However, no exact self-similar phenomenon exists in the
real world. Most of the self-similar phenomena observed in the
real world only have the statistical characteristic. Moreover,
the self-similarity of random processes is usually evaluated
by the Hurst parameter, which can be estimated using two
typical methods and should be in the interval (0, 1).
• The rescaled adjusted range statistic (R/S) method:
For the random process
Yt , the partial sum is dePn
noted
by
Z(n)
=
Y
, and then the sample varit
II. M ATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND AND S TATISTICAL
t=1
Pn
Z(n) 2
t=1 (Yt − n )
M ODELING
.
ance could be denoted by S 2 (n) =
n
R(n)
A. Mathematical Background
The R/S statistic could be formulated as S(n) =
i
i
max (0,Z(i)− n
Z(n))− min (0,Z(i)− n
Z(n))
Beforehand, Table I summarizes the most used notations in
0≤i≤n
0≤i≤n
. The log-log
S(n)
this paper.
relationship between the R/S statistic and n should also
1) α-Stable distributions: A random variable x is said to
be linear with a slope of H.
obey the α-stable distribution f (x) if there are parameters
• The variance-time (V-T) method: This involves the aggre0 < α ≤ 2, σ ≥ 0, −1 ≤ β ≤ 1, and µ ∈ R such that its
(m)
gated series Yt
and the blocking size m. The log-log
characteristic function is of the following form:
(m)
plot of the variance of Yt
with respect to m should
Φ(ω) = E (exp(jωx)) =
follow a straight line with the slope ι if the data are

 πα 
n
o

statistical self-similar. In this case, H = 1 − 2ι .
α
α

+ jµω , α 6= 1;
 exp −σ |ω| 1 − jβsgn(ω) tan 2
Moreover, a larger H ∈ (0.5, 1) corresponds to stronger self



2β

similarity.
 exp −σ|ω| 1 + j sgn(ω) ln |ω| + jµω , α = 1.
π
(1)
The function E(·) represents the expectation operation with B. Statistical Modeling
respect to a random variable. α is called the characteristic
As validated in [6], [23], [25], when we divide the region
exponent and indicates the index of stability, while β is iden- into several parts and calculate the corresponding probability
tified as the skewness parameter. α and β together determine density function (PDF) of the spatial BS density in each part,
the shape of the distribution. Moreover, σ and µ are called we observe that the PDF follows the α-stable distributions.
scale and location shift parameters, respectively. In particular, For example, Fig. 1(a) depicts that a region is divided into
if α = 2, the α-stable distribution reduce to the Gaussian four parts. The spatial BS density in each part λ1 , λ2 , λ3 and
λ4 are mutually dependent and obey the α-stable distributions
distribution.

4

TABLE I
A

Λ(s, b, c)
Ξ(s, b, c)

The coverage probability
α-stable distributions with stability α, skewness β = 1, scale σ and shift µ
Pathloss exponent
The Rayleigh fading gain for the signal link
The fading exponent for the interfering links
Rayleigh fading factor
Noise factor
The Hurst parameter
The self-similarity zooming parameter
The predefined radius of inner circle in Fig. 1
The spatial density of BSs
The number of BSs within an r-radius R
circle
The standard Gamma function Γ(d) = 0∞ tRd−1 e−t dt
The incomplete Gamma function Γ(d, x) = x∞ td−1 e−t dt

def
Θ(s, b, c) = (sg)2/δ Γ(− 2δ + 1, sgb−δ ) − Γ(− δ2 + 1, sgc−δ )




def
Λ(s, b, c) = c2 1− exp −sgc−δ − b2 1 − exp −sgb−δ
def
Ξ(s, b, c) = πEg Λ(s, b, c) − Θ(s, b, c)

–
α = 0.6, σ = 0.25 and µ = 0.25
δ=4
–
Assumed to follow Rayleigh fading.
ζ=1
N0 = 1 (i.e., SNR = 0 dB)
H = 0.9
a=2
R = 40
–
–
–
–

(a)

(b)

l1

–

(c)

N 3 N 2 N1
3R

l3

lS l1

R

l4

–

2R

l2

–

aR

Θ(s, b, c)

Default Value in Sec. IV

R

pc
S(α, σ, µ)
δ
h
g
ζ
N0
H
a
R
λ
N (r)
Γ(d)
Γ(d, x)

Meaning

r

Symbol

LIST OF THE MAIN SYMBOLS AND FUNCTIONS IN THE PAPER .

Fig. 1. An illustration of the self-similarity for the spatial BS deployment.

with the same values α, σ and µ. The correlation between
BS density in different parts makes it challenging to directly
derive the coverage probability. Instead, it is essential to take
the statistical modeling of the correlation into consideration. In
that regards, self-similarity emerges as a promising technique
to characterize the correlation of the spatial density, as it has
manifested its importance and effectiveness by modeling the
correlation in different scales.
In order to show the self-similarity in spatial BS deployment, we take advantage of the collected BS deployment
records in Hangzhou, China and Rome, Italy2 . Fig. 2(a) and
2(d) illustrate the corresponding deployment situation in both
cities. Similar to the common validation process in temporal
dimension [69], we verify the accuracy of self-similarity in
spatial BS deployment as follows. As depicted in Fig. 1(b),
we randomly select a point as the starting “origin point” and
thus get some concentric circles with increasingly larger radii
(e.g., from R to 2R, 3R, · · · ). Then, we could get a series,
each value corresponding to the number of BSs in one circle.
Afterwards, we could apply the aforementioned R/S method
and V-T method in Section II-A2. Fig. 2(b)(c) and Fig. 2(e)(f)
2 Interested readers could also refer to [25] to check our preliminary results
on the spatial self-similarity in a more systematic manner.

provide the corresponding log-log plots for both cities. From
these figures, it can be observed that all the estimated Hurst
parameters are very close to 1. Therefore, we could boldly
argue that the spatially deployed BSs possess the spatial selfsimilarity. Then, according to the definition of self-similarity,
the number of BSs N (aR) within a circle of radius aR should
satisfy that N (aR) ∼ aH N (R), ∀R, a > 0, 0 ≤ H < 1,
where a indicates the self-similarity zooming parameter and
H denotes the Hurst parameter.
Remark 1. For cellular networks, the number of BSs exhibit
the spatial self-similarity.
III. T HE C OVERAGE P ROBABILITY A NALYSES
In this part, we derive the coverage probability in a downlink cellular network. Specifically, the coverage probability
is defined as the probability that the SINR for a mobile
user achieves a target threshold. Mathematically, the coverage
probability is formulated as


hr−δ
P(SINR > T ) = P
>T ,
(2)
N0 + Ir
where δ denotes the pathloss exponent factor of the standard
propagation channel. N0 is the additive white Gaussian noise

5

(a) BS Deployment in
Hangzhou, China

2.5
2

200

1.5

150

0.5

50

0

0

50

150

100

150

1.94

1.92

1.9

-0.5

0

log(Var) vs. log(m)
fitting line

1.96

1

100

(c) V-T Method
H=0.97553

1.98

log(R/S) vs. log(n)
fitting line

log(Var)

250

log(R/S)

km

300

(b) R/S Method
H=0.96645

1.88
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

0.5

1

km

log(n)

log(m)

(d) BS Deployment in
Rome, Italy

(e) R/S Method
H=0.84158

(f)V-T Method
H=0.86876

2

1.2

log(R/S) vs. log(n)
fitting line

1.5

1.5

log(Var) vs. log(m)
fitting line

1.1

1

log(Var)

km

log(R/S)

100

0.5

1

0.9

50

0

0.8

-0.5

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.7
0

0.5

km

1

1.5

2

0

0.5

log(n)

1

1.5

log(m)

Fig. 2. The self-similarity modeling results for the spatial BS deployment in Hangzhou and Rome.

(AWGN) factor and T is the target threshold. Besides, assuming that the fading follows the Rayleigh fading, we have
h ∼ exp(ζ). Without loss of generality, we assume the mobile
user is located at the “origin point”. When the distance from a
mobile user to its serving BS b0 is r, Ir denotes the cumulative
interference from all other BSs i (except BS b0 ) to the mobile
user.

A. Impact of α-Stable Distributions and Self-similarity
Before delving into the coverage probability, we first talk
about how the α-stable distributions and the self-similarity will
mathematically shape the BS deployment?
As depicted in Fig. 1(c), we assume that there exists a
specific R (i.e., R > r) to divide the whole region of interest
into two parts. Besides, the spatial BS density λ for the region
within the radius R satisfies λ ∼ S(α, σ, µ). Moreover, we
can have the following lemma to characterize the spatial BS
density λS for the region outside the radius R.
Lemma 1. The spatial BS density λ has a Laplace transform



σα α


 exp − cos πα s − µs , α 6= 1;
2


Ψ(s) = E (exp(−sλ)) =

2σ

 exp
s ln s − µs , α = 1.
π
(3)

while the spatial BS density λS will follow α-stable distributions (i.e., λS ∼ λaH−2 ) and the corresponding Laplace
transform could be formulated as
ΨS (s)
= E (exp(−sλS ))



σ α aα(H−2) α

H−2

exp
−
s
−
sa
µ
, α 6= 1;



cos πα

2


=
2σaH−2
H−2

exp
s
[ln
s
+
(H
−
2)
ln
a]
−
sa
µ
,


π



α = 1.
(4)
Proof. Following the definition of self-similarity, the number
of BSs in the interfering region is coupled with the selfsimilarity zooming parameter a and could be formulated as
N (aR) = λS πa2 R2 ∼ aH N (R) = λπaH R2 . Therefore,
λS ∼ λaH−2 .

(5)

When x ∼ S(α, σ, 0), we get the corresponding Laplace
transform (Proposition 1.2.12, [21]) as



σα α


 exp − cos πα s , α 6= 1;
2 

Ψ(s) = E (exp(−sx)) =

2

 exp σ s ln s , α = 1.
π
(6)

6





α
(πσ)α 2α−1

 exp −µπr2 − (πσ) r2α
2µπr
+
2α
, α 6= 1;
r
cos πα
cos πα
f (r) =
2
2

 exp −µπr2 + 2σr2 ln(πr2 ) 2µπr + 4σr ln(πr2 ) + 4σr , α = 1.
(



 σ α aα(H−2) h



Λ(s, R, aR)
πE
Λ(s,
r,
R)
−
Θ(s,
r,
R)
−
exp
−
λπE
g
g


cos πα

2


)




iα


H−2


− Θ(s, R, aR)
−a
µπEg Λ(s, R, aR) − Θ(s, R, aR) , α 6= 1;


(
LIr (s) =

o

i
 n
h




exp 2σaH−2 ln πEg Λ(s, R, aR) − Θ(s, R, aR) + (H − 2) ln a − πaH−2 µ





)










· Eg Λ(s, R, aR) − Θ(s, R, aR) − λπEg Λ(s, r, R) − Θ(s, r, R) , α = 1.


ΨS (s)

By merging Eq. (6) and Eq. (7), we obtain the result.

(12)

0, ∀λ < 0. The equation (b) is originated from the Laplace
transform for a variable k ∼ S(α, σ, 0) in Eq. (6).
So, the PDF of r

Then, the Laplace transform of λS could be derived as

= E exp(−saH−2 (x + µ))

= Ψ(saH−2 ) · exp −saH−2 µ .

(8)

(7)
f (r) =


B. The PDF of the Distance from Serving BS to UE
In this paper, we adopt the minimum distance as the user
association metric. Therefore, when the distance from a mobile
user to its serving BS b0 is r, all distances from the interference
BSs to the target mobile user must be larger than r. The
derivation methodology of the PDF of r could basically
follow the well-established lines in [1]. However, as the BS
density varies in space and obeys the α-stable distributions,
the derivations should be re-considered. Therefore, we give
the following the theorem.
Theorem 1. The PDF of the distance from the closest BS r
to the target mobile user in a cellular network with α-stable
distributed BS density is expressed in Eq. (8).
Proof. Firstly, we take advantage of the simple fact that the
null probability of a 2-D Poisson process in an area A with
the given density λ is exp(−λA). Since λ ∼ S(α, σ, µ), we
have
P [r > rT ]
= P(No BS closer than rT )
Z ∞
2
e−λπ(rT ) f (λ)dλ
=
Z0 ∞
Z ∞
2
(a)
−λπ(rT )2
=
e
f (λ)dλ =
e−(k+µ)π(rT ) f (k)dk (9)
−∞
−∞ 

α
(πσ)

2α
 exp −µπ(rT )2 −
, α 6= 1;
(rT )
(b)
cos πα
=
2


 exp −µπ(r )2 + 2σ(r )2 ln(π(r )2 ) , α = 1,
T
T
T

where the equation (a) is based on the fact that the spatial
density in physical worlds should be non-negative, or f (λ) =

dF (r)
d (1 − P [r > rT ])
=
dr
drT

(10)

Then, merging Eq. (9) with Eq. (10) leads to the result. 
Corollary 1. For homogeneous PPP with static density λ, the
PDF of r could reduce to f (r) = exp(−λπr2 )2πλr. Similarly,
for varying distribution λ, the conditional probability P(r|λ) =
exp(−λπr2 )2πλr.
This corollary could be achieved by directly applying Theorem 1 with a static density λ = µ and thus σ = 0. It is also
consistent with the conclusions in [1].
C. Main Result
We now state our main result for the coverage probability
analysis. Generally, the coverage probability pc is mainly
determined by the SINR threshold T , the spatial BS density
distribution S(α, σ, µ), and the pathloss exponent δ. In some
sense, pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ) is tightly coupled with the cumulative interference Ir for the α-stable distributed and selfsimilar BS deployment. The following lemma characterizes
the relationship between pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ) and Ir .
Lemma 2. The coverage probability pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ) could
be obtained from the following formula, that is,
pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ)
ZZ
δ
e−ζT r N0 LIr (ζT rδ )P(r|λ)f (λ)drdλ,
=

(11)

r>0,λ>0

where LIr (s) is the Laplace transformation of random variable
Ir evaluated at s conditioned on the distance to the closest BS
from the origin. The Rayleigh fading coefficient is assumed
to satisfy h ∼ exp(ζ).
We leave the proof of Lemma 2 in Appendix A, as the
proof could be simply obtained by calculating the condition
probability on the distance r from the serving BS to the mobile
user.

7




exp −λS
L∆S (s) =
(1 − f (x))dx f (λS )dλS
λS =0
∆S
Z
α


Z

σ α aα(H−2)
H−2


(1 − f (x))dx
(1 − f (x))dx , α 6= 1;
−a
µ

 exp − cos πα
∆S
∆S
(a)
2
(
(16)
=

 Z


 Z
)
H−2

2σa

H−2

ln
(1 − f (x))dx + (H − 2) ln a − a
µ
(1 − f (x))dx
, α = 1.
 exp
π
∆S
∆S

(
!)
!#α
"

σ α aα(H−2)

H−2

exp −
, α 6= 1;
−a
µπEg Λ(s, R, aR) − Θ(s, R, aR)
πEg Λ(s, R, aR) − Θ(s, R, aR)



cos πα

2


!)
!
("
(


(b)
H−2
=
+ (H − 2) ln a
exp
2σa
ln πEg Λ(s, R, aR) − Θ(s, R, aR)




!)
#




H−2

, α = 1.
− πa
µ · Eg Λ(s, R, aR) − Θ(s, R, aR)


Z

∞

Z

Next, we focus on how to calculate the Laplace transform
of the cumulative interference LIr (s), when the BS deployment obey α-stable distributions and self-similarity. In Section
III-A, we divide the region of interest into two concentric
circles. For the inner circle ∆ with a radius R, the impact
of the spatial BS density λ is similar to the impact of r and
explicitly represented by the latter’s PDF f (r). Meanwhile,
the outer circle ∆S with the radius spanning from R to aR
has a spatial BS density λS ∼ λaH−2 and understanding
the impact of the interference from BSs in the outer circle is
one of the core contributions
Pof this paper. ForPsimplicity of
representation, we let Ir = i∈∆/b0 gi R̂i−δ + i∈∆S gi R̂i−δ
to denote the cumulative interference from all the other BSs i
(except the serving BS b0 ) to the mobile user with the distance
R̂i and pathloss gi . We could obtain the following lemma,
Lemma 3. The Laplace transform of the cumulative interference Ir for a cellular network with α-stable distributed
def
BSs could be formulated as Eq. (12), where Θ(s, b, c) =
2
−δ
2/δ
) − Γ(− 2δ + 1, sgc−δ ) . Γ(d, x) =
(sg)
δ + 1, sgb
R ∞ d−1 Γ(−
−t
t e dt Rdenotes the incomplete Gamma function,
x
∞
while Γ(d) = 0 td−1 e−t dt denotes the standard Gamma


def
function.
Besides, Λ(s,
b, c) = c2 1 − exp −sgc−δ −


b2 1 − exp −sgb−δ .

The equation (a) comes from the identical, independent distribution of gi and its further independence from the point
process.
From Eq. (13), it can be observed that the
Laplace transform his composedh of two parts
ii (i.e.,
Q
−δ
and
exp
−sg
R̂
E
L∆ (s)
=
E∆
g
i
ii

hQ i∈∆/b0 h
−δ
), which
L∆S (s) = E∆S
i∈∆S Eg exp −sg R̂i
is also consistent with our intuition. Next, we derive the
representation of these two parts separately.
• For L∆ (s), we have a fixed spatial density λ. Then, from

Q
the Campbell
theorem [12],
x∈∆ f (x) =
 we have E
R
exp −λ ∆ (1 − fh(x))dx
i
 .
Since f (x) = Eg exp −sg R̂−δ , we have
Z
(1 − f (x))dx
∆
Z R



vdv
1 − Eg exp −sgv −δ
= 2π
r(
)
(a)

= πEg Λ(s, r, R) − Θ(s, r, R)

We leave the derivation of the equation (a) in Appendix
B. Accordingly, we have
!#
"

Proof. According to the definition of Laplace transform, we
have
LIr (s)


= EIr e−sIr



= E∆ 
· E∆S

"

Y

i∈∆/b0

Y

i∈∆S

L∆ (s) = exp −λπEg Λ(s, r, R) − Θ(s, r, R)

(15)
For L∆S (s), as λS ∼ λaH−2 , we have Eq. (16),
where the equation (a) comes from the Laplace
transform of λS in Lemma 1. RThe equation (b) is
achieved by applying the result ∆S (1 − f (x))dx =
πEg {Λ(s, R, aR) − Θ(s, R, aR)}, which can be obtained by adopting a similar methodology as the derivation of Eq. (14).
Combining Eq. (15) and Eq. (16), we obtain the result. 

•



= E∆+∆s ,gi exp −s

(a)

(14)

X

i∈(∆+∆s )/b0

gi R̂i−δ 


i

h
−δ

Eg exp −sg R̂i

#
i
h

−δ
Eg exp −sg R̂i



(13)

With the results above, we could obtain the final result in
the following theorem.

8

pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ)
Z
n σ α aα(H−2) 
α
=
2πr exp −
Ξ(ζT rδ , R, aR) − aH−2 µΞ(ζT rδ , R, aR) − µΞ(ζT rδ , r, R)
πα
cos 2
r>0
o h σα α
i
σα
δ
2 α
2
δ
δ
2 α−1
·
(Ξ(ζT
r
,
r,
R)
+
πr
)
−
µπr
−
ζT
r
N
(Ξ(ζT
r
,
r,
R)
+
πr
)
+
µ
dr
−
0
cos πα
cos πα
2
2
pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ)
(
Z
2πr exp

=

r>0

δ

h 2σaH−2

i


ln Ξ(ζT rδ , R, aR) + (H − 2) ln a − aH−2 µ Ξ(ζT rδ , R, aR)

π

2σΞ(ζT r , r, R) + 2σπr2
ln(Ξ(ζT rδ , r, R) + πr2 ) − µΞ(ζT rδ , r, R) − µπr2
) π

i
h 2σ 
ln(Ξ(ζT rδ , r, R) + πr2 ) + 1 + µ dr
− ζT rδ N0 · −
π

+

Υ(r) =

Z

λ>0

(

"

δ

δ

!

exp −λπ Eg Λ(ζT r , r, R) − Θ(ζT r , r, R)

+r

2

#)

Proof. From Lemma 2, the coverage probability could be
calculated as

o
σα
δ
2 α
2
δ
πα (Ξ(ζT r , r, R) + πr ) − µπr − ζT r N0
cos 2
h σα α
i
δ
2 α−1
·
(Ξ(ζT
r
,
r,
R)
+
πr
)
+
µ
dr
(21)
cos πα
2

2) if α = 1

r>0

where the equation (a) is the direct result of Corollary 1 and
Lemma 3 and Υ(r) couldRbe formulated as Eq. (20), where
the equation (b) is due to x e−sx xf (x)dx = − dΦ(s)
ds .
Merging Eq. (20), Eq. (19), and Lemma 3, we have the
result.

When we consider the whole region (i.e., the outer circle
spanning from R to ∞, or a → 0), we get the following
corollary.
Corollary 2. When a → ∞, the coverage probability could be
reduced to
1) if α 6= 1
Z
n
2πr exp − µΞ(ζT rδ , r, R)
pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ) =
r>0

Z

r>0

(19)

(20)

−

pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ) =
pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ)
ZZ
δ
e−ζT r N0 LIr (ζT rδ )P(r|λ)f (λ)drdλ
=
Z r>0,λ>0
δ
(a)
2πre−ζT r N0 L∆s (ζT rδ )Υ(r)dr
=

(18)

λf (λ)dλ


n
o
σα


exp −
(Ξ(ζT rδ , r, R) + πr2 )α − µΞ(ζT rδ , r, R) − µπr2

πα

cos 2



h σα α
i


δ
2 α−1

·
(Ξ(ζT
r
,
r,
R)
+
πr
)
+
µ
, α 6= 1

(b)
cos πα
2
=
n 2σΞ(ζT rδ , r, R) + 2σπr2




ln(Ξ(ζT rδ , r, R) + πr2 ) − µΞ(ζT rδ , r, R)
exp


π


oh 2σ 

i



− µπr2 −
ln(Ξ(ζT rδ , r, R) + πr2 ) + 1 + µ , α = 1
π
Theorem 2. The coverage probability in a cellular networks
with α-stable distributed BS density and the self-similarity
is given by Eq. (17) and Eq. (18) for α 6= 1 and α = 1,
respectively, where Ξ(s, b, c) = πEg (Λ(s, b, c) − Θ(s, b, c)).

(17)

2πr exp

(

− µΞ(ζT rδ , r, R) − µπr2

2σΞ(ζT rδ , r, R) + 2σπr2
− ζT rδ N0 +
ln(Ξ(ζT rδ , r, R)+
π
)
i
h
2σ 
ln(Ξ(ζT rδ , r, R) + πr2 ) + 1 dr (22)
πr2 ) · µ −
π
Proof. Firstly, we have
h

r δ i
lim a2 R2 1 − exp −ζT g(
)
a→∞
aR 

r δ
R2 1 − exp −ζT g( aR
)
= lim
2
a→∞
1/a


r δ δ
) k
R2 1 − exp −ζT g( R
= lim+
(23)
k2
k→0
δ


−ζT g(δ − 1) Rrδ−2
r
(a)
exp −ζT g( )δ k δ k δ−2
= lim+
2
R
k→0
=0
where the equation (a) comes from the l’Hôpital’s Rule and
applies the fact that the pathloss exponent δ ≥ 2.

9

#

α−1
 2(ζT g)2/δ r2 
2
2 
σα
πEg
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− )
+µ ·
pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ) =
2πr
cos πα
δ
δ
δ
r>0
2
!α
(
 2(ζT g)2/δ r2 
2
2 
σα α
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− )
− ζT rδ N0
exp −
πEg
cos πα
δ
δ
δ
2

 !)
2(ζT g)2/δ r2
2
2
− µπEg
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− )
dr
δ
δ
δ
!
Z
 2(ζT g)2/δ r2 

i
h
2
2σ
2 
ln πEg
+1 ·
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− )
2πr µ −
pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ) =
π
δ
δ
δ
r>0
(
 2(ζT g)2/δ r2
 2(ζT g)2/δ r2 
2
2 
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− ) ln πEg
exp − ζT rδ N0 2σEg
δ
δ
δ
δ
!
)



2/δ
2

2(ζT g) r 
2
2 
2 
2
− µπEg
dr
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− )
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− )
δ
δ
δ
δ
δ
"

Z

Hence, as a → ∞, we have aH−2 → 0 for H ∈ (0, 1). So,
a

H−2



lim R2 1 − exp −ζT g( Rr )δ

R→∞

!

= aH−2 πEg Λ(s, b, c) − Θ(s, b, c)

h

r i
=a
πEg − R 1 − exp −ζT g( )δ
R
!
r
2
− (ζT g)2/δ r2 Γ(− + 1, ζT g( )δ )
δ
R

= πEg
(24)

− r2 [1 − exp (−ζT g)] − (ζT g)2/δ r2 ·

!
h

r i
2
Γ(− + 1, ζT g) + πEg R2 1 − exp −ζT g( )δ
δ
R
!
r 
2
(27)
+ (ζT g)2/δ r2 Γ − + 1, ζT g( )δ
δ
R

2
− r2 [1 − exp (−ζT g)] + (ζT g)2/δ r2 Γ(− + 1)
δ
!
2
− (ζT g)2/δ r2 Γ(− + 1, ζT g)
δ

!
2
2
2(ζT g)2/δ r2
(a)
2
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− )
= −πr + πEg
δ
δ
δ

→ πEg

→0
From Theorem 2, it can be observed that when
→ ∞, only the term aH−2 Ξ(ζT rδ!
, R, aR) =

will be af-

fected. We have the conclusion.



Based on Corollary 2, we have the following remark.
Remark 2. When we expand the interference to the whole
region, the cumulative interference from the outer circle could
be negligible and the coverage probability is mainly contingent
on the SINR within the inner circle.
When R → ∞, we can further simplify the results to get
more interesting insight.
Theorem 3. When R → ∞, the coverage probability could
be reduced to Eq. (25) and Eq. (26) for α 6= 1 and α = 1,
respectively.
Proof. Similar to  the lines to proveCorollary 2, we
r δ
)
=
0 and
have
lim a2 R2 1 − exp −ζT g( aR
R→∞

2.

Ξ(ζT rδ , r, R) = πEg Λ(s, b, c) − Θ(s, b, c)

2

aH−2 πEg Λ(ζT rδ , R, aR) − Θ(ζT rδ , R, aR)

≥

δ

!

h

r δ i
+ aH−2 πEg a2 R2 1 − exp −ζT g(
)
aR
!
r δ
2
2/δ 2
) )
+ (ζT g) r Γ(− + 1, ζT g(
δ
aR

a

0 for all δ

(26)

Then lim Ξ(ζT r , R, aR) = 0. On the other hand, as
R→∞
R → ∞,

δ

Ξ(ζT r , R, aR)

H−2

=

(25)

where the Equation (a) comes from Γ(s, x) = (s − 1)Γ(s −
1, x) + xs−1 e−x and Γ(s) = (s − 1)Γ(s − 1).
There, we obtain the result in the theorem after simple
mathematical manipulations.

Next, we state the coverage probability when extra constraints are imposed, that is, the spatial density in the inner
circle is fixed (i.e., σ = 0 and λ = µ in Theorem 3). We get
the following corollary.
Corollary 3. The coverage probability in cellular networks
with fixed spatial BS density is
pc (T, S(α, 0, λ), δ)
(
Z
2(ζT g)2/δ r2
=
2πµr exp − ζT rδ N0 − µπEg
δ
r>0

10

1

0.9
-Stable theory, SNR = 20 dB
-Stable theory, SNR = 0 dB
PPP theory, SNR = 20 dB
PPP theory, SNR = 0 dB
-Stable simulation, SNR = 20 dB
-Stable simulation, SNR = 0 dB
PPP simulation, SNR = 20 dB
PPP simulation, SNR = 0 dB

Coverage Probability

0.8
0.7
0.6

0.7

0.5
0.4
0.3

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1
0
-10

-Stable, = 0.25
-Stable, = 25
-Stable, = 100
PPP, = 0.25
PPP, = 25
PPP, = 100

0.8

Coverage Probability

0.9

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

0
-10

10

-8

-6

-4

SINR Threshold (dB)

Fig. 3. The coverage probability comparison under different SNR environment.

!)

dr

0

2

4

6

8

10

Fig. 4. The coverage probability comparison under various (average) spatial
BS densities.

0.9

(28)

Remark 3. When the spatial density is fixed and equals λ,
the self-similarity patterns no longer take effect and our result
could be reduced to the well-recognized conclusions obtained
by J. G. Andrews et al. in [1].
IV. N UMERICAL A NALYSES
In this part, we provide numerical evaluations through which
we compare the coverage probability of the cellular network
with α-stable distributed BS density and the classical PPP
model. Our simulation parameters are configured according to
Table I. In particular, the default spatial BS density for the PPP
model is consistent with that in [1]. As [21] states that when
α ∈ (0, 1), the mean value of S(α, σ, µ) equals µ. Therefore,
it is fair to compare the network with α-stable distributed BS
density and the classical PPP model.
Firstly, we leverage the theoretical analysis results and give
the coverage probability comparison under different AWGN
environment in Fig. 3. From the figure, the network with αstable distributed BS density exhibits significant performance
improvement than the PPP model in low SNR environment
while the performance gap becomes gradually narrow along
with the increase of SNR. On the other hand, the performance
gap between SNR = 0 dB and SNR = 20 dB is only 4 dB
and 6 dB for the α-stable model and the PPP, respectively,
which demonstrates that the cellular network is interferencelimited rather than noise-limited. Fig. 3 also depicts the results
by Monte Carlo simulations (see the dashed or dotted curves)
and each curve is averaged under 15000 iterations. It can be
observed that the results obtained by Monte Carlo simulations
match well with those obtained by the theoretical analyses,
which further verifies the correctness of our theoretical derivations.
Fig. 4 illustrates interesting coverage probability comparison under various (average) spatial BS densities. It shows that
µ = 0.25 has lead to remarkable coverage probability and

-Stable,
-Stable,
-Stable,
PPP

0.8

= 0.5
= 0.7
= 0.9

0.7

Coverage Probability

h
2 i
2
Γ(− , ζT g) − Γ(− )
δ
δ

-2

SINR Threshold (dB)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

SINR Threshold (dB)

Fig. 5. The impact of α on the coverage probability comparison.

also made the networks to be interference-limited. Therefore,
further increasing the spatial density would add more to the
aggregated interference and impose negative impact on the
coverage probability. It also implies that the influence of
the spatial BS density on the coverage probability is rather
sophisticated. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 further examine the impact of
α and σ. They show that when α becomes larger or σ gets
smaller, the network coverage probability increases. In some
cases, the network with α-stable self-similarity could produce
interior performance than the PPP model.
Next, we focus on the impact of the spatial self-similarity on
the coverage probability. Recalling the statements in Section
II-A2, the spatial self-similarity is examplified by the relationship N (aR) ∼ aH N (R) or λS ∼ aH−2 λ. Therefore, we
examine the coverage probability when a and H differs and
provide the corresponding results in Table II. From the table,
we observe increasing H or decreasing a will result in a slight
reduction of the coverage probability. The trivial impact of
a and H on the network performance can be explained as
that a variation of H or a will make the spatial BS density

11

TABLE II
A

SUMMARY OF THE NETWORK COVERAGE PROBABILITY UNDER DIFFERENT a AND

SNR
-10 dB
0 dB
10 dB

a=2
H = 0.9

a = 20
H = 0.9

α-Stable
a = 200
H = 0.9

a=2
H = 0.1

a=2
H = 0.5

PPP

0.8015
0.4437
0.1355

0.8019
0.4441
0.1357

0.8020
0.4443
0.1357

0.8016
0.4439
0.1356

0.8016
0.4438
0.1355

0.7531
0.3580
0.1153

0.9

0.9
-Stable,
-Stable,
-Stable,
-Stable,
PPP

0.8

= 0.25
= 2.5
= 25
= 250

-Stable, R = 40
-Stable, R = 1
-Stable, R = 0.5
PPP

0.8
0.7

Coverage Probability

Coverage Probability

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
0
-10

H.

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

0.1
-10

10

-8

-6

-4

SINR Threshold (dB)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

SINR Threshold (dB)

(a) The impact of R

Fig. 6. The impact of σ on the coverage probability comparison.
0.9

-Stable, = 2.5
-Stable, = 3
-Stable, = 4
PPP, = 2.5
PPP, = 3
PPP, = 4

0.8
0.7

Coverage Probability

λS of the outer circle larger from a probabilistic sense, thus
making BSs over-crowded and generating huge interference.
This phenomenon that stronger self-similarity incurs negative
impact is also consistent with its counterpart of self-similar
Ethernet traffic. As stated in [73], stronger self-similarity in
Ethernet traffic will make heavier traffic prone to arrive in a
sequel and congest the network.
We continue the performance analyses in Fig. 7(a) and Fig.
7(b). Fig. 7(a) shows reducing R will cause a reduction of
coverage probability for low SINR threshold but an increment
for high SINR threshold. On the other hand, consistent with
our intuition, Fig. 7(b) depicts that a smaller pathloss exponent
will bring a lower coverage probability. However, the network
with α-stable distributed BSs always demonstrates relatively
larger coverage probability than the PPP model.

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

SINR Threshold (dB)

(b) The impact of δ
Fig. 7. Performance sensitivity analyses under different R and δ.

V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have performed the stochastic geometry
analyses in cellular networks with α-stable self-similarly deployed BSs. Based on the practical BS deployment records
in China and Europe (Italy), we have validated the spatial
self-similarity among BSs. Afterwards, we have theoretically
derived the coverage probability for cellular networks with
self-similarity and provided a tractable result. In particular,
we have demonstrated that our analytical results could be
reduced to the works achieved by J. G. Andrews [1]. We
have also simulated the coverage probability performance
under extensive parameter settings and verified the consistence
between the theoretical and simulation results. Our results

have shown that compared to the classical PPP model, the
modeling with α-stable self-similarity could contribute to
analyze the performance under more sophisticated network
configurations, thus making it easier to understand the actual
network variations.
There still exist some open questions to be addressed. For
example, our work has shown that instead of improving the
coverage performance, simple yet stubborn deployment of
BSs incurs significant interference and degrades the coverage
performance. Therefore, frequency reuse has been applied in
practical cellular communication. In this case, it is still mean-

12

ingful to combine α-stable self-similarity with more realistic
network configurations, so as to produce more valuable results.
A PPENDIX
A. Proof of Lemma 2
Proof. According to the definition of the coverage probability,
we have
pc (T, S(α, σ, µ), δ)
= Er [P(SINR > T |r)]
ZZ
P(SINR > T |r)P(r|λ)f (λ)drdλ
=
r>0,λ>0


ZZ
hr−δ
> T |r P(r|λ)f (λ)drdλ
P
=
N0 + Ir
r>0,λ>0

(29)

Next, recalling that theh pathloss in Rayleigh
fading satisfies
i
hr −δ
h ∼ exp(ζ), the term P N0 +Ir > T |r will satisfy



hr−δ
> T |r
N0 + Ir


= P h > rδ T (N0 + Ir )|r

 
= EIr P h > rδ T (N0 + Ir )|r, Ir


= EIr exp(−ζrδ T (N0 + Ir ))|r, Ir

P

= e−ζT r

δ

N0

(30)

LIr (ζT rδ )

Combining Eq. (29) and Eq. (30), we get the result.



B. Derivations of Eq. (14)
In this part, we provide the details about the equation (a)
in the Eq. (14).
Z

Z

R


(1 − f (x))dx = 2π
vdv
1 − Eg exp −sgv −δ
∆
r
Z ∞Z R


1 − exp −sgv −δ vdvf (g)dg
(31)
= 2π

=π

Z

0

0
∞

Z

|r

r
R−δ

−δ

2

{1 − exp (−sgy)} dy − δ f (g)dg
{z
}
(>)

n
o
= πEg Λ(s, r, R) − Θ(s, r, R)

The last equation holds, since for the inside integral (>), we
have
2

R−δ

(>) = y − δ [1 − exp (−sgy)] −δ
r
Z R−δ
2
2
(32)
(sgy)− δ exp (−sgy) dy
− (sg) δ
r −δ




= R2 1 − exp −sgR−δ − r2 1 − exp −sgr−δ


2
2
2
−δ
−δ
δ
− (sg) Γ(− + 1, sgr ) − Γ(− + 1, sgR )
δ
δ

R EFERENCES

[1] J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. Ganti, “A tractable approach to
coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, Nov. 2011.
[2] R. Li, Z. Zhao, X. Zhou, G. Ding, Y. Chen, Z. Wang, and H. Zhang,
“Intelligent 5G: When cellular networks meet artificial intelligence,”
IEEE Wireless Commun., Mar. 2017, (early access).
[3] J. G. Andrews, H. Claussen, M. Dohler, S. Rangan, and M. C. Reed,
“Femtocells: Past, present, and future,” IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm.,
vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 497–508, Apr. 2012.
[4] J. G. Andrews, S. Singh, Q. Ye, X. Lin, and H. Dhillon, “An
overview of load balancing in HetNets: Old myths and open
problems,” arXiv:1307.7779 [cs, math], Jul. 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7779
[5] M. Haenggi, J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, O. Dousse, and
M. Franceschetti, “Stochastic geometry and random graphs for
the analysis and design of wireless networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Area.
Comm., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1029–1046, Sep. 2009.
[6] Y. Zhou, R. Li, Z. Zhao, X. Zhou, and H. Zhang, “On the α–stable
distribution of base stations in cellular networks,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1750–1753, Oct. 2015.
[7] Y. Zhou, Z. Zhao, Y. Louet, Q. Ying, R. Li, X. Zhou, X. Chen, and
H. Zhang, “Large-scale spatial distribution identification of base stations
in cellular networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 2987 – 2999, Dec. 2015.
[8] N. Deng, W. Zhou, and M. Haenggi, “The Ginibre point process as
a model for wireless networks with repulsion,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 107–121, Jan. 2015.
[9] M. Haenggi and R. K. Ganti, “Interference in large
wireless networks,” Foundations and Trends in Networking,
vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 127–248, Nov. 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/NET-015
[10] Y. J. Chun, M. O. Hasna, and A. Ghrayeb, “Modeling heterogeneous
cellular networks interference using poisson cluster processes,” IEEE J.
Sel. Area. Comm., vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2182 – 2195, May 2015.
[11] A. Guo, Y. Zhong, W. Zhang, and M. Haenggi, “The Gauss-Poisson
process for wireless networks and the benefits of cooperation,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1916–1929, May 2016.
[12] S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke, Stochastic geometry
and its applications,, 3rd ed. Wiley, Jul. 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470664819.html
[13] N. Miyoshi and T. Shirai, “A cellular network model with Ginibre
configured base stations,” Adv. in Appl. Probab., vol. 46, no. 3, pp.
832–845, Sep. 2014.
[14] T. Kobayashi and N. Miyoshi, “Uplink cellular network models with
Ginibre deployed base stations,” in Proc. IEEE ITC 2014, Karlskrona,
Sweden, Sep. 2014.
[15] Y. Li, F. Baccelli, H. S. Dhillon, and J. G. Andrews, “Fitting determinantal point processes to macro base station deployments,” in Proc.
IEEE Globecom 2014, Austin, TX, USA, Dec. 2014.
[16] 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, 2017.
[17] I. Flint, X. Lu, N. Privault, D. Niyato, and P. Wang, “Performance
analysis of ambient RF energy harvesting with repulsive point process
modeling,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5402–5416, Oct.
2015.
[18] H. ElSawy and E. Hossain, “Two-tier HetNets with cognitive femtocells: Downlink performance modeling and analysis in a multichannel
environment,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 649–663,
Mar. 2014.
[19] X. Zhou, Z. Zhao, R. Li, Y. Zhou, J. Palicot, and H. Zhang, “Human
mobility patterns in cellular networks,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 17,
no. 10, pp. 1877–1880, Oct. 2013.
[20] A.-L. Barabsi and R. Albert, “Emergence of scaling in random networks,” Science, vol. 286, no. 5439, pp. 509–512, Oct. 1999.
[21] G. Samorodnitsky, Stable non-gaussian random processes:
Stochastic
models
with
infinite
variance.
New
York:
Chapman and Hall/CRC, Jun. 1994. [Online]. Available:
http://www.amazon.com/Stable-Non-Gaussian-Random-Processes-Stochastic/dp/041205
[22] R. Li, Z. Zhao, J. Zheng, Y. Chen, C. Mei, Y. Cai, and H. Zhang,
“The learning and prediction of application-level traffic data in cellular
networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 3899 –
3912, Jun. 2017.
[23] L. Chiaraviglio, F. Cuomo, M. Maisto, A. Gigli, J. Lorincz, Y. Zhou,
Z. Zhao, C. Qi, and H. Zhang, “What is the best spatial distribution

13

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]
[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

to model base station density? A deep dive into two European mobile
networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 1434–1443, Apr. 2016.
L. Chiaraviglio, F. Cuomo, A. Gigli, M. Maisto, Y. Zhou, Z. Zhao, and
H. Zhang, “A reality check of base station spatial distribution in mobile
networks,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA,
Apr. 2016.
Z. Zhao, M. Li, and R. Li, “Temporal-spatial distribution nature of
traffic and base stations in cellular networks,” IET Commun., Aug. 2017,
accepted.
R. Li, Z. Zhao, C. Qi, X. Zhou, Y. Zhou, and H. Zhang, “Understanding
the traffic nature of mobile instantaneous messaging in cellular networks:
A revisiting to α-stable models,” IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 1416–1422,
Sep. 2015.
C. Song, S. Havlin, and H. A. Makse, “Self-similarity of complex
networks,” Nature, vol. 433, no. 7024, pp. 392–395, Jan. 2005.
X. Ge, S. Tu, G. Mao, C. X. Wang, and T. Han, “5G ultra-dense cellular
networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 72–79,
Feb. 2016.
A. Guo and M. Haenggi, “Spatial stochastic models and metrics for the
structure of base stations in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 5800–5812, Nov. 2013.
W. C. Cheung, T. Q. S. Quek, and M. Kountouris, “Throughput optimization, spectrum allocation, and access control in two-tier femtocell
networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 561–574, Apr.
2012.
S. Mukherjee, “Distribution of downlink SINR in heterogeneous cellular
networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 575–585, Apr.
2012.
B. Yu, L. Yang, H. Ishii, and S. Mukherjee, “Dynamic TDD support in
macrocell-assisted small cell architecture,” IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm.,
vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1201–1213, Jun. 2015.
M. D. Renzo and P. Guan, “Stochastic geometry modeling and systemlevel analysis of uplink heterogeneous cellular networks with multiantenna base stations,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 2453–
2476, Jun. 2016.
F. J. Martin-Vega, G. Gomez, M. C. Aguayo-Torres, and M. D. Renzo,
“Analytical modeling of interference aware power control for the uplink
of heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 6742–6757, Oct. 2016.
T. D. Novlan, H. S. Dhillon, and J. G. Andrews, “Analytical modeling
of uplink cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12,
no. 6, pp. 2669–2679, Jun. 2013.
S. Singh, X. Zhang, and J. G. Andrews, “Joint rate and SINR coverage
analysis for decoupled uplink-downlink biased cell associations in
hetnets,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5360–
5373, Oct. 2015.
H. Y. Lee, Y. J. Sang, and K. S. Kim, “On the uplink SIR distributions
in heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE Communications Letters,
vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 2145–2148, Dec. 2014.
Z. Zeinalpour-Yazdi and S. Jalali, “Outage analysis of uplink two-tier
networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 3351–3362, Sep.
2014.
M. Mirahsan, R. Schoenen, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “HetHetNets:
Heterogeneous traffic distribution in heterogeneous wireless cellular
networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2252–2265,
Oct. 2015.
Y. Lin, W. Bao, W. Yu, and B. Liang, “Optimizing user association and
spectrum allocation in hetnets: A utility perspective,” IEEE J. Sel. Area.
Comm., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1025–1039, Jun. 2015.
H. S. Dhillon, R. K. Ganti, and J. G. Andrews, “Load-aware modeling
and analysis of heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1666–1677, Apr. 2013.
S. Singh, H. Dhillon, and J. G. Andrews, “Offloading in heterogeneous
networks: Modeling, analysis, and design insights,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 2484–2497, May 2013.
H. ElSawy, E. Hossain, and D. I. Kim, “HetNets with cognitive small
cells: User offloading and distributed channel access techniques,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 28–36, Jun. 2013.
Y. S. Soh, T. Q. S. Quek, M. Kountouris, and G. Caire, “Cognitive
hybrid division duplex for two-tier femtocell networks,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 4852–4865, Oct. 2013.
K. Huang and J. G. Andrews, “An analytical framework for multicell
cooperation via stochastic geometry and large deviations,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 2501–2516, Apr. 2013.
C. H. M. de Lima, M. Bennis, and M. Latva-aho, “Statistical analysis
of self-organizing networks with biased cell association and interference

[47]
[48]

[49]
[50]

[51]
[52]
[53]

[54]

[55]
[56]

[57]
[58]
[59]

[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]

[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]

avoidance,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 1950–1961, Jun.
2013.
P. Semasinghe, E. Hossain, and K. Zhu, “An evolutionary game for
distributed resource allocation in self-organizing small cells,” IEEE
Trans. Mob. Comput., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 274–287, Feb. 2015.
Y. Deng, L. Wang, M. Elkashlan, M. D. Renzo, and J. Yuan, “Modeling and analysis of wireless power transfer in heterogeneous cellular
networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 5290–5303, Dec.
2016.
C. Li, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Throughput and energy efficiency
analysis of small cell networks with multi-antenna base stations,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2505–2517, May 2014.
D. Cao, S. Zhou, and Z. Niu, “Optimal combination of base station
densities for energy-efficient two-tier heterogeneous cellular networks,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 4350–4362, Sep.
2013.
——, “Improving the energy efficiency of two-tier heterogeneous cellular networks through partial spectrum reuse,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 4129–4141, Aug. 2013.
Y. S. Soh, T. Q. Quek, M. Kountouris, and H. Shin, “Energy efficient
heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., vol. 31,
no. 5, pp. 840–850, May 2013.
M. D. Renzo and P. Guan, “A mathematical framework to the computation of the error probability of downlink MIMO cellular networks by
using stochastic geometry,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 62, no. 8, pp.
2860–2879, Aug. 2014.
N. Lee, D. Morales-Jimenez, A. Lozano, and R. W. Heath, “Spectral
efficiency of dynamic coordinated beamforming: A stochastic geometry
approach,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 230–241,
Jan. 2015.
A. K. Gupta, H. S. Dhillon, S. Vishwanath, and J. G. Andrews, “Downlink multi-antenna heterogeneous cellular network with load balancing,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 4052–4067, Nov. 2014.
L. H. Afify, H. ElSawy, T. Y. Al-Naffouri, and M. S. Alouini, “A
unified stochastic geometry model for MIMO cellular networks with
retransmissions,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 12, pp.
8595–8609, Dec. 2016.
T. Bai and R. W. Heath, “Analyzing uplink SINR and rate in massive
MIMO systems using stochastic geometry,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 4592–4606, Nov. 2016.
S. Singh, M. N. Kulkarni, A. Ghosh, and J. G. Andrews, “Tractable
model for rate in self-backhauled millimeter wave cellular networks,”
IEEE J. Sel. Area. Comm., vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2196–2211, Oct. 2015.
F. Muhammad, Z. H. Abbas, and F. Y. Li, “Cell association with load
balancing in nonuniform heterogeneous cellular networks: Coverage
probability and rate analysis,” IEEE Trans. Veh.Tech., vol. 66, no. 6,
pp. 5241–5255, Jun. 2017.
I. Atzeni and M. Kountouris, “Full-duplex mimo small-cell networks:
Performance analysis,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom 2015, San Diego, CA,
USA, Dec. 2015.
J. Lee and T. Q. S. Quek, “Hybrid full-/half-duplex system analysis
in heterogeneous wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 2883–2895, May 2015.
H. Tabassum, A. H. Sakr, and E. Hossain, “Analysis of massive MIMOenabled downlink wireless backhauling for full-duplex small cells,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 2354–2369, Jun. 2016.
K. Huang, J. G. Andrews, D. Guo, R. W. Heath, and R. A. Berry, “Spatial
interference cancellation for multiantenna mobile ad hoc networks,”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 1660–1676, Mar. 2012.
R. Li, Y. Chen, G. Y. Li, and G. Liu, “Full-duplex cellular networks,”
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 184 – 191, Apr. 2017.
A. AlAmmouri, H. ElSawy, O. Amin, and M. S. Alouini, “In-band αduplex scheme for cellular networks: A stochastic geometry approach,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 6797–6812, Oct.
2016.
C.-H. Lee, C.-Y. Shih, and Y.-S. Chen, “Stochastic geometry based
models for modeling cellular networks in urban areas,” Wireless Net.,
vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1063–1072, Aug. 2013.
N. Miyoshi and T. Shirai, “Spatial modeling and analysis of cellular networks using the Ginibre point process: A tutorial,” IEICE Transactions
on Communications, vol. E99.B, no. 11, pp. 2247–2255, Nov. 2016.
A. Karasaridis and D. Hatzinakos, “Network heavy traffic modeling
using α-stable self-similar processes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49,
no. 7, pp. 1203–1214, Jul. 2001.
M. Crovella and A. Bestavros, “Self-similarity in world wide web traffic:
Evidence and possible causes,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 5, no. 6,
pp. 835–846, Dec. 1997.

14

[70] W. Song and W. Zhuang, “Resource reservation for self-similar data
traffic in cellular/WLAN integrated mobile hotspots,” in Proc. IEEE
ICC 2010, Cape Town, South Africa, May 2010.
[71] C. Qi, Z. Zhao, R. Li, and H. Zhang, “Characterizing and modeling
social mobile data traffic in cellular networks,” in Proc. IEEE VTC 2016Spring, Nanjing, China, May 2016.
[72] X. Ge, Y. Qiu, J. Chen, M. Huang, H. Xu, J. Xu, W. Zhang, Y. Yang,
C. X. Wang, and J. Thompson, “Wireless fractal cellular networks,”
IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 110–119, Oct. 2016.
[73] K. Park, G. Kim, and M. Crovella, “On the effect of traffic self-similarity
on network performance,” in Proc. SPIE ICPCNS 1997, Dallas, TX,
USA, Oct. 1997.

