1

On User Association in Multi-Tier Full-Duplex
Cellular Networks

arXiv:1607.01119v4 [] 13 Jun 2017

Ahmed Hamdi Sakr and Ekram Hossain

Abstract
We address the user association problem in multi-tier in-band full-duplex (FD) networks. Specifically, we consider the case of decoupled user association (DUA) in which users (UEs) are not necessarily
served by the same base station (BS) for uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) transmissions. Instead, UEs can
simultaneously associate to different BSs based on two independent weighted path-loss user association
criteria for UL and DL. We use stochastic geometry to develop a comprehensive modeling framework
for the proposed system model where BSs and UEs are spatially distributed according to independent
point processes. We derive closed-form expressions for the mean rate utility in FD, half-duplex (HD)
DL, and HD UL networks as well as the mean rate utility of legacy nodes with only HD capabilities
in a multi-tier FD network. We formulate and solve an optimization problem that aims at maximizing
the mean rate utility of the FD network by optimizing the DL and UL user association criteria. We
investigate the effects of different network parameters including the spatial density of BSs and power
control parameter. We also investigate the effect of imperfect self-interference cancellation (SIC) and
show that it is more severe at UL, where there exist minimum required SIC capabilities for BSs and
UEs for which FD networks are preferable to HD networks; otherwise, HD networks are preferable.
In addition, we discuss several special cases and provide guidelines on the possible extensions of the
proposed framework. We conclude that DUA outperforms coupled user association (CUA) in which
UEs associate to the same BS for both UL and DL transmissions.

Keywords: Multi-tier cellular networks, in-band full-duplex (FD), decoupled user association
(DUA), coupled user association (CUA), cell association, stochastic geometry.
I. I NTRODUCTION
In-band FD communication has recently attracted significant attention as a potential enabler
for 5G networks to support higher data rates and meet the ever-increasing users demand for
broadband wireless services. In contrast to HD communication in which a time-frequency resource block is only used for either transmission or reception, in-band FD communication

2

implies simultaneous transmission and reception of information in the same frequency band
[1]. This, in turn, introduces extra interference between UL and DL networks, which affects the
network performance gains especially for UL transmissions that suffer from excessive DL-to-UL
interference [2]. The performance of FD networks is also limited by the capability of UEs and
BSs to cancel self-interference (SI), which is caused by the transmitter to its collocated receiver.
Fortunately, this technology is becoming feasible thanks to the recent advancements in antenna
and digital baseband technologies where SI can be reduced close to the level of noise floor in
low-power devices [3].
In this paper, we focus on the user association problem in multi-tier cellular networks (i.e.,
networks that consist of different classes of BSs) that support in-band FD communication. We
consider the general case when a cellular UE can be simultaneously served by two different BSs
for UL and DL data transmission, i.e., decoupled user association (DUA) [4]. In addition, we aim
at optimizing user association in order to maximize the mean rate utility offered by FD networks.
In order to evaluate and optimize the system performance, we use a statistical approach based
on stochastic geometry to capture the network randomness [5]. Specifically, in order to derive
closed-form expressions for the mean rate utility in a generic link in the network, due to their
analytical tractability, we use independent Poisson Point Processes (PPPs) to model the locations
of BSs. The results from the analysis enable us to optimize user association to maximize the mean
rate utility and to understand the impact of network parameters (such as spatial density of BSs,
power control, weighting factors, and SI) on the performance to provide insightful guidelines
for system design. We show that DUA is superior to coupled user association in which UEs
associate to only one BS for both UL and DL transmissions. We also show that FD networks
can outperform HD networks in terms of mean rate for sufficiently high SI cancellation (SIC)
capabilities of BSs and UEs.
A. Related Work and Motivations
In the context of DUA in multi-tier cellular networks, the authors in [6], [7] propose a
framework for performance evaluation of multi-tier HD UL and DL cellular networks. In this
model, the locations of BSs in each tier are modeled by independent PPPs where each network tier
differs in the transmit power and spatial density. Using PPP assumption and weighted path-loss
user association, [6] derives expressions for the rate coverage in HD UL and DL networks as well
as the joint UL-DL rate coverage. On the other hand, closed-form expressions for the mean of

3

the logarithm of the transmission rate and spectrum allocation for both UL and DL transmissions
are derived in [7]. Furthermore, utility maximization problems are solved to optimize both user
association and spectrum partitioning. The authors in [8] use stochastic geometry to derive the
achievable capacity in an HD network with DUA where a real-world simulation tool (Atoll)
is used to verify the accuracy of the expressions. In [9], the DUA problem is formulated as a
matching game in which UEs and BSs in a two-tier FD cellular network rank one another based
on some preference metric, which is a function of the achievable signal-to-interference-plus-noise
ratio (SINR), in order to maximize the total throughput.
The authors in [10]–[16] evaluate the performance of FD networks using statistical modeling.
In [10], a hybrid ad-hoc network is considered in which nodes with HD or FD capabilities
are randomly deployed. For an ALOHA MAC protocol, it shows that FD networks achieve a
0−30% higher throughput, compared to HD networks, for practical values of path-loss exponent.
It also considers the effect of imperfect SIC and shows how it affects the relative performance
of FD and HD transmissions. The authors in [11] present the effects of transmission duration,
SIC, and ratio of HD-to-FD nodes on the performance of ad-hoc networks with asynchronous
ALOHA MAC protocol. The paper also highlights different optimal operating regions in which
FD networks outperform HD networks. In [12], the authors propose a system design that controls
the partial overlap between UL and DL channels in order to maximize the overall rate of FD
cellular networks. The paper compares the performances of two realizations for FD networks:
a two-node topology (2NT) with FD UEs and BSs and a three-node topology (3NT) with FD
BSs and HD UEs. It shows that 3NT achieves performance comparable to that of 2NT, which
paves the road to harvest the gains of FD transmissions with HD UE terminals. In [13], a hybrid
multi-tier FD cellular network is considered in which BSs operate either in FD mode or HD DL
mode. PPP assumption is used to derive expressions for the successful transmission probability
and network throughput. The authors in [14] consider a single-tier network under 2NT and 3NT
where BSs and UEs employ directional antennas. The directional antennas are shown to manage
both SI as well as co-channel interference. In [15], the authors derive the success probability
and achievable spectral efficiency of FD networks under a 3NT with multi-antenna BSs and
single-antenna UEs. In [16], a massive MIMO-enabled FD network is considered where BSs
adopt linear zero-forcing with SI-nulling precoding while UEs adopt SI-aware power control.
The authors show that massive MIMO is a viable solution for FD communications.
Although statistical modeling can be used for long-term performance evaluation of FD net-

4

works, it does not necessarily provide sufficient insights on short-term network performance.
Therefore, tools from optimization theory can be used to evaluate short-term performance of
networks and to find optimal parameters that maximize certain objective functions [17]–[20]. For
example, [17] proposes a joint resource management scheme to mitigate the effect of imperfect
SIC in an OFDMA-based two-tier FD cellular network. This is achieved by jointly assigning
UEs and transmit power for each resource block in both UL and DL transmission based on
the level of SI to maximize a total utility sum of the network. The authors in [18] propose
an iterative algorithm to jointly perform subcarrier assignment and power allocation in order to
maximize the sum-rate performance in a single-cell FD network. In [19], the authors propose a
joint UL/DL user scheduling and power allocation algorithm to maximize the system throughput
by investigating the feasibility conditions of FD operation with 3NT. The authors in [20] propose
two distributed power control and interference management methods to manage interference in
FD networks with 3NT. The proposed MAC protocol with transmit power optimization is shown
to outperform its HD counterpart in terms of total throughput.
B. Contributions, Organization, and Notations
In contrast to previous works on FD networks (e.g., [10]–[16]) in which CUA is used to
solve the association problem, we focus on DUA as a more general association criterion for FD
networks. The contributions of the paper can be summarized as follows:
•

Using tools from stochastic geometry, we provide a tractable framework to analyze the performance of multi-tier FD networks with DUA. We derive closed-form expressions for the
association probability, the mean interference received at UEs and BSs under weighted pathloss user association. In addition, we derive the mean rate utility of an FD network.

•

We investigate the effect of FD transmissions on legacy HD terminals that do not support FD
communication and we provide closed-form expressions for the mean rate utility.

•

We formulate an optimization problem to maximize the mean rate utility of FD networks. By
jointly optimizing both UL and DL user association to maximize the mean rate utility, we also
show that DUA is superior to CUA in FD networks.

•

We show how the proposed framework can be extended to different models in the literature
such as traditional HD UL and HD DL networks. In addition, we highlight different tradeoffs
in the network and show the effect of varying network parameters such as densities of BSs,
power control parameters, and user association weighting factors on network performance.

5

TABLE I
L IST OF KEY NOTATIONS

•

Notation

Definition

Notation

Definition

Φk
Pk
Ψk
Pmax
Ui
ψjk
τ UL , τ DL
α, αb , αu

Point process of BSs of k-th tier
Transmit power of BSs of k-th tier
Point process of active UEs of k-th tier
Maximum transmit power of UEs
Weighting factor for UL user association
Joint association probability
Target SINR threshold
Path-loss exponents

λk
ρk
γk , Γk

Di
DL
AUL
k ,Ak
σbk , σu
G, Gb , Gu

Spatial density of BSs of k-th tier
Receiver sensitivity of BS of k-th tier
Transmit power of UEs of k-th tier
Power control factor of UEs
Weighting factor for DL user association
Per-tier association probability
SI cancellation parameters
Path-loss gains

We investigate the effect of SI on the performance of an FD network and show that FD mode of
operation is preferable to HD mode only if the SIC capabilities of UEs and BSs are sufficient
to mitigate SI. Furthermore, we show that the effect of imperfect SIC is more severe at UL.

•

Via Monte Carlo simulation, we validate our analytical results. Also, through numerical results
we show the feasibility of FD communication to increase the mean transmission rate of cellular
networks.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. System model and assumptions are described

in Section II. In Section III, both joint distance distributions and user association probabilities
are derived for a typical UE. Section IV presents the analysis for FD interference as well as
mean rate utility of UL, DL, and FD transmissions. An optimization problem is formulated in
Section V to maximize the mean rate utility of FD transmission. Finally, numerical results and
discussion are presented in Section VI before the paper is concluded in Section VII.
R∞
R∞
Notation: Γ[s] = 0 xs−1 e−x dx is the gamma function, Γ[s, a] = a xs−1 e−x dx denotes the
Rb
upper incomplete gamma function, γ[s, b] = 0 xs−1 e−x dx denotes the lower incomplete gamma
Rb
function, and Γ[s, a, b] = a xs−1 e−x dx denotes the generalized gamma function. f (·) and
F (·) denote the probability density function (PDF) and cumulative distribution function (CDF),

respectively. Finally, E[·] denotes the expectation operator and 1{·} is the indicator function.
The key mathematical notations used in this paper are summarized in Table I.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL , A SSUMPTIONS ,

AND

M ETHODOLOGY OF A NALYSIS

A. Multi-Tier Network Model
We consider a cellular network that consists of K tiers of BSs. We use an independent
homogeneous PPP Φk = {xi,k : i = 1, 2, . . . } with spatial density λk BS/m2 to model locations

of BSs belonging to the k-th tier where 1 ≤ k ≤ K and xi,k ∈ R2 denotes the location of the

6

i-th BS in that tier. For all BSs in k-th tier, transmit power is fixed and equal to Pk . Locations
of UEs are modeled in R2 according to an arbitrary independent point process ΦU with a spatial
P
density λu >> K
k=1 λk . Saturation condition is assumed where each transmitter (i.e., a BS or a

UE) sends data packets at the beginning of each time slot in a time-slotted transmission scenario.
B. Channel Model
We assume a co-channel deployment where the wireless channels are subject to both largescale (i.e., path-loss) and small-scale fading. Let kx − yk be the propagation distance between a

generic transmitter (i.e., a BS or a UE) located at x and a receiver located at y. The path-loss of

this link is defined as L(x, y) = Ḡkx − ykᾱ , where ᾱ > 2 is the path-loss exponent and Ḡ > 0
is a constant gain. In this work, we assume different path-loss exponents and gains for different

communication links [21]. That is, ᾱ = α and Ḡ = G for BS-UE links, ᾱ = αb and Ḡ = Gb for
BS-BS links, and ᾱ = αu and Ḡ = Gu for UE-UE links.
In addition to the distance-dependent path-loss, the small-scale fading component of a channel
is modeled by Rayleigh fading with unit average power where different links are assumed to
be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). Hence, the power gain of all channels is
exponentially-distributed and denoted by h ∼ Exp(1)1 . Channel coherence time is greater than

or equal to the frame duration. SI channel is modeled by Nakagami-m fading with parameters
(mbk , σbk ) and (mu , σu ) for BSs from k-th tier and UEs, respectively [16], [22]. Hence, the power
σ

gain of SI channel follows a Gamma distribution and denoted by hb ∼ Gamma(mbk , mbbk ) for
k

σu
) for UEs, where
BSs and hu ∼ Gamma(mu , m
u

1
σbk

and

1
σu

are SIC capabilities of BSs and UEs,

respectively. There is no intra-cell interference between UL (DL) transmissions where different
UEs in a cell are served in UL (DL) using orthogonal time-frequency resources (e.g. OFDMA).
Hence, there are only one active UE in UL and one active UE in DL per BS at a certain time
slot and channel.
C. Power Control Model
The UEs adopt fractional channel inversion power control where a UE at x adjusts its transmit
power to ρk (Gkx − ykα ) to compensate for the large-scale fading such that the average received
1

This assumption can be relaxed to other scenarios, e.g., Gamma-distributed power envelope assumptions to model multi-

antenna transmissions.

7

TABLE II
M ODES OF OPERATION
Mode

Definition

FD
3NT FD
Legacy DL
Legacy UL
HD DL
HD UL

All BSs and UEs are FD
All BSs are FD and all UEs are HD
A typical HD UE with DL transmissions in an FD network
A network tier of HD BSs with UL transmissions in an FD network
All BSs and UEs are HD with DL transmissions
All BSs and UEs are HD with UL transmissions

signal power at the serving BS at y is equal to ρk (Gkx − ykα )−(1−) . Note that 0 ≤  ≤ 1 is the

power control factor and ρk is the open loop power spectral density (or receiver sensitivity). Here,
we use γk to denote the instantaneous transmit power of a UE transmitting to a BS belonging
to the k-th tier where Γk is the corresponding random variable. UEs have a limited transmit

power budget of Pmax , where the UEs that are unable to perform channel inversion, transmit
with maximum power. Other power control mechanisms such as SI-aware power control [16]
and interference-aware power control [23] can also be adopted.
D. Mode of Operation and User Association
Besides FD links in which a UE simultaneously transmits and receives data in the same
channel, we consider network tiers in which UEs or BSs do not support FD transmissions (i.e.,
HD UEs and HD BSs). That is, we also evaluate the performance of the network when (i) there
is a typical HD UE that can only receive DL transmission from one BS in a channel during a
transmission interval, and (ii) there is a network tier of HD BSs each of which can only receive
UL transmission in a channel from one UE during a transmission interval. A communication
link is referred to as a legacy uplink when the UE-BS channel carries data only from the UE
to the serving HD BS. On the other hand, when the UE-BS channel carries data only from the
BS to the HD UE being served, the link is referred to as a legacy downlink. Furthermore, we
consider the 3NT model, where the network consists of FD BSs each of which serves two HD
UEs: one HD UE in DL and one HD UE in UL. The aforementioned scenarios are summarized
in Table II and will be discussed in details in Sections IV and VI.
For FD UEs, we consider the case where user association in UL is decoupled from that in
DL. Hence, an FD UE is not necessarily served by the same BS in both UL and DL. That is,
a UE may simultaneously receive data from one BS and transmit data to another in the same
channel. To illustrate, without loss of generality, Fig. 1 shows a realization of a two-tier FD

8

3

1

2

Cell Coverage (DL)
Cell Coverage (UL)
Downlink
Uplink
Macro-cell BS
Small-cell BS
FD User
HD User

Fig. 1. A two-tier FD cellular network with macro-cell and small-cell BSs. Solid lines show DL coverage area while dotted
lines show UL coverage of each cell.

cellular network where a macro-cell network tier is overlaid with a denser and lower power
small-cell network tier. It shows that the coverage area of each cell in DL is different from that
in UL. For example, although UE 1 is served by a macro-cell BS in DL, it is located in UL
coverage area of another small-cell BS, hence, served by two different BSs. On the other hand,
UE 2 is located in the coverage area of one small-cell BS in both DL and UL, hence, served
by the same BS. Fig. 1 also shows an example of 3NT realization where BS 3 serves two HD
UEs simultaneously: one HD UE is in DL and another HD UE is in UL.
We assume a weighted path-loss user association criterion similar to [24], [25] where each
UE independently associates with the BS(s) that minimizes the weighted path-loss of UL and/or
DL. That is, for a UE at y, with a slight abuse of notation, let xi , xUL , and xDL denote the BS
with minimum path-loss from i-th tier, serving BS in UL, and serving BS in DL, respectively.
Then, the association criterion for UL and DL can be described, respectively, as follows:
xUL = arg min Ui kx − ykα

(1)

xDL = arg min Di kx − ykα

(2)

x∈{xi }
x∈{xi }

where xi = arg minx∈Φi kx − ykα , i = {1, 2, . . . , K}, and Ui and Di are the weighting factors,
respectively, for UL and DL user association for the i-th tier.
Assumption 1. Let µi =

Ui
Di

and without loss of generality, let us assume that the network

tiers are ordered such that µ1 ≤ µ2 ≤ · · · ≤ µK .

9

Note that Ui and Di are design parameters and are not necessarily equal. Varying thsese
weighting factors can result in different association scenarios. For example, (i) coupled user
association: when Ui = Di , each UE associates to the same BS for both DL and UL, (ii)
minimum-distance user association: when Ui = U (or Di = D), each UE associates to the nearest
BS for UL (or DL), (iii) maximum-received power user association: when Di = Pi−1 , each UE
associates to the BS that offers the strongest received power for DL, and (iv) minimum-transmit
power user association: when Ui = ρi , each UE associates to the BS that requires lowest transmit
power for UL.
E. Methodology of Analysis
Based on the system model described above, we aim at quantifying the performance of a
generic FD link in terms of mean rate in nats/sec/Hz. We first derive the user association
probability and distance distributions based on decoupled and weighted path-loss user association.
Then, we obtain the mean of interference experienced at a typical BS in UL and at a typical
UE in DL. Next, we derive the mean rate utility of the network as well as that of UL and DL
transmissions. Finally, we optimize UL and DL weighting factors such that the mean rate utility
of the FD network is maximized.
III. A NALYSES OF D ISTANCE AND U SER A SSOCIATION P ROBABILITIES IN FD N ETWORKS
A. Analysis of User Association Probabilities
Note that, even with DUA, an FD UE can associate to the same BS in the k-th tier for both
UL and DL transmissions with a certain probability. It is worth mentioning that this scenario is
different from the CUA as it does not necessitate Uk and Dk to be equal (as in the CUA). That
is, although the UE still uses two different decision criteria for UL and DL user association (i.e.,
DUA in (1) and (2)), one BS meets both criteria. This event occurs depending on the network
realization. Let ψjk denote the joint association probability that a UE is served by a BS from
the j-th tier in DL and a BS from the k-th tier in UL. The following lemma characterizes this
probability.

10

Lemma 1. (Joint association probability) The probability that an FD UE with DUA is served
by the j-th tier for DL and k-th tier for UL transmissions is

K
−1

2
P


λj
max {Dji , Uji } α λi
,
j=k



i=1


2
2
  α2 j−1
α
P 1
ψjk =
µl+1
µlα
Dj

−
,
k<j
λj λk Uk
2
2

Υ2l (j)
α Ω

1+µl+1
1+µlα Ωl
l=k

l


0,
k>j
 P
−1
P
K
K
l
2
P
Uj
Dj
λi
λi
α
where Ujk = Uk , Djk = Dk , Υl (j) =
Dji λi , and Ωl =
.
2
2
Proof: See Appendix A-I.

i=1 Uiα

i=l+1

(3)

α
i=l+1 Di

Note that the joint association probability ψjk is different from the per-tier association probability, which is defined as the probability that a UE is served by a BS belonging to a certain
tier for DL (UL) regardless of the serving UL (DL) BS. This per-tier association probability can
be obtained directly from the joint association probability derived in Lemma 1. The following
lemma provides expressions for this probability for both DL and UL transmissions.
Lemma 2. (Per-tier association probability) The probability that a UE associates to a BS from
the j-th tier for either DL or UL is defined, respectively, as follows:
DL −1
ADL
j = λj (Λj )

where ΛDL
j =

PK

2

UL
α
i=1 Dji λi and Λj =

PK

and

UL −1
AUL
j = λj (Λj )

(4)

2

α
i=1 Uji λi are the effective spatial densities of the j-th

tier for DL and UL transmissions, respectively.
B. Analysis of Distance to Serving BS(s)

Based on the system model and user association criteria described above, for UEs operating
in FD mode, the marginal PDFs of the distances to the serving BSs in DL and UL are presented
in the following lemma the proof of which can be found in [25, Appendix A].
Lemma 3. (Marginal distance distributions) The CDF of the distance between a generic UE


2
associated with the j-th tier for DL (or UL) and its serving BS is P[Rjm ≤ r] = 1−exp −πΛm
r
j
 n
 2+n 
− n2
m
and the n-th moment is ERjm Rj = Γ 2
πΛj
, where m ∈ {DL, UL}.
Furthermore, the joint PDF of the distance to serving BSs for DL and UL transmissions for

FD UEs is presented in the following lemma.

11

Lemma 4. (Joint distance distribution) The joint PDF of the distance(s) from a generic FD
UE to its serving BS(s), when associated to the j-th tier for DL and k-th tier for UL, is



K
2
P

2

α
max {Dji , Uji } λi rj ,
j = k, rk = rj
 2πλj rj exp −π
i=1


fR (rj , rk ) =
K
2

P


 4π 2 λj λk rj rk exp −π
max Dji rjα , Uki rkα α λi , k < j, (rj , rk ) ∈ A

(5)

i=1

n
o
1
1
α
α
where A = (rj , rk ) : rj ≥ 0, Djk rj < rk < Ujk rj , and their expectations are given by
 K
− m2
2
P
ER [Rjm ] = Γ 2
π
max {Dji , Uji } α λi
,
i=1
j−1
−1 j−1
P
P −1
m
Hjl [µl , µl+1 ; 0]
ER [Rj ] =
Hjl [1, 1; m] ,
Ωl
l=k
l=k
−1 j−1
j−1
P
P
n
Hjl [µl , µl+1 ; n] ,
Hjl [µl , µl+1 ; 0]
ER [Rk ] =
 2+m 

where Hjl [a, b; c] =

c

π2

− 4+c
2

(Υl (j))

Proof: See Appendix A-II.

k<j

(6)

k<j

l=k

l=k

Γ[ 2+c
2 ]

j=k



− 2+c
− 2+c


2
2
2
2
2+c
2+c
α
α
a α 1 + µl Ω l
− b α 1 + µl+1 Ωl
.

C. Analysis of Uplink Transmission Power
As stated above, the UEs served in UL by a BS from k-th tier are assumed to perform fractional
channel inversion with open loop power spectral density ρk . The UEs are also assumed to have
a constraint Pmax on the transmit power. Thus, we define the required amount of transmit power
of a UE when it associates with a BS from the k-th tier as γk = min {ρk G Rkα , Pmax } where

Rk is the distance to the serving BS from tier k for UL transmission and its CDF is given in

Lemma 3. Therefore, following Lemma 3, we derive the CDF of the transmit power where the
 α1 i
h

t
UL
· 1{t < Pmax }.
proof follows directly such that P[Γk > t] = P Rk > ρk G
Lemma 5. (Transmit power distribution) The CDF of the transmit power of a UE associated

to tier k in UL and performing fractional channel inversion power control is P[Γk ≤ t] =
h

 α2 i
t
1 − exp − πΛUL
· 1{t < Pmax } and its n-th moment is given by
k
ρk G
"

 α2 #
n n
nα
P
nαρ
G
max
k
E[Γnk ] =
, πΛUL
.
(7)
nα γ
k
2
2
ρk G
2(πΛUL
)
k

12

IV. A NALYSIS OF R ATE C OVERAGE OF FD T RANSMISSIONS
In this section, we characterize the mean rate utility for a generic FD link. We assume
that during a transmission interval, a receiver (i.e., BS or a UE) using a particular channel
to communicate with its corresponding transmitter experiences interference from all other BSs
as well as UEs reusing the same channel. We start by defining the SINR received at a typical
UE and BS. Then, the mean rate utility is also derived for a generic FD link and several special
cases in the literature.
A. Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio
For the system model described above, the SINR can be expressed as follows:
SINRDL
jk =

Pj h
DL
DL
(I + ISI + σ 2 )GkxDL kα

and

SINRUL
jk =

min{ρk G kxUL kα , Pmax }h
2
UL α
(IUL + IUL
SI + σ )Gkx k

(8)

where xDL ∈ Φj and xUL ∈ Φk denote the serving BS for DL and UL transmissions, respectively,

as defined in (1)-(2). σ 2 is the additive noise power, {h} are channel power gains where subscripts

are dropped for simplicity, and IDL and IUL are the interference received, respectively, at the
tagged UE (i.e., DL) and BS (i.e., UL) from all other BSs and UEs sharing the same channel.
Note that, unlike HD networks, interference signals received from DL and UL transmissions are
correlated due to the relative distance between each UE-BS pair and the observation point. In
order to characterize the interference, using the fact that each cell has exactly one DL and one
UL transmissions, we pair each UE and its serving BS in UL together as an interfering pair.
Hence, the aggregate interference at a typical receiver (i.e., a UE or a BS) located at the origin
(0, 0) can be defined as follows2 :
IDL =

K
X

X

Pi h
+
Gkxkα

X

Pi h
+
Gb kxkαb

i=1 x∈Φi

I

UL

=

K
X

\{xDL }

i=1 x∈Φi \{xUL }

X

y∈Ψi

\{u[xUL ]}

X

γi (y)h
Gu kykαu

(9)

γi (y)h
Gkykα

(10)

y∈Ψi \{u[xUL ]}

where u[x] returns the UE served by BS x in UL, γi (y) = min{ρi G ky − u−1 [y]kα , Pmax } is
the transmit power of the UE, and Ψi is the point process that represents the active UEs. Note
that, due to the correlation between the positions of active UEs and BSs resulting from the
orthogonal time-frequency resource allocations (e.g., OFDMA), this point process does is not
2

Due to the homogeneous PPP assumption, interference statistics are independent of the observation point [5].

13

a PPP. Instead, the positions of active UEs can be seen as a Voronoi perturbed lattice process
which is not mathematically tractable [6], [26].
Assumption 2. The active UEs from the i-th tier are assumed to form an arbitrary point
process Ψi that is (i) stationary with spatial density λi , (ii) independent of the point processes
of active UEs from different tiers, and (iii) independent of Φi 3 .
B. Interference Model
For each type of tagged receivers (i.e., BSs or UEs) and interferers (i.e., BSs or UEs), we
define a pair correlation function g(r) which in turn quantifies the spatial density of interfering
nodes from i-th tier as λi g(r).
(i) BSs-to-UEs (DL-to-DL): Using (2), we know that no interfering BS from i-th tier can have
1

less weighted path-loss to a UE than its serving BS, hence, kxk > Djiα kxDL k, where x ∈ Φi
1

and xDL ∈ Φj [5]–[7], [24], [27]. Therefore, g1 (r) = 1{r > Djiα Rj }, where Rj = kxDL k.

(ii) UEs-to-BS (UL-to-UL): There is no exact boundary for the exclusion region around the
tagged BS where interfering UEs can be arbitrarily close. However, using (1), we know
that none of the interfering UEs associates with that BS, hence, for a UE u served by a BS
1

from i-th tier, kxUL − uk > Uikα kx − uk, where x ∈ Φi and xUL ∈ Φk [6], [7], [25], [28].
1

Therefore, g2 (r) = 1{r > Uikα Ri }, where Ri = kx − uk.

(iii) BSs-to-BS (DL-to-UL): Due to the PPP assumption, the BSs can be very close to each other,
however, this is not true in practice due to physical constraints, different antenna heights,
etc. [21]. Here, we use the approximation proposed in [29] to model interfering BSs from
i-th tier as a non-homogeneous point process with g3 (r) = (1 − exp[−π βλbi r2 ])1{r > db }

to model the repulsion between BSs in practical deployments where βb is the repulsion

parameter and db is a constraint on the length of an DL-to-UL interference link.
(iv) UEs-to-UE (UL-to-DL): We use a similar approximation to model the interfering UEs
served by the i-th tier of BSs in UL as a non-homogeneous point process with g4 (r) =
i
(1 − exp[−π AλUL
r2 ])1{r > du }, where AUL
is the repulsion parameter as in [6] and du is
i
i

the minimum length of an UL-to-DL interference link [30].
3


2
Other approximations for Ψi exist in the literature, e.g., non-homogeneous PPP with spatial density λi 1 − exp[−πΛUL
i r ]

[6], or more generally λi g(r), where g(r) is a pair correlation function as proposed in [29]. Another approximation is using
q
1
PPP assumption with exclusion ball of radius
such as in [31] for single-tier networks.
πΛUL
i

14

C. Self-Interference
UL
In (8), IDL
SI is SI resulting from UL transmission at the UE, and ISI is SI resulting from DL

transmission at the BS. Since the SI incurred at a given receiver depends on its own transmit
power, we define the residual SI power after cancellation as follows:


UL α
IDL
SI = min ρk G kx k , Pmax hu

and

IUL
SI = Pk hbk

(11)

where hbk and hu represent SI channels such that σbk = E[hbk ] and σu = E[hu ] are the inverse
of SIC capability of BSs from tier k and UEs, respectively.
D. Mean Rate Utility
For a given FD link, let us define the rate coverage probability as the probability of UL (DL)
DL
transmission rate to be higher than a required target rate threshold RUL
o (Ro ). In other words,

for UL (DL) transmission to achieve the target rate, the SINR received at the BS (UE) must be
greater than a prescribed threshold τ UL (τ DL ) that can be given using Shannon’s formula such
that τ m = exp[Rm
o ] − 1, m ∈ {DL, UL}. Hence, the rate Rjk of a generic FD link measured in

nats/sec/Hz for a UE served by a BS from j-th tier for DL and a BS from k-th tier for UL is
defined as:




DL
UL
Rjk = P(SINRDL
) ln 1 + τ DL + P(SINRUL
) ln 1 + τ UL
jk > τ
jk > τ
|
{z
} |
{z
}
=RDL
jk

(12)

=RUL
jk

DL
UL
which corresponds to a fixed data rate transmission (i.e., RDL
] and RUL
])
o = ln[1+τ
o = ln[1+τ
UL
when the SINRs for DL and UL transmissions (i.e., SINRDL
jk and SINRjk , respectively) exceed

the predefined thresholds; otherwise, the transmission rate is zero.
Furthermore, we define the mean rate utility of a generic FD link in the network as:
R̄ =

K X
K
X
j=1 k=1

UL
ψjk f RDL
jk , Rjk



(13)


UL
where f RDL
is the mean utility of an FD link given that the UE is associated with jjk , Rjk

  DL UL 
UL
th tier for DL and k-th tier for UL. In this work, we use f RDL
,
R
=
E
ln Rjk Rjk =
jk
jk




UL
E ln RDL
as the mean utility function measured in ln[nats/sec/Hz] [7], [32]. The
jk + E ln Rjk

motivation of considering this utility is to achieve proportional fairness among UEs. This is
achieved by improving the rates of links with low rate coverage probability while saturating
the rates of links with high rate coverage probability. This performance metric is widely used

15

in the literature to solve the problem of radio resource allocations while achieving fairness
via maximizing R̄ [33]. Therefore, hereafter, we derive the following performance metric for a
generic UE operating in the FD mode:

 
m
m
m
,
E[ln Rm
jk ] = ln Ro + E ln P(SINRjk > τ )

m ∈ {DL, UL}

(14)

where the expectation is with respect to h, R, Φi , and Ψi .

First, we focus on UL rate coverage, which can be obtained as follows:
" "
 !##
UL
UL
UL
2

 
τ
G
I
+
I
+
σ
(a)
SI
UL
) = E ln P g >
E ln P(SINRUL
jk > τ
α

min{ρk G Rk , Pmax }Rk−α
#
"
 UL 
 UL 
2
+
E
I
+
σ
E
I
(b)
SI
= −τ UL G ER
min{ρk G Rkα , Pmax }Rk−α

(15)

where (a) follows from (8) and (b) follows from the Rayleigh fading assumption. The mean of
IUL and IUL
SI are presented in the following lemma.
Lemma 6. (Mean of uplink interference) The mean interference power received at a typical
BS belonging to the k-th tier is given by
K
 UL  X
E I
=
2πλi
i=1

K1 (db , αb , βλbi )

 
and the mean of SI is E IUL
= σbk Pk , where
SI
and

Gb

2−α

U α K2 (i)
Pi + ik
ρi
G(α − 2)

!




 (2<α<4)
α−2
α−2
d2−α
2−α
2−α
1
1
(d→0)
2
2
2
K1 (d, α, Λ) =
Γ
Γ
− (πΛ)
, πΛd
= − (πΛ)
α−2 2
2
2
2

2#
Pmax α
4 − α(1 − )
UL 2
UL
K2 (i) =
Γ
, πΛi do , πΛi
2
ρi G
"
 α2 #

α−2 Pmax
4
−
α
P
max
2
+ (πΛUL
Γ
, πΛUL
i )
i
ρi G
2
ρi G


α(1−)−2
4 − α(1 − )
(Pmax →∞)
UL
UL
2
=
(πΛi ) 2 Γ
, πΛi do .
2
(πΛUL
i )

α(1−)−2
2

(16)

(17)

"

(18)

in which do is the minimum distance between UEs and BSs [21].
Proof: See Appendix B-I.

Note that in (18), the first term represents interference from UEs that are able to perform
channel inversion power control without exceeding the power budget where the second term
represents the interference from UEs who are transmitting with the maximum power Pmax .

16

Next, similar to UL, the rate coverage for DL can be obtained as follows:
"  
#
 DL 
DL
2

 
E
I
+
E
I
+
σ
SI
DL
) = −τ DL G ER
E ln P(SINRDL
jk > τ
Pj Rj−α

(19)

where the mean of IDL and IDL
SI are presented in the following lemma.

Lemma 7. (Mean of downlink interference) The mean interference power received at a typical
UE served in DL by the j-th tier and in UL by the k-th tier is given by
 2−α

K
2−α
α
UL
X
 
Dji Rj
K1 (du , αu , Λi )
2πλi 
Pi +
E [Γi ]
E IDL =
G(α
−
2)
G
u
i=1

where E [Γi ] is given in Lemma 5 and the mean of SI power is
"

2#
 DL 
σu αρk G
Pmax α
α
UL
E ISI =
, πΛk
.
α γ
2
2
ρk G
2(πΛUL
k )

(20)

(21)

Proof: See Appendix B-II.
The following theorem presents closed-form expressions for the mean rate utility in (13) for
a generic FD link when a UE associates with the same tier j with probability ψjj and associates
with tier j for DL transmission and tier k for UL transmission with probability ψjk .
Theorem 1. (Mean rate utility of FD networks) The mean rate utility of the FD network model
described above is given by R̄ = R̄o −
!
!


K X
K
X
A2 σu E[Γk ]
τ UL σbk Pk + A3 (k)
τ DL A1 (j) Γ 2+α
2
+
+
+
K4 (k)
ψjk G
α
α
2
2
Pj
πΛDL
K3 (j, k)
ρk G (πΛUL
(πΛDL
j
j )
k )
j=1 k=1

(22)

UL
where R̄o = ln RDL
o + ln Ro and

2−α

A1 (j) =

K
X
2πλi Djiα
i=1

G(α − 2)

A3 (k) = σ 2 +
and







K
X

Pi ,

2

A2 = σ +

2πλi

1
Γ[ 2+α
2 ]

i

Gu

i=1

K1 (db , αb , βλbi )
Gb

i=1



K
X
2πλi K1 (du , αu , ΛUL )

K
P

2−α

U α K2 (i)
Pi + ik
ρi
G(α − 2)

2
α

 α2

max {Dji , Uji } λi
,
K3 (j, k) =

−1 j−1
 j−1
P −1
P


Hjl [1, 1; α]
Hjl [µl , µl+1 ; 0] ,

Ωl
π

i=1

l=k

"

2 + α(1 − )
K4 (k) = (πΛUL
, πΛUL
k ) γ
k
2
α
2

!

E [Γi ]
(23)

.

j=k
(24)
k<j

l=k



Pmax
ρk G

 α2 #

"

 α2 #
ρk G
2+α
P
max
Γ
, πΛUL
+
k
Pmax
2
ρk G

17

(Pmax →∞)

=

α
2
(πΛUL
k ) Γ




2 + α(1 − )
.
2

(25)

Proof: See Appendix C.
Note that in (25), the first term represents the mean of the inverse of the useful signal power
received at a typical BS from a UE being served that is able to perform channel inversion power
control without exceeding the power budget. On the other hand, the second term represents the
mean of the inverse of the useful signal power received from a UE that is transmitting with the
maximum power Pmax .
E. Special Cases
Using the lemmas derived above and Theorem 1, the performance of (i) a network tier that
consists only of legacy HD BSs with UL transmissions and (ii) a typical legacy HD UE with
DL transmissions is presented in the following two corollaries where the proofs follow directly
from (22). It is worth mentioning that if we add SI at FD BSs and FD UEs, the expressions for
mean rate utility in Corollaries 1 and 2, respectively, will be equivalent to the mean rate utility
of UL and DL transmissions in an FD network.
Corollary 1. (Legacy uplink transmissions) The mean rate utility offered by the k-th tier that
UL
consists only of HD BSs in an FD cellular network to its UEs is given by ln RUL
k = ln Ro −
!!
2−α
λi
K
α
X
K
(d
,
α
,
)1{i
=
6
k}
1
b
b
K4 (k)
U
K
(i)
τ UL 1−
2
β
b
G
σ2 +
2πλi
Pi + ik
ρi
(26)
α .
2
ρk
Gb
G(α − 2)
(πΛUL
k )
i=1

Corollary 2. (Legacy downlink transmissions) The mean rate utility offered by an FD network
DL
to a legacy HD UE served by the j-th tier is given by: ln RDL
j = ln Ro −
 


2−α

 2+α 
K
2+α
α
UL
DL
X
D
Γ
Γ
K
(d
,
α
,
Λ
)
τ
1 u
u
ji
i
2
2
2
G
2πλi  DL
Pi +
E [Γi ]. (27)
α σ +
α
DL
DL
2
Pj
πΛ
G(α
−
2)
(πΛj ) 2
G
(πΛ
)
u
j
j
i=1

In addition, the performance of HD UL networks and HD DL networks can be obtained as
presented in the following corollaries where the proofs follow directly from (22).
Corollary 3. (Half-duplex uplink networks) The mean rate utility of HD UL networks with
weighted path-loss user association is given by
K
X

K

2−α

UL
X 2πλi U α K2 (i)
UL τ
1−
2
ik
R̄ = ln RUL
−
A
G
σ
+
ρi
o
k
ρ
G(α
−
2)
k
i=1
k=1

!

K4 (k)
α
2
(πΛUL
k )

(28)

18

(Pmax →∞)
(σ 2 =0)

=

(Ui =ρ)
(Pmax →∞)
(σ 2 =0)

=

ln RUL
o

ln RUL
o

−

K
X

2−α
 
 K
2 + α(1 − )
4 − α(1 − ) X 2ρi Uikα
Γ
Γ
AUL
 (α − 2) i
ρk
2
2
G
i=1

τ
AUL
k

k=1

UL




 

2 + α(1 − )
4 − α(1 − )
2τ UL
Γ
Γ
.
− 
G (α − 2)
2
2

(29)

(30)

Corollary 4. (Half-duplex downlink networks) The mean rate utility of HD DL networks with
weighted path-loss user association is given by
 

2−α

K
K
2+α
α
DL
X
X
2πλi Dji
Γ 2
τ
2
ADL
G
Pi 
R̄ = ln RDL
α σ +
o −
j
DL
DL
2
P
πΛ
G(α
−
2)
(πΛ
)
j
j
j
j=1
i=1
(σ 2 =0)

=

ln RDL
o −

(Di =Pi−1 )
(σ 2 =0)

=

K
X
j=1

ln RDL
o −

ADL
j

K
τ DL X 2Pi Dij DL
A
Pj i=1 α − 2 i

2τ DL
.
α−2

(31)

(32)

(33)

The results presented in (29) and (32) are consistent with the previous results in [7] on user
association in multi-tier HD cellular networks. Furthermore, from (30) and (33), it can be seen
that the performance of an interference-limited network is independent of the spatial density,
receiver sensitivity, and transmit power of BSs, which is consistent with the results in existing
literature [6], [7], [24], [25], [27].
In addition, by comparing the results in Corollaries 1 and 2 with those in Corollaries 3
and 4, respectively, it can be seen that the mean rates of both UL and DL transmissions in
FD networks are lower than those in HD networks. This degradation is due to the additional
interference resulting from FD transmissions and SI. It can be seen that for UL transmissions,
DL-to-UL interference can be reduced by increasing the isolation of BSs. This can achieved by
increasing SIC capability of BSs or using directional antennas where both vertical and horizontal
patterns are designed such that the BSs are not in the main-lobe of each other. For DL, the effect
of UL-to-DL interference can be seen to be less severe because of the low transmit power of
UEs compared to that of BSs.
Furthermore, the performance of FD networks with CUA and FD networks with 3NT are
presented in the following two corollaries where the proofs follow directly from (22).

19

Corollary 5. (Coupled user association) The mean rate utility of FD networks with CUA is
given by: R̄ = R̄o −
 DL 




K
X
τ
A1 (k)
2 + α σu E[Γk ]+A2
τ UL 1− σbk Pk + A3 (k)
DL
G
+Γ
+
G
K4 (k) . (34)
Ak
α
α
2
2
Pk
πΛDL
2
ρk
(πΛDL
(πΛDL
k
k )
k )
k=1
Corollary 6. (3-node topology) The mean rate utility of FD networks with 3NT for a UE
served by j-th tier in DL in given by (27) where that for a UE served by k-th tier in UL is
UL
given by ln RUL
k = ln Ro −
K

X
τ UL 1−
G
σ 2 + σbk Pk +
2πλi
ρk
i=1

K1 (db , αb , βλbi )
Gb

2−α

U α K2 (i)
Pi + ik
ρi
G(α − 2)

!!

K4 (k)
α .
2
(πΛUL
k )

(35)

Proof: The proof follows from Corollaries 1 and 2 while considering SI affecting UL
transmissions at BSs.
V. R ATE M AXIMIZATION IN FD N ETWORKS BY O PTIMAL U SER A SSOCIATION
In this section, for optimal user association, we derive closed-form expressions for the weighting factors that maximize the mean rate utility of FD cellular networks given in Theorem 1. For
analytical tractability, we assume that (i) all BSs have the same receiver sensitivity (i.e., ρk = ρ),
(ii) there is no constraint on the maximum transmit power of UEs (i.e., Pmax → ∞), and (iii)
SI at BSs is modeled as noise such that σbk Pk = σb . The last assumption implies that the SIC
capability of a BS is proportional to its transmit power (i.e., σbk ∝

1
),
Pk

that is, the cancellation

capability of BSs with higher transmit power such as macrocell BSs is better than that of BSs
with lower transmit power such as picocell or femtocell BSs. Following a similar procedure as
in [7], we first derive the optimal effective spatial density Λ∗UL
and Λ∗DL
j , then we retrieve the
k
PK λ j
α
α
∗
∗DL 2
2
optimal weighting factors Uk∗ ← a1 (Λ∗UL
=1
k ) and Dj ← a2 (Λj ) which satisfy
j=1 Λ∗DL
j
PK λk
and k=1 Λ∗UL = 1 for any positive constants a1 and a2 (cf. Lemma 2).
k

20

After some mathematical manipulations, maximizing (22) is equivalent to solving the following
set of concave optimization sub-problem simultaneously:
P1:
P2:
subject to

min

UL
ΛDL
j ,Λj

min

UL
ΛDL
j ,Λj

K
X

K
X

c1 λ j

DL 2+α
2
i=1
j=1 Pj (Λj )
K
K
X
X
c3 λ j

K
X
λj
ΛDL
j
j=1

2+α
2

Pi λ i
(ΛDL
i )

ρi λi ΛUL
i

ρj (ΛUL
j )
i=1
K
X
λj
= 1,
= 1,
ΛUL
j
j=1

j=1

2−α
2

and

+

 α2

K
X

K
X
ρi λi K1 (du , αu , ΛUL )

c2 λ j

DL 2+α
2
j=1 Pj (Λj )
i=1
K
K
X
X
c4 λ j

+

j=1

Pj (ΛDL
j )

UL
ΛDL
j , Λj ≥ 0,

2+α
2

i=1

(ΛUL
i )

α
2

i

ρ i λi

(ΛUL
i )

2+α
2

∀j

where ci is an arbitrary positive constant for i ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}.

Using Lagrangian relaxation and taking the first order partial derivatives with respect to ΛDL
j

and ΛUL
j , the optimal user association probability can be obtained as follows:
Λ∗DL
j

=

−2
Pj α

K
X

Pi λ i

i=1

which are equivalent to Dj∗ =

D
Pj

2
α

and

Λ∗UL
j

=

K
X

λi

(36)

i=1

and Uj∗ = U for arbitrary positive constants D and U . This

result is presented in the following theorem.
Theorem 2. (Optimal user association in multi-tier FD networks) For an FD network, the
mean rate utility is maximized when user association is based on maximum received power in
DL and on minimum distance in UL.
It is worth mentioning that the result in Theorem 2 shows the importance of DUA in FD
cellular networks in order to maximize the overall mean rate of the network. The reason that a
UE prefers to be served based on the maximum received SINR for DL and the minimum distance
for UL can be explained as follows. From the DL perspective: (i) the received signal power at
the UE from its serving BS is maximized, (ii) the received interference power at the UE from
other BSs is minimized, and (iii) the SI power at the UE is minimized when transmitting to the
nearest BS in UL. From the UL perspective: (i) the received signal power from the UE at its
serving BS is maximized, (ii) the received interference power from other UEs at the serving BS
is minimized when all UEs transmit with the minimum power, and (iii) since all BSs transmit
with fixed power, the network tier of the serving BS for DL (or DL weighting factors) has no
effect on the mean UL rate. The result above also shows the superiority of DUA compared to
CUA in the FD network under consideration. That is, as shown in Theorem 1, two different
association criteria are required for UL and DL user association to maximize the mean rate of
FD networks. Clearly, this is possible only with DUA but not possible in general under any

21

CUA criterion where the UEs are forced to associate with the same BS for both UL and DL.
This result is also intuitive since CUA is a special case of DUA implying that the maximum
performance of CUA can be always achieved by DUA.
VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSIONS
A. System Parameters
We use the results obtained above in closed-form to evaluate system performance in different
scenarios. We consider the following cases: (i) FD networks with both CUA and DUA, (ii) FD
networks with 3NT, (iii) HD DL networks (i.e., only DL transmissions), (iv) HD UL networks
(i.e., only UL transmissions), (v) legacy DL transmissions (i.e., HD UEs with DL transmissions in
an FD network), and (vi) legacy UL transmissions (i.e., HD BSs with UL transmissions in an FD
network). For simulation and numerical evaluation, unless otherwise stated, we consider a twotier network with spatial densities λ2 = 4λ1 . The transmit powers of BSs are {P1 , P2 } = {37, 33}

dBm and the maximum transmit power of UEs is Pmax = 23 dBm. The path-loss exponents are
{α, αb , αu } = {4, 3.7, 4}, path-loss constants are {G, Gb , Gu } = {0, 30, 0} dB, and the minimum
distances for the pair correlation functions are {do , db , du } = {1, 40, 1} m. For UL transmissions,

the power control factor is  = 0.9 and all BSs have the same receiver sensitivity ρi = −40

dBm. The SIC capabilities of BSs and UEs are { σ1b , σ1u } = {70, 70} dB and the noise power is
k

σ = −104 dBm. For the evaluation of mean rate utility, SINR thresholds τ DL and τ UL are set to

UL
0, i.e., RDL
o = Ro = ln(2) nats/sec/Hz.

B. Validation of Analytical Results
We validate the expressions derived in Lemmas 6 and 7 for the mean interference received
at a BS and a UE, respectively. These two expressions are the keys to deriving all the following
results including Theorem 1 and they include all assumptions made throughout the analysis of
the mean rate utility. The curves in Fig. 2 compare the results obtained from simulations and
analysis as a function of the spatial density of tier 1. For Monte Carlo simulations, the locations
of the BSs simulated as independent PPPs over a 20 × 20 km2 area with a typical UE or BS at

the origin. To simulate the active UEs that are causing UL-to-UL and UL-to-DL interference,
the UEs are first dropped as a PPP with high spatial density, then the UEs associate with BSs
based on the defined association criteria for UL. Then, each BS randomly selects one UE for
UL transmission. Hence, Assumption 2 is not retained in the simulation. The mean interference
power for various links is averaged over 10, 000 iterations. The results in Fig. 2 validate the

-40

-25

-45

-30

Mean of Interference (dBm)

Mean of Interference (dBm)

22

-50

-55

-60

-65

-35

-40

-45

-50

Downlink-to-uplink (Analysis)
Uplink-to-uplink (Analysis)
Simulation

-70

Downlink-to-downlink (Analysis)
Uplink-to-downlink (Analysis)
Simulation

-55
0

5

10

15

20

25

0

Spatial density of tier 1 (# 0.52 : BS/km 2 ), 6 1

5

10

15

20

25

Spatial density of tier 1 (# 0.52 : BS/km 2 ), 6 1

(a) Mean of Interference at a typical BS

(b) Mean of Interference at a typical UE

Fig. 2. Analysis (Lemmas 6 and 7) vs. simulation: Mean of interference resulting from DL and UL transmissions at BSs and
UEs.
0.3

0.5
DUA
CUA
0.45

0.2

Downlink (HD Network)
Uplink (HD Network)
Downlink (Legacy & 3NT)
Uplink (Legacy)
Uplink (3NT)

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
10 0

Mean rate utility (nats/sec/Hz)

Mean rate utility (nats/sec/Hz)

0.25

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

10 1

10 2

0.15
10 0

10 1

Spatial density of tier 1 (# 5 (0.52 :) -1 BS/km 2 ), 6 1

Spatial density of tier 1 (# 5 (0.52 :) -1 BS/km 2 ), 6 1

(a) Mean rate utility of DL and UL

(b) Mean rate utility of DUA and CUA

10 2

Fig. 3. Mean rate utility (in nats/sec/Hz) vs. spatial density of tier 1 (in BS/km2 ).

accuracy of our approach to derive the mean interference and show that the assumptions made
above have a minor effect on the accuracy of the proposed analytical model.
C. Effect of Spatial Density
Fig. 3 shows the effect of varying the density of BSs on the mean rate utility for three
different networks: (i) HD DL network, (ii) HD UL network, and (iii) FD network including
both legacy DL and UL transmissions, and (iv) 3NT. For HD DL networks (i.e., Corollary 4)
in Fig. 3a, the mean rate utility of DL transmissions is almost independent of the density of
BSs. This can be explained as increasing λ results in increasing the power of both the useful
signal and interference and the SINR remains unchanged. For HD UL networks (i.e., Corollary
3), the performance results can be explained as follows. In sparse networks with low density,
the distances between UEs and their serving BSs become large and the UEs transmit with their

23

maximum power with high probability. Consequently, the useful received signal power decreases
and the interference power is increased at the serving BS. Increasing the BS density improves
the mean rate by making UEs closer to their serving BSs which in turn increases their ability
to perform channel inversion without exceeding the maximum power budget. This increases the
useful signal power and decreases interference power. With a very high BS density, the network
becomes interference-limited and almost all UEs are able to invert their channel towards the
serving BS, hence, the mean rate becomes independent of the spatial density of BSs.
Fig. 3a shows that increasing the density of FD networks has two different effects on the mean
rate utility of legacy transmissions. For legacy DL transmissions (i.e., Corollary 2), the mean
rate is lower compared to HD DL networks where the difference is due to the extra interference
resulting from UL transmissions sharing the same spectrum in the FD network. However,
increasing the density of BSs (i) decreases the transmit power of UEs, hence, decreases UL-toDL interference, (ii) increases the useful signal power which is counteracted by the increase in
DL-to-DL interference. Overall, this improves the mean rate of legacy DL transmissions and the
performance approaches that of HD DL networks in very dense networks. On the other hand,
the mean rate of legacy UL BSs (i.e., Corollary 1) degrades with increasing spatial density of
BSs. Compared to HD UL networks, the difference is due to the extra interference resulting
from DL transmissions. With increasing spatial density, the BSs become closer to each other
which increases the DL-to-UL interference power received at all BSs. At the same time, the
useful signal power received at any BS is upper bounded by ρ. Therefore, the SINR becomes
very low and the mean UL rate approaches zero with increasing BS density. A similar behavior
is evident for 3NT as shown in Fig. 3a. The mean DL rate is identical to that of legacy DL
because both rates are evaluated at an HD UE. On the other hand, the difference between the
mean UL rate in 3NT with FD BS and legacy UL with HD BS is due to the SI experienced at
the FD BS in 3NT.
Fig. 3b elaborates more on the effect of spatial density in FD networks by showing the mean
rate utility of a generic FD link for different user association criteria (i.e., Theorem 1 and
Corollary 5). Overall, it can be seen that the spatial density should be adjusted to balance the
trade-off between the rates of DL and UL transmissions in FD networks. As shown in Fig. 3a, in
dense FD networks, UL transmissions become more susceptible to high DL-to-UL interference.
On the other hand, low spatial density of BSs degrades the performance of both DL and UL
transmissions, respectively, due to high UL-to-DL interference and the maximum power budget

24

0.5

0.5
DUA (FD Network)
CUA (FD Network)
Downlink (HD Network)
Uplink (HD Network)
Downlink (Legacy)
Uplink (Legacy)

Mean rate utility (nats/sec/Hz)

0.4
0.35

0.4

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

0
-50

Mean Rate Utility (FD Network)
Downlink (HD Network)
Uplink (HD Network)
Downlink (Legacy)
Uplink (Legacy)

0.45

Mean rate utility (nats/sec/Hz)

0.45

0
-45

-40
-35
Receiver sensitivity of BSs (;)

-30

-25

(a) Mean rate utility vs. receiver sensitivity of BSs

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Power control factor (0)

0.8

1

(b) Mean rate utility vs. power control factor

Fig. 4. Mean rate utility (in nats/sec/Hz) vs. UL power control parameters: sensitivity of BS receivers ρ (in dBm) and power
control factor .

constraint. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 3b, as the spatial density of BSs increases, the mean rate
utility of the FD network increases up to a maximum value due to the improvement in both DL
and UL transmissions, then it starts to decrease due to the degradation in the mean UL rate.
D. Effect of Power Control
Fig. 4a shows the effect of varying ρ on the mean rate utility of different networks. In
general, decreasing the sensitivity of the receiver (i.e., increasing ρ) increases the amount of
transmit power required by each UE to perform channel inversion towards the serving BS (i.e.,
Lemma 5). This, in turn, increases the power of useful signal, UL-to-UL interference, and ULto-DL interference (cf., Lemmas 6 and 7). Hence, as shown in Fig. 4a, the mean rate of DL
transmissions in the FD network deteriorates with increasing ρ because of UL-to-DL interference
compared to the HD DL scenario. For UL transmissions in both HD UL and FD networks, the
mean UL transmission rate increases due to increased useful signal power. This happens up to
a maximum value, then the rate starts to decrease because the transmit power of UEs becomes
limited by the power budget Pmax . Overall, there exists an optimal value of ρ that maximizes the
mean rate of FD networks and splits the performance into two regimes. That is, as ρ increases,
the mean rate of FD networks increases up to a maximum value, then it starts to decrease. This
behavior can be explained as follows. When ρ is very low (the left side of the optimal point),
while DL transmissions experience low interference from UL transmissions, the interference at
the BSs is very high compared to the useful signal power and thus the mean UL transmission
rate is almost 0. As ρ increases, the mean DL transmission rate of DL transmissions starts to

25

0.5

0.45

0.45
0.4

Mean rate utility (nats/sec/Hz)

Mean rate utility (nats/sec/Hz)

0.4
FD

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2

P1 =33 dBm, P2 =23 dBm

0.15

P1 =33 dBm, P2 =26 dBm

0.1

P1 =33 dBm, P2 =30 dBm

0.05

P1 =33 dBm, P2 =33 dBm

HD-DL

0
10 -1

10 0

0.35

FD
; = -40 dBm
; = -43 dBm
Maximum

0.3

0.25
HD-UL

Maximum
10 1

10 2

0.2
10 -1

D2 /D1

10 0
U2 /U1

10 1

(a) Mean rate utility vs. ratio of DL weighting factors

(b) Mean rate utility vs. ratio of UL weighting factors

Fig. 5. Mean rate utility of FD, HD DL, and HD UL networks (in nats/sec/Hz) vs. the ratio of DL and UL weighting factors.

degrade while the mean rate of UL transmissions improves where this improvement dominates
the overall mean rate performance. This happens until achieving the maximum mean rate. After
this point, as ρ increases (the right side of the optimal point), the mean rates of both DL and UL
transmissions start to fall. Hence, the overall mean rate of the FD network start to decrease. A
similar behavior is observed for varying the power control factor  which can be justified using
the same line of arguments as that for varying ρ. It is worth mentioning that Figs. 3b and 4a
show that DUA is always superior to CUA for all ranges of λ and ρ, which is in agreement with
the analytical results in Section V.
E. Effect of Weighting Factors
Fig. 5a shows the mean rate utility of FD and HD DL networks as a function of DL weighting
factors for different transmit power settings. For both networks, it can be clearly seen that the
maximum mean rate utility is achieved when the ratio of the weighting factors is equal to
the inverse of the transmit power ratio. For example, when

P2
P1

= 0.2 (i.e., {P1 , P2 } = {33, 26}

dBm), the rate of FD transmissions and HD DL transmissions are maximized when
Similar remark can be made for different cases when the ratio
values of

P2
,
P1

the rate is maximized when

D2
D1

P2
P1

D2
D1

=

P1
P2

= 5.

is 1, 0.5, and 0.1. For these

is set to 1, 2, and 10, respectively. This behavior is

consistent with Theorem 2 and can be explained as follows. For HD DL networks, intuitively,
the power of the useful signal at the UE is maximized while the power of interference from
other BSs is minimized when Dj∗HD = Pj−1 . Consequently, both the SINR and mean rate are
maximized. For FD networks, same argument holds for DL transmissions as shown in Corollary
2. On the other hand, the mean UL transmission rate in an FD network is independent of DL

26

weighting factors as shown in Theorem 1 and Corollary 1. Hence, the mean rate utility of FD
transmissions is maximized by maximizing the rate of DL transmissions by setting Dj∗FD = Pj−1 .
On the other hand, Fig. 5b shows the mean rate utility of FD and HD UL networks as a
function of UL weighting factors for different receiver sensitivity settings. In contrast to Fig.
5a, the maximum rate utility for both FD and HD networks is achieved when the ratio of
the weighting factors is equal 1. This behavior is evident for different values of ρ and can be
explained as follows. For HD UL networks, when the UEs associate with their nearest BSs,
the aggregate interference power is minimized as the UEs transmit with the minimum power
required to perform channel inversion power control. In addition, the useful signal power is
maximized as the probability of a UE to perform channel inversion without exceeding Pmax
increases as the distance to the serving BS decreases. Therefore, both SINR and mean rate
utility are maximum when Uk∗HD = U for some constant U . For FD networks, same argument
holds for UL transmissions as given in Corollary 1. For DL transmissions in an FD network,
UL-to-DL interference is minimized when all the UEs transmit with the minimum transmit power
as given in Theorem 1 and Corollary 2. Hence, the mean rate utility of FD transmissions is
maximized by simultaneously maximizing the rate of UL transmissions and minimizing the ULto-DL interference where both are achieved by setting Uk∗FD = U . Therefore, it is clear that the
maximum rate offered by an FD network is achieved for

Dj
Dk

=

Pk
Pj

and

Uj
Uk

= 1. In other words,

thanks to DUA, the mean rate utility can be maximized by simultaneously optimizing both DL
and UL weighting factors which is not generally possible with CUA.
F. Effect of Imperfect Self-Interference Cancellation
Fig. 6a shows the effect of SI on the performance of FD networks. It shows that the mean
rate of DL and UL transmissions in FD networks are highly impacted with increasing σu and
σb , respectively. It is clear that the effect of SI is more severe for UL transmissions as it occurs
at the FD BS where the transmit power is generally high compared to the power of the signal
received from UL UE. Fig. 6a also shows that, based on SIC capability of UEs and BSs, HD
transmissions may be preferable to FD transmissions. Fig. 6b shows the minimum required SIC
capabilities of the UEs and BSs so that the rate offered by an FD network is higher than that of
its HD counterpart. For example, for the case, λ2 = 4λ1 , the rate offered by an HD network is
higher than that offered by an FD network when the SIC capabilities of UEs and BSs are less
than 40 and 50 dBm, respectively. In addition, SIC requirements are lower for higher spatial

27

0.5

Mean rate utility (nats/sec/Hz)

0.4

70
6 2 =46 1

Mean rate (FD Network)
Downlink rate (HD Network)
Uplink rate (HD Network)
Downlink rate (FD Network)
Uplink rate (FD Network)

SI cancellation capability of BSs (dB)

0.45

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1

6 2 =86 1

65

60

55
FD

FD

HD
HD

50

45

0.05
0
10

20

30
40
50
SI cancellation capability (dB)

60

70

(a) Mean rate utility vs. SIC capability

40
10

20

30
40
50
SI cancellation capability of users (dB)

60

70

(b) Minimum required SIC capability for FD networks

Fig. 6. Mean rate utility (in nats/sec/Hz) vs. SIC capability of BSs and UEs

1
σb

k

and

1
.
σu

density of BSs (e.g., for λ2 = 8λ1 ) due to the decrease of the transmit power and consequently
SI at UEs. From Fig. 6b, it can also be seen that the SIC capability of UEs does not have to
be as high as that of BSs to achieve the same performance. This is mainly because the transmit
power of FD UEs is not very high compared to the transmit power of BSs.
VII. C ONCLUSION
We have presented a comprehensive framework for user association in multi-tier FD cellular
networks. For both UL and DL transmissions, we have considered different user association
criteria including both CUA and DUA. We have used stochastic geometry to model, analyze,
and evaluate the performance of the proposed system in terms of mean rate utility of FD, UL,
and DL transmissions. Using weighted path-loss user association, we have derived the optimal
weighting factors that maximize the mean rate utility of FD transmissions in the presence of
DL-to-DL, DL-to-UL, UL-to-UL, and UL-to-DL interferences. In addition, we have shown that,
in order to maximize the mean rate utility of FD networks, the UEs should associate with their
nearest BSs in UL and to the BSs that result in the maximum received power in DL. This
shows the advantage of using DUA over CUA. We have also shown that FD networks may be
preferable to HD networks based on the level of SIC at UEs and BSs.

28

A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF A SSOCIATION P ROBABILITY AND D ISTANCE D ISTRIBUTION
I. Proof of Lemma 1
We first consider the case when a UE associates with different BSs for DL and UL. A UE
associates with different BSs (xDL ∈ Φj for DL and xUL ∈ Φk for UL where j 6= k) under the
following four conditions:

(i) xUL meets the criterion in (1) for UL, i.e., Uk kxUL kα < minx∈Φi Ui kxkα

xDL meets the criterion in (2) for DL, i.e., Dj kxDL kα < minx∈Φi Di kxkα

∀i 6= j, k, (ii)

∀i 6= j, k, (iii) xDL

does not meet the criterion defined for UL in (1), i.e., Uj kxDL kα > Uk kxUL kα , and (iv) xUL does

not meet the criterion defined for DL in (2), i.e., Dk kxUL kα > Dj kxDL kα .

Let Rj = kxDL k and Rk = kxUL k, the event that j 6= k can be expressed as:


K
\
1
1
1

α
α α
α
Djk
Rj < Rk < Ujkα Rj .
min kxk > max Dji Rj , Uki Rk
i=1,i6=j,k

Hence,

(a)

"

"

ψjk = E exp −π
(b)

= 4π 2 λj λk

Z

Z

1
α
Ujk
1

α
Djk

K
X

i=1,i6=j,k

∞

Z

1

αu
Ujk

1
αu
Djk

0

= 2λj λk

(37)

x∈Φi

x

K
X
i=1


max Dji Rjα , Uki Rkα
"

uv exp −π


2
α

K
X
i=1

2
α

2
α

#

1
α

1
α

λi Djk Rj < Rk < Ujk Rj
2
α

#

#

max{Dji uα , Uki v α } λi dvdu

λi max Dji , Uki x

2



!−2

dx

(38)

where (a) follows from: (i) the fact that the minimum distance to a BS from a PPP Φi is
Rayleigh-distributed with CDF P [minx∈Φi kxk ≤ t] = 1 − exp[−πλi t2 ] and (ii) independence

assumption for network tiers, (b) follows since the expectation in (a) is with respect to Rj and
Rk which denote the distances to the serving BSs. Note also that ψjk = 0 when k > j due to
ordering the network tiers such that µi < µi+1 (i.e., Assumption 1).
For the case when j = k, using (1) and (2) and following a similar procedure, the probability
of the event, where xDL = xUL = xo given that xo belongs to the j-th tier, can be expressed as:
"
"
##
K
X
2
max{Dji , Uji } α λi Rj2 .
(39)
ψjj = E exp −π
i=1,i6=j

Hence, the result in (3) can be easily verified.

29

II. Proof of Lemma 4
Following the proof in Appendix A-I, the joint CDF of the distance can be obtained by adding
two more conditions such that Rj > rj and Rk > rk . Then, the joint PDF can be obtained by
differentiation. E[Rjm ] and E[Rkn ] follow the definition of the expected value.
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF M EAN I NTERFERENCE
I. Proof of Lemma 6
Following the definition in (10), g2 (r), and g3 (r), we have
"
#!


Z
Z ∞
K
2
 α
 UL  (a) X
r
Pi ∞ 1 − exp −πΛDL
min{ρ
G
R
,
P
}
i
max
i
i
=
2πλi
E I
dr + ERi
r1−α dr
1
αb −1
α
G
r
G
b
db
Uik Ri
i=1
!
2−α
K
X


Uikα
K1 (db , αb , ΛDL
i )
Pi +
ERi min {ρi Riα , Pmax } Ri2−α
=
2πλi
(40)
Gb
G(α − 2)
i=1

where (a) follows from (i) the Rayleigh fading assumption of interference channels gain and (ii)

Campbell’s Theorem [5] knowing that the distance R from the tagged BS to the closest interfering
1

UE from tier i is greater than Uikα Ri (i.e., Ui Riα < Uk Rα ) as explained earlier in Section IV-B.

i
In addition, the spatial density of interfering BSs is λi (1 − exp[−π AλDL
r2 ]). Following Lemma
i


3, we obtain ERi min {ρi G Riα , Pmax } Ri2−α = ρi K2 (i).

II. Proof of Lemma 7

Following the definition in (9), g1 (r), and g4 (r), we have
 !

Z ∞
Z ∞
K
UL 2
 DL  (a) X
1
−
exp
−πΛ
r
ERi [Γi ]
Pi
i
r1−α dr +
dr
E I
=
2πλi
1
α
−1
u
G Djiα Rj
Gu
r
du
i=1

(41)

where (a) follows from (i) the Rayaleigh fading assumption of interference channels gain and (ii)
i
the fact that Di Rα > Dj Rjα and the spatial density of interfering UEs is λi (1 − exp[−π AλUL
r2 ]).
i
 
Moreover, (21) is obtained from (11) such that E IDL
= σu E [Γk ].
SI

A PPENDIX C

P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
By combining (13), (15), (19), Lemma 6, and Lemma 7 and rearranging all terms, we have
R̄ =

K
K X
X
j=1 k=1

DL
ψjk ER [ln RUL
jk ] + ER [ln Rjk ]



(42)

30

#
"
K
K
α
X
X
σ
P
+
A
(k)
R
bk k
3
k
UL
UL
= ln RDL
G
ψjk ER
o + ln Ro − τ
α

ρk G
min{Rk , Pρkmax
}
G
j=1
k=1
− τ DL G

K
K
X
A1 (j) X
j=1

Pj

K
K
X
 
 
1 X
ψjk ER Rj2 − τ DL G
ψjk (σu E[Γk ] + A2 )ER Rjα
Pj k=1
j=1
k=1

(43)

where the expectation is with respect to the distance to the serving BS(s) (i.e., DL and UL).
Hence, using Lemmas 3 and 4, the expressions in Theorem 1 can be verified.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Sabharwal, P. Schniter, D. Guo, D. Bliss, S. Rangarajan, and R. Wichman,“In-band full-duplex wireless: Challenges
and opportunities” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1637–1652, Sept. 2014.
[2] I. Randrianantenaina, H. ElSawy, and M.-S. Alouini, “Limits on the capacity of in-band full duplex communication in
uplink cellular networks” in Proc. of 2015 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2015.
[3] S. Hong, J. Brand, J. Choi, M. Jain, J. Mehlman, S. Katti, and P. Levis, “Applications of self-interference cancellation in
5G and beyond,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 114–121, Feb. 2014.
[4] H. Elshaer, F. Boccardi, M. Dohler, and R. Irmer, “Downlink and uplink decoupling: A disruptive architectural design
for 5G networks,” in Proc. of 2014 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2014, pp. 1798–1803.
[5] M. Haenggi and R. K. Ganti, Interference in Large Wireless Networks. Now Publishers Inc, 2009.
[6] S. Singh, X. Zhang, 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. 5360–373, May 2015.
[7] Y. Lin, W. Bao, W. Yu, and B. Liang, “Optimizing user association and spectrum allocation in HetNets: A utility
perspective,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1025–1039, June 2015.
[8] K. Smiljkovikj, H. Elshaer, P. Popovski, F. Boccardi, M. Dohler, L. Gavrilovska, and R. Irmer, “Capacity analysis of
decoupled downlink and uplink access in 5G heterogeneous systems,” Available [Online]: arXiv:1410.7270 (2015).
[9] S. Sekander, H. Tabassum, and E. Hossain, “A matching game for decoupled uplink-downlink user association in fullduplex small cell networks,” in Proc. of 2015 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2015.
[10] Z. Tong and M. Haenggi, “Throughput analysis for full-duplex wireless networks with imperfect self-interference
cancellation,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 4490–4500, Nov. 2015.
[11] A. Munari, P. Mähönen, and M. Petrova, “A stochastic geometry framework for asynchronous full-duplex networks.”
Available [Online]: arXiv:1512.01478 (2015).
[12] A. AlAmmouri, H. ElSawy, and M.-S. Alouini, “Flexible design for α-duplex communications in multi-tier cellular
networks,” Available [Online]: arXiv:1511.07903 (2015).
[13] 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.
[14] C. Psomas, M. Mohammadi, I. Krikidis, and H. A. Suraweera, “Directional antennas for interference management in
full-duplex cellular networks,” Available [Online]: arXiv:1602.02718 (2016).
[15] I. Atzeni, M. Kountouris, “Full-duplex MIMO small-cell networks with interference iancellation,” Available [Online]:
arXiv:1612.07289 (2016).
[16] A. Shojaeifard, K. Wong, M. Di Renzo, G. Zheng, K. A. Hamdi, and J. Tang, “Massive MIMO-enabled full-duplex
cellular networks,” Available [Online]: arXiv:1611.03854 (2016).

31

[17] J. H. Yun, “Intra and inter-cell resource management in full-duplex heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile
Comput., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 392–405, Feb. 2016.
[18] C. Nam, C. Joo, and S. Bahk, “Joint subcarrier assignment and power allocation in full-duplex OFDMA networks,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 3108–3119, June 2015.
[19] S. Goyal, P. Liu, S. Panwar, R. Yang, R. A. DiFazio, and E. Bala, “Full duplex operation for small cells,” Available
[Online]: arXiv:1412.8708 (2015).
[20] W. Choi, H. Lim, and A. Sabharwal, “Power-controlled medium access control protocol for full-duplex WiFi networks,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 3601–3613, July 2015.
[21] 3GPP, “TR 36.814 v.9.0.0: Further advancements for E-UTRA,” Mar. 2010.
[22] D. Nguyen, L. Tran, P. Pirinen, and M. Latva-aho, “On the spectral efficiency of full-duplex small cell wireless systems,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 4896–4910, Sep. 2014.
[23] F. J. Martin-Vega, G. Gomez, M. C. Aguayo-Torres, and M. Di 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.
[24] H.-S. Jo, Y. J. Sang, P. Xia, and J. Andrews, “Heterogeneous cellular networks with flexible cell association: A
comprehensive downlink SINR analysis,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 3484–3495, Aug. 2012.
[25] A. H. Sakr and E. Hossain, “Analysis of multi-tier uplink cellular networks with energy harvesting and flexible cell
association,” in Proc. of 2014 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2014, pp. 4712–4717.
[26] B. Blaszczyszyn and D. Yogeshwaran, “Clustering comparison of point processes with applications to random geometric
models,” Available [Online]: arXiv:1212.5285 (2014).
[27] A. H. Sakr and E. Hossain, “Location-aware cross-tier coordinated multipoint transmission in two-tier cellular networks,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 6311–6325, Aug. 2014.
[28] A. H. Sakr and E. Hossain, “Analysis of K-tier uplink cellular networks with ambient RF energy harvesting,” IEEE J.
Select. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 2226–2238, Oct. 2015.
[29] M. Haenggi, “User point processes in cellular networks,” Available [Online]: arXiv:1611.08560 (2016).
[30] M. Ni, L. Zheng, F. Tong, J. Pan and L. Cai, “A geometrical-based throughput bound analysis for device-to-device
communications in cellular networks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 100–110, Jan. 2015.
[31] 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.
[32] F. Baccelli, B. Blaszczyszyn, and C. Singh, “Analysis of a proportionally fair and locally adaptive spatial aloha in Poisson
networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Commun. (INFOCOM), 2014, pp. 2544–2552.
[33] F. Kelly, A. Maulloo, and D. Tanm “Rate control in communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and
stability,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 237–252, Mar. 1998.

