1

Coverage Analysis of a Vehicular Network
Modeled as Cox Process Driven by Poisson
Line Process
arXiv:1709.08577v1 [cs.IT] 25 Sep 2017

Vishnu Vardhan Chetlur and Harpreet S. Dhillon

Abstract
In this paper, we consider a vehicular network in which the wireless nodes are located on a system
of roads. We model the roadways, which are predominantly straight and randomly oriented, by a Poisson
line process (PLP) and the locations of nodes on each road as a homogeneous 1D Poisson point process
(PPP). Assuming that each node transmits independently, the locations of transmitting and receiving
nodes are given by two Cox processes driven by the same PLP. For this setup, we derive the coverage
probability of a typical receiver, which is an arbitrarily chosen receiving node, assuming independent
Nakagami-m fading over all wireless channels. Assuming that the typical receiver connects to its closest
transmitting node in the network, we first derive the distribution of the distance between the typical
receiver and the serving node to characterize the desired signal power. We then characterize coverage
probability for this setup, which involves two key technical challenges. First, we need to handle several
cases as the serving node can possibly be located on any line in the network and the corresponding
interference experienced at the typical receiver is different in each case. Second, conditioning on the
serving node imposes constraints on the spatial configuration of lines, which require careful analysis of
the conditional distribution of the lines. We address these challenges in order to accurately characterize
the interference experienced at the typical receiver. We then derive an exact expression for coverage
probability in terms of the derivative of Laplace transform of interference power distribution. We analyze
the trends in coverage probability as a function of the network parameters: line density and node density.
We also study the asymptotic behavior of this model and compare the coverage performance with that
of a homogeneous 2D PPP model with the same node density.

Index Terms
The authors are with Wireless@VT, Department of ECE, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (email: {vishnucr, hdhillon}@vt.edu).
The support of the US NSF (Grant IIS-1633363) is gratefully acknowledged.

Manuscript last updated: September 26, 2017.

2

Stochastic geometry, Cox process, Poisson line process, coverage probability, vehicular network,
road systems, Nakagami-m fading.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Vehicular communication, which collectively refers to vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicleto-infrastructure (V2I) communication, has enabled the vehicular nodes to share information
with each other and also with roadside units (RSUs) to improve the road safety and transport
efficiency [1]–[3]. With autonomous vehicles becoming a reality in the near future, the data
traffic originating from vehicular networks is expected to increase many folds while also putting
more stringent latency and connectivity constraints compared to the networks of today. In order
to meet these stringent requirements, it is critical to understand the system-level performance
of these networks under different operational scenarios. In the recent years, stochastic geometry
has emerged as a powerful tool for modeling and system-level analysis of wireless networks.
The most popular approach is to model the locations of wireless nodes by a homogeneous 2D
Poisson point process (PPP) [4]–[7] and focus on the performance analysis of a randomly chosen
receiver in the network. Despite its simplicity and analytical tractability, PPP may not always
be a suitable model for all spatial configurations of nodes. In the context of this paper, the
locations of vehicular nodes and RSUs in vehicular networks are restricted to roadways, which
are predominantly linear and randomly oriented. The 2D PPP model, in which the location
of nodes are modeled by randomly distributed points in the 2D plane, does not capture the
coupling between the nodes and the underlying infrastructure (roads) in vehicular networks.
While modeling the locations of vehicular nodes, one has to consider two fundamental sources
of randomness: (i) the locations of nodes on each road are often irregular and can hence be
treated as a realization of a point process, and (ii) the layout of the roads is also often irregular,
which makes it possible to model the road system as a realization of a line process [8]–[12].
In short, it is necessary to consider doubly stochastic spatial models for vehicular nodes that
account for the randomness associated with the roads as well as the locations of nodes on these
roads. A well-known canonical model in the literature that readily meets this requirement is a
Cox process or doubly stochastic Poisson point process [13], [14], where the roads in a network
are modeled by a Poisson line process (PLP) and the location of nodes on the roads are modeled
by a 1D PPP. Despite the relevance of this canonical model in understanding the system-level
performance of vehicular networks, its coverage analysis is still an open problem, which is the
main focus of this paper. In particular, we develop tools to characterize serving distance as well

3

as conditional interference power distributions, which collectively provide exact characterization
of coverage probability and can also be readily applied to study many other aspects of vehicular
networks.
A. Related Work
While there is a significant volume of literature pertaining to the analysis of vehicular networks
using tools from stochastic geometry, the spatial models considered in these works are often
too simple [15]–[20] and are limited to a single road or an intersection of two roads. For
instance, a signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) based analysis to compute the optimum
transmission probability for vehicles on a single road, has been proposed in [15]. The trade-offs
between the aggregate packet progress and spatial frequency reuse for multi-hop transmission
between vehicles in a multi-lane highway setup were studied in [17]. In [19], [20], the authors
have analyzed the packet reception probability of a link at the intersection of two perpendicular
roads where the location of nodes are modeled as 1D PPP on each road. Since these models do
not accurately capture the irregular structure of roads and their effect on the performance, they
do not always offer reliable system-level insights that aid in the design.
Although relatively sparse, there are also a few works in the literature where more sophisticated
models that include the randomness associated with the road systems were studied [8]–[12], [21],
[22]. In [8], the authors have modeled the streets in an urban setting by a Manhattan Poisson
line process (MPLP) and the base stations on each road by a 1D PPP and characterized the
downlink coverage performance of mmWave microcells by adopting a Manhattan distance based
path-loss model. While this is a reasonable model for mmWave communication in an urban
setting, it may not be applicable to all scenarios due to the irregular structure of roads. A more
refined model for vehicular networks is presented in [10], [11], where the streets are modeled by
the edges of either a Poisson-Line tessellation (PLT), Poisson-Voronoi tessellation (PVT), or a
Poisson-Delaunay tessellation (PDT) and the nodes on each line are modeled by a homogeneous
1D PPP. Owing to its analytical tractability, PLT often gains preference over PVT and PDT in
modeling road systems (it has also been used in other related applications, such as in modeling
the effect of blockages in localization networks [23]). In [10], the authors have considered a
hierarchical two-tier network whose components are modeled as a Cox process on a PLT and
have characterized the mean shortest path on the streets connecting these components. Using
the same spatial model, a formula for probability density function of inter-node distances was
presented in [11]. In [12], the author has derived the uplink coverage probability for a setup

4

where the typical receiver is randomly chosen from a PPP and the locations of transmitter nodes
are modeled as a Cox process driven by a PLP. However, to the best of our knowledge, this paper
is the first to derive the coverage probability for a setup where both the receiver and transmitter
nodes are modeled by Cox processes driven by the same PLP. In other words, this paper is the
first to derive the coverage probability of a vehicular node located on a PLP when it connects
to another vehicular node on the same PLP. The technical challenges in this analysis originate
from the spatial coupling between the vehicular nodes induced by the underlying PLP. More
detailed account of our contributions is provided below.
B. Contributions
In this paper, we present an analytical procedure for performing the canonical coverage analysis
of a vehicular network. We consider a doubly-stochastic spatial model for wireless nodes, which
captures the irregularity in the spatial layout of roads by modeling them as a PLP and the spatial
irregularity in the locations of wireless nodes by modeling them as a 1D PPP on each road. In
order to mimic various fading scenarios, we choose Nakagami-m fading channel that allows us
to control the severity of fading. For this setup, we derive the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR)
based coverage probability of a typical receiver, which is an arbitrarily chosen receiving node in
the network, assuming that it connects to its closest transmitting node in the network. We then
study the trends in the coverage performance which offers useful system design insights. More
technical details about the coverage probability and system-level insights are provided next.
Coverage probability. We derive an exact expression for coverage probability by accurately
characterizing the interference experienced at the typical receiver. We first derive several fundamental distance distributions that are necessary to characterize the desired signal power at the
typical receiver. Since the distribution of nodes is coupled with the distribution of lines in the
network, it poses two key challenges to the exact coverage analysis. First, the serving node,
which is the closest transmitting node to the typical receiver, can possibly be located on any of
the lines in the network. Consequently, the interference measured at the typical receiver in each
of these cases is different and we have to handle each case separately. In order to address this
issue, we derive a generalized expression for coverage probability for all these cases. Second,
when a transmitting node on a particular line is chosen to be the serving node, it implies that
there can not be any line with a node whose distance to the typical receiver is smaller than the
distance between the typical receiver and the serving node. This additional constraint imposed by
the distribution of nodes impacts the conditional distribution of lines as observed at the typical

5

receiver. We determine the conditional distribution of the lines in order to accurately compute
the interference at the typical receiver. We then determine the coverage probability in terms of
derivative of Laplace transform of the distribution of the interference power.
System-level insights. Using our analytical results, we study the effect of two key network
parameters, namely, node density and line density, on the coverage probability of the typical
receiver. We observe that the coverage probability increases as the density of nodes on lines
increases. However, the coverage probability degrades as the density of the lines in the network
increases. The contrasting effect of node and line densities on the coverage probability offers
useful insights in the design and deployment of RSUs in the network. We also compare the
coverage probabilities of our setup with the results obtained from a homogeneous 2D PPP model,
which is a widely accepted model for 2D wireless networks and is often used as a preferred
approximation for more spohisticated point processes whose analysis may not be as tractable as
a PPP. This comparison reveals that the 2D PPP model may not serve as a good approximation
for our Cox process model, thereby highlighting the significance of our analytical results.
II. M ATHEMATICAL P RELIMINARY: P OISSON L INE P ROCESS
Since the PLP will be the main component of our model described in Section III, a basic
knowledge of its construction and properties will be useful in understanding the proposed model.
While we provide only a brief introduction to PLP and its properties in this section, a detailed
account of the underlying theory can be found in [13], [24].
Line process. A line process is simply a random collection of lines in a 2D plane. Any
undirected line L in R2 can be uniquely characterized by its perpendicular distance ρ from the
origin o ≡ (0, 0) and the angle θ subtended by the perpendicular dropped onto the line from the
origin with respect to the positive x-axis in counter clockwise direction, as shown in Fig. 1. The
pair of parameters ρ and θ can be represented as the coordinates of a point on the cylindrical
surface C ≡ [0, 2π) × [0, ∞), which is termed as the representation space, as illustrated in
Fig. 2. Clearly, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the lines in R2 and points on the
cylindrical surface C. Thus, a random collection of lines can be constructed from a set of points
on C. Such a set of lines generated by a Poisson point process on C is called a Poisson line
process. In our system model, we also assume the PLP to be motion-invariant for analytical
simplicity. So, we will discuss the concept of motion-invariance for line processes and some
well-established results of PLP next.

6

𝑦
𝐿4

𝐿3
𝐿4
𝐿1

𝐿2

𝐿3

𝜌

𝜌
𝑜

𝜃

𝐿2

𝑥

0

Fig. 1.

𝐿1

Illustration of Poisson line process in two2

𝜃

2π

Fig. 2. Illustration of a point process on representation
space C ≡ [0, 2π) × [0, ∞).

dimensional plane R .

Stationarity and Motion-Invariance. The definition of stationarity for line processes is similar
to that of point processes. A line process Φl = {L1 , L2 , . . . } is said to be stationary if the
translated line process T Φl = {T (L1 ), T (L2 ), . . . } has the same distribution of lines as that of Φl
for any translation T in the plane. Upon translating the origin in the plane R2 by a distance t in a
direction that makes an angle β with respect to the positive x-axis, the equivalent representation of

a line L in C changes from (ρ, θ) to ρ−t cos(θ−β), θ . Therefore, for a stationary line process Φl ,



the point process ρL1 −t cos(θL1 −β), θL1 , ρL2 −t cos(θL2 −β), θL2 , . . . in the representation



space C has the same distribution as that of the point process
ρL1 , θL1 , ρL2 , θL2 , . . . .
Similarly, rotation of the axes about the origin by an angle γ in R2 changes the representation
of the line in C from (ρ, θ) to (ρ, θ − γ), where the operation θ − γ is modulo 2π. In addition
to translation-invariance, if a line process is also invariant to the rotation of the axes about the
origin, then it is said to be motion-invariant.
Line density. Line density µ of a line process Φl is defined as the mean line length per unit
area. If Φl is a motion-invariant line process, then the density of the corresponding point process
λ in the representation space C is given by λ =

µ
.
2π

Number of lines intersecting a disc. If Φl is a motion-invariant Poisson line process with line
density µ, then the number of lines that intersect a convex region K ⊆ R2 follows a Poisson
distribution with mean
τK =

µν(K)
= λν(K),
2π

(1)

where ν(K) is the perimeter of the convex region K. Therefore, the number of lines intersecting
a disc of radius d is Poisson distributed with mean 2πλd.

7

III. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. Spatial Modeling of Wireless Nodes
We first model the spatial distribution of road systems by a motion-invariant PLP Φl with
line density µl . We denote the density of equivalent PPP on the representation space C by λl .
We then model the locations of wireless nodes, which include vehicular nodes and RSUs, on
each line (road) by a homogeneous 1D PPP with density λn . Assuming that each wireless node
transmits independently with a probability p, the locations of transmitting nodes on each line
is then given by a thinned PPP with density λv = pλn . We denote the set of locations of the
transmitting nodes on a line L by {wL } ≡ ΨL . Similarly, the distribution of receiving nodes on
each line is also a thinned PPP with density λr = (1 − p)λn . Thus, the locations of transmitting
and receiving nodes are modeled by Cox processes Φt and Φr , which are driven by the same
PLP Φl . Our goal is to derive the SIR based coverage probability of a typical receiver from the
point process Φr . For analytical simplicity, we translate the origin o ≡ (0, 0) to the location of
the typical receiver. The translated point process Φr0 can be treated as the superposition of the
point process Φr , an independent 1D PPP with density λr on a line passing through the origin,
and an atom at the origin o [12]. This can be understood by applying Slivnyak’s theorem [13],
[14] in two steps: first, we add a point at the origin to the PPP in the representation space C,
thereby obtaining a PLP Φl0 = Φl ∪ {L0 } with a line L0 passing through the origin, and second,
we add a point at the origin to the 1D-PPP on the line L0 passing through the origin in R2 .
The line L0 passing through the origin will henceforth be referred to as the typical line. Since
both Φr and Φt are driven by the same line process, the translated point process Φt0 is also
the superposition of Φt and an independent PPP with density λv on L0 , as shown in Fig. 3.
Since the other receiver nodes in the network do not have any impact on the SIR measured at
the typical receiver in this setup, we will focus only on the distribution of transmitter nodes in
the network. For brevity, the transmitter nodes will henceforth be referred to as only nodes. We
denote the ith (i = 1, 2, . . . ) closest line to the origin o (excluding the typical line) by Li and
its perpendicular distance to the origin by Yi . The distance of the closest node on a line Li from
the projection of the origin onto Li is denoted by Xi , as illustrated in Fig. 3. Thus, the distance
p
to the closest node on Li from the origin is Si = Yi2 + Xi2 . For notational consistency, we
denote the distance of the typical line from the origin by Y0 ≡ 0 and the distance to the closest
node on L0 by S0 . We denote the number of lines that intersect a region A ⊂ R2 by Nl (A) and
the number of nodes in A by Nv (A). Throughout this paper, we denote the random variables

8

Typical Receiver
Serving node

𝐿0

Interfering nodes

𝑦𝑛

𝑜

𝑥𝑛
𝑟
𝐿𝑛

Fig. 3. Illustration of the system model.

by upper case letters and their corresponding realizations by lower case letters. For instance, Yn
denotes a random variable, whereas yn denotes its realization.
B. Transmitter Association Scheme and Propagation Model
We assume that the transmit power is the same for all the nodes and the antennas are isotropic.
We further assume that the typical receiver connects to its closest transmitting node in the
network. Note that the closest node does not necessarily have to be on the same line as that of
the typical receiver and can possibly be located on any of the other lines. We denote such an
event in which the serving node is located on the ith closest line (excluding the typical line) to
the origin by Ei (i = 1, 2, . . . ). We denote the event in which the serving node is located on the
typical line by E0 .
In wireless communication networks, the severity of fading between the transmitter and the
receiver depends on environmental factors and hence, the effect of fading can vary significantly
from an urban scenario consisting of several buildings to rural areas and highways which are
almost devoid of any tall structures. Therefore, in order to mimic a wide range of fading
environments, we choose Nakagami-m fading with parameter m. In the interest of analytical
tractability, we restrict the values of m to integers. For simplicity of exposition, we assume that
the system is interference limited and hence, the thermal noise is neglected. Thus, the signal-tointerference ratio (SIR) at the typical receiver is
SIR = P

Lj ∈Φl0

G0 R−α
P

wLj ∈ΨLj \b(o,R)

GwLj kwLj k−α

,

(2)

where α > 2 is the path-loss exponent, G0 is the channel fading gain between the typical
receiver and the serving node, GwLj is the channel fading gain between the typical receiver and

9

the interfering node at the location wLj , R is the Euclidean distance to the serving node from
the typical receiver, and kwLj k is the Euclidean distance of the interfering node from the typical
receiver.
IV. C OVERAGE P ROBABILITY
This is the main technical section of the paper, where we derive the coverage probability for
the setup described in the previous section. Recall that the serving node which is the closest
node to the typical receiver can possibly be located on any line Lk (k = 0, 1, . . . ). As a result,
the interference at the typical receiver will be different in each of these cases and hence, they
need to be handled separately. However, we can derive a generalized expression for the cases in
which the serving node does not lie on the typical line (E1 , E2 , . . . ). Therefore, in our analysis,
we will derive the coverage probability conditioned on the events E0 and En (n = 1, 2, . . . )
separately and obtain the final result using law of total probability. A key difference between the
events E0 and En is that the distance of the line on which the serving node is located is always
zero in case of E0 , whereas the distance of the line containing the serving node Yn in case of
En is a random variable. Therefore, in the computation of coverage probability conditioned on
En , we will derive the intermediate results by additionally conditioning on Yn . In the final step,
we obtain the overall coverage probability by taking expectation over Yn . While we can obtain
some of the results for the case E0 from the intermediate results pertaining to En by simply
substituting Y0 = 0 in place of Yn , we will provide detailed proofs for those results where this
approach is not applicable.
A. Preliminary Results
We begin our analysis with the derivation of some fundamental distance distributions which
will be used later in the computation of coverage probability. While it may be relatively straightforward to derive some of these results, they are presented here for completeness.
Lemma 1. The cumulative distribution function (CDF) and probability density function (PDF)
of the distance of the nth closest line from the origin Yn are
CDF: FYn (yn ) = 1 − exp(−2πλl yn )

n−1
X
(2πλl yn )k
k=0

PDF: fYn (yn ) = exp(−2πλl yn )

(2πλl yn )n
.
yn (n − 1)!

k!

,

(3)
(4)

10

Proof: From the definition of a PLP, recall that there is a one-to-one correspondence between
lines in R2 and points on C ≡ [0 2π) × [0 ∞). The abscissa and the ordinate of these points
represent the orientation of the line and the distance of the line from the origin, respectively.
We now consider the projections of these points onto the vertical axis of the cylindrical surface,
which represents the distance of the lines from the origin. Note that the number of projections
of points in a segment of length t on the vertical axis of C is the same as the number of points
in the area [0, 2π) × [0, t), which follows a Poisson distribution with mean 2πλl t. This means
that the projections of points onto the vertical axis of C forms a 1D PPP Ψl0 with density 2πλl .
Therefore, the distance of the nth closest line from the origin follows the same distribution as
that of the distance of nth closest point in a 1D PPP with density 2πλl , which is a well-known
result in stochastic geometry [14].
Lemma 2. Conditioned on the distance of the nth closest line to the origin Yn , the CDF of the
distance Xn between the projection of origin onto the line Ln and its closest node on Ln is
FXn (xn |yn ) = 1 − exp(−2λv xn ).

(5)

Proof: The proof follows from the void probability of a 1D PPP with density λv .
Lemma 3. Conditioned on the distance of the nth closest line to the origin Yn , the CDF and
PDF of the distance to the closest node on the line Ln from the typical receiver Sn are
p
CDF: FSn (sn |yn ) = 1 − exp(−2λv s2n − yn2 ),
p

2λv sn
PDF: fSn (sn |yn ) = p
exp − 2λv s2n − yn2 .
s2n − yn2

(6)
(7)

Proof: The conditional CDF of Sn is given by
p
p
FSn (sn |yn ) = P(Sn < sn |Yn ) = P( Xn2 + yn2 < sn |Yn ) = P(Xn < s2n − yn2 |Yn )
p
p
= FXn ( s2n − yn2 |yn ) = 1 − exp(−2λv s2n − yn2 ).
The PDF fSn (sn |yn ) can be obtained by taking the derivative of FSn (sn |yn ) w.r.t. sn .
Corollary 1. The CDF and the PDF of the distance between the typical receiver at the origin
and its closest node on the typical line S0 are
CDF: FS0 (s0 ) = 1 − exp(−2λv s0 ),

(8)

PDF: fS0 (s0 ) = 2λv exp(−2λv s0 ).

(9)

11

Proof: The proof follows from substituting S0 and Y0 = 0 in place of Sn and Yn in Lemma
3.
Conditioned on the distance Yn , we will now derive the distribution of the distance of the
closest node to the typical receiver among the nodes that are located on the lines that are closer
and farther than the line of interest Ln in the following Lemmas. These results will be used in
the next subsection in the computation of the probability of occurrence of events E0 and En .
Lemma 4. Conditioned on the distance of the nth closest line to the origin Yn , the CDF and
PDF of the distance Un between the typical receiver and its closest node among the n − 1 lines
{L1 , L2 , . . . Ln−1 } (excluding the typical line) that are closer than Yn are
CDF:


n−1
Z
p


un
1 un

2
2

, 0 ≤ un < yn ,

1 − 1 − yn + yn 0 exp − λv 2 un − z dz
" Z
FUn (un |yn ) =
n−1 #
yn
p


dz


exp − λv 2 u2n − z 2
,
yn ≤ un < ∞,

1 −
yn
0
(10)
PDF:


n−2
Z
p

un
1 un


2
2

(n − 1) 1 −
exp − λv 2 un − z dz
+


y
y
n
n

0

 Z un



p

2λ
u
v
n


exp(−2λv u2n − z 2 ) p
×
dz ,


yn u2n − z 2
0
fUn (un |yn ) =
 Z yn


p
 dz n−2


2
2

exp − λv 2 un − z
(n − 1)


yn

0

Z yn


p

2λv un


×
exp(−2λv u2n − z 2 ) p
dz,

yn u2n − z 2
0

0 ≤ un < yn ,

yn ≤ un < ∞.
(11)

Proof: See Appendix A.
Lemma 5. Conditioned on the distance of the nth closest line to the origin Yn , the CDF and
PDF of the distance Vn between the typical receiver and its closest node among the lines {Ln+1 ,
Ln+2 , . . . } that are farther than Yn are
CDF:
"

Z

vn

FVn (vn |yn ) = 1 − exp − 2πλl
yn

#


p
1 − exp(−2λv vn2 − z 2 ) dz ,

yn ≤ vn < ∞,

(12)

12

PDF:
Z

vn

p
2λv vn
vn2 − z 2 ) p
dz
vn2 − z 2
yn
"
#
Z vn 

p
1 − exp(−2λv vn2 − z 2 ) dz ,
× exp − 2πλl

fVn (vn |yn ) = 2πλl

exp(−2λv

yn ≤ vn < ∞.

(13)

yn

Proof: See Appendix B.
We can easily specialize the results of Lemma 5 to obtain the CDF and PDF of the distance
between the typical receiver and its closest node among the lines that are farther than the typical
line as given in the following Corollary.
Corollary 2. The CDF and PDF of the distance V0 between the typical receiver and its closest
node among the lines that are farther than the typical line are
#
"
Z v0 
q

CDF: FV0 (v0 ) = 1 − exp − 2πλl
1 − exp(−2λv v02 − z 2 ) dz ,

(14)

0

Z

v0

q
 2λ v

v 0
exp − 2λv v02 − z 2 p 2
dz
v0 − z 2
0
"
#
Z v0 
q

× exp − 2πλl
1 − exp(−2λv v02 − z 2 ) dz .

PDF: fV0 (v0 ) = 2πλl

(15)

0

Proof: The proof follows from substituting V0 and Y0 = 0 in place of Vn and Yn in Lemma
5.
B. Probabilities of Events En and E0
In this subsection, we will derive the probability with which the typical receiver connects to
a node on the nth closest line to the origin conditioned on the distance of the line from the
origin Yn and the probability with which the typical receiver connects to a node on the typical
line. These intermediate results hold the key to the derivation of conditional serving distance
distribution in the next subsection.
Lemma 6. Conditioned on Yn , the probability of occurrence of the event En is
Z ∞



P(En |Yn ) =
1 − FS0 (sn ) 1 − FUn (sn |yn ) 1 − FVn (sn |yn ) fSn (sn |yn )dsn ,

(16)

0

where FS0 (·), FUn (· |yn ), FVn (·|yn ), and fSn (sn |yn ) are given by Corollary 1, Lemmas 4, 5, and
3, respectively.
Proof: The typical receiver connects to a node on the nth closest line if the distance to the
closest node on the line Ln is smaller than the distance to the closest node on any other line.

13

In this case, we will group all the lines excluding the line of interest Ln into 3 sets: (i) the
typical line L0 , (ii) the lines that are closer than the line Ln (L1 , L2 , . . . , Ln−1 ), and (iii) the
lines that are farther than the line Ln (Ln+1 , Ln+2 , . . . ). The distance to the closest node on Ln
must be smaller than the distance to the closest node in each of these three sets, i.e., Sn must
be smaller than the minimum of S0 , Un , and Vn . Thus, the conditional probability of occurrence
of the event En is computed as
P(En |Yn ) = P(Sn < min{S0 , Un , Vn }|Yn ) = P(Sn < S0 , Sn < Un , Sn < Vn |Yn )
Z ∞
(a)
=
P(S0 > sn |Sn , Yn )P(Un > sn |Sn , Yn )P(Vn > sn |Sn , Yn )fSn (sn |yn )dsn
0
Z ∞



(b)
1 − FS0 (sn ) 1 − FUn (sn |yn ) 1 − FVn (sn |yn ) fSn (sn |yn )dsn ,
=
0

where (a) follows from the conditional independence of the variables S0 , Un , and Vn , and (b)
follows from the independence of the random variable S0 .
Corollary 3. The probability of occurrence of the event E0 is
Z ∞
FS0 (v0 )fV0 (v0 )dv0 ,
P(E0 ) =

(17)

0

where FS0 (·) and fV0 (·) are given by Corollaries 1 and 2, respectively.
Proof: The typical receiver at the origin connects to a node on the typical line when the
distance to the closest node on the typical line is smaller than the distance to the closest node
on any other line. Thus, the probability of occurrence of E0 is given by
Z ∞
P(S0 < v0 |V0 )fV0 (v0 )dv0
P(E0 ) = P(S0 < min{S1 , S2 , . . .}) = P(S0 < V0 ) =
0
Z ∞
=
FS0 (v0 )fV0 (v0 )dv0 ,
0

which completes the proof.
C. Serving Distance Distribution
In this subsection, we will derive the distribution of distance between the typical receiver and
the serving node conditioned on the events En and E0 . As stated in the previous subsection, in case
of En , the distance to the closest node on the nth closest line Sn must be smaller than the minimum
of S0 , Un , and Vn . Therefore, we first determine the distribution of Wn = min{S0 , Un , Vn } in
the following Lemma.

14

Lemma 7. Conditioned on the distance of the nth closest line to the origin Yn , the CDF and
PDF of Wn = min{S0 , Un , Vn } are



FWn (wn |yn ) = 1 − 1 − FS0 (wn ) 1 − FUn (wn |yn ) 1 − FVn (wn |yn ) ,
(18)



PDF: fWn (wn |yn ) = fS0 (wn ) 1 − FUn (wn |yn ) 1 − FVn (wn |yn ) + 1 − FS0 (wn ) fUn (wn |yn )



× 1 − FVn (wn |yn ) + 1 − FS0 (wn ) 1 − FUn (wn |yn ) fVn (wn |yn ), (19)

CDF:

where FS0 (·), fS0 (·) are given by Corollary 1, FUn (· |yn ), fUn (· |yn ) are given by Lemma 4, and
FVn (·|yn ), fVn (·|yn ) are given by Lemma 5.
Proof: The proof simply follows from the distribution of minimum of three independent
random variables [25].
Using the intermediate results derived thus far, we will now derive the conditional distribution
of the serving distance R in the following Lemma.
Lemma 8. Conditioned on the event En and the distance of the nth closest line Yn , the CDF
and PDF of the serving distance R are
Z ∞

1
FSn (wn |yn ) − FSn (r|yn ) fWn (wn |yn )dwn , (20)
CDF: FR (r|En , Yn ) = 1 −
P(En |Yn ) r
Z ∞
1
fSn (r|yn )fWn (wn |yn )dwn ,
(21)
PDF: fR (r|En , yn ) =
P(En |Yn ) r
where FSn (·|yn ), fSn (·|yn ) are given by Lemma 3, P(En |Yn ) and fWn (·|yn ) are given by Lemmas
6 and 7, respectively.
Proof: The conditional CDF of the serving distance R is computed as
FR (r|En , Yn )
P(Sn > r, Sn < min{S0 , Un , Vn }|Yn )
P(R > r, En |Yn ) (a)
= 1−
P(En |Yn )
P(En |Yn )
Z ∞
P(r < Sn < Wn |Yn )
1
=1−
=1−
P(r < Sn < wn |Wn , Yn )fWn (wn |yn )dwn
P(En |Yn )
P(En |Yn ) r
Z ∞

1
FSn (wn |yn ) − FSn (r|yn ) fWn (wn |yn )dwn ,
=1−
P(En |Yn ) r
where (a) follows from the condition for the occurrence of the event En . The conditional PDF
= 1 − P(R > r|En , Yn ) = 1 −

fR (r|En , yn ) can be computed by taking the derivative of FR (r|En , yn ) w.r.t. r.
Lemma 9. Conditioned on the event E0 , the CDF and PDF of the serving distance R are given
by
CDF:

1
FR (r|E0 ) = 1 −
P(E0 )

Z
r

∞


FS0 (v0 ) − FS0 (r) fV0 (v0 )dv0 ,

(22)

15

1
PDF: fR (r|E0 ) =
P(E0 )

Z

∞

fS0 (r)fV0 (v0 )dv0 ,

(23)

r

where FS0 (·), fS0 (·) are given by Corollary 1, fV0 (v0 ) and P(E0 ) are given by Corollaries 2 and
3, respectively.
Proof: The proof follows along the same lines as that of Lemma 8.
D. Conditional Probability Mass Function of Number of Lines
Now that we have derived the distribution of the serving distance R, the next main step is to
characterize the interference experienced at the typical receiver conditioned on R for the events
En and E0 . The sources of interference are all the nodes that are located at a distance farther
than R from the origin, i.e., the nodes that lie outside the disc b(o, R) centered at the origin
o with radius R. Please note that such nodes could also lie on lines which are located closer
than R. Please see Fig. 4 for an illustration. Therefore, in order to accurately characterize the
interference, we will have to first determine the distribution of lines. In order to explain this
concretely, let us consider the case of En , where the serving node is located at a distance R on
the nth closest line from the origin. From the properties of PLP, we know that the number of
lines intersecting a disc of fixed radius follows a Poisson distribution with mean equal to the
line density scaled by the perimeter of the disc. However, this does not hold for the conditional
distribution of the number of lines that intersect the disc b(o, R). This is because the lines that
intersect the disc b(o, R) must not contain any nodes in the chord segment inside the disc (since
we have already conditioned on the event that the serving node is located on Ln at a distance R
from the typical receiver). This additional constraint imposed by the distribution of nodes on the
lines impacts the conditional distribution of number of lines intersecting the disc b(o, R). Note
that the typical line is not included in the count of number of lines intersecting the disc b(o, R).
Now, conditioned on the event En , we know that there are at least n lines that intersect the disc
b(o, R) which include the n − 1 lines that are closer than the line of interest Ln and the line
Ln itself which is at a distance Yn ≤ R. In addition to these n lines, there are also a random
number of lines that are farther than Yn but closer than the serving distance R, as illustrated in
Fig. 4. Therefore, our immediate goal is to determine the conditional distribution of this random
number of lines that intersect the disc b(o, R) but do not intersect the disc b(o, Yn ), denoted by

Nl b(o, R) \ b(o, Yn ) .

16

Typical Receiver
𝐿𝑛

𝐿0

Serving node
Interfering nodes

𝑦𝑛

Typical Line
Line containing the
serving node
Lines that intersect 𝑏(𝑜, 𝑦𝑛 )
Lines that intersect
𝑏(𝑜, 𝑟) but not 𝑏(𝑜, 𝑦𝑛 )
Lines that do not intersect
𝑏(𝑜, 𝑟)

𝑜
𝑟

Fig. 4. Illustration of different sets of lines.

Lemma 10. Conditioned on the event En , the distance of the nth closest line Yn , and the serving
distance R, the probability mass function (PMF) of number of lines that are farther than Yn
and closer than R is
Z r




p

P Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k|En , Yn , R = exp − 2πλl
exp(−2λv r2 − y 2 )dy
yn



2πλl

×

Rr

exp(−2λv
yn

k
p
r2 − y 2 )dy
.

k!

(24)

Proof: See Appendix C.
Remark 1. Conditioned on the event En , serving distance R, and the distance of the nth closest
line to the origin Yn , we have derived the PMF of number of lines that are farther than Yn and
closer than R. However, it can be observed that the conditional distribution remains Poisson
p
Rr
but with a mean of 2πλl yn exp(−2λv r2 − y 2 )dy. Therefore, the conditional distribution of
Rr
µl
lines can be interpreted as a thinned Poisson line process with line density 2π(r−y
exp −
n ) yn
p

2λv r2 − y 2 dy.
Corollary 4. Conditioned on the event E0 and the serving distance R, the PMF of number of
lines (excluding the typical line) that are closer than R is
Z r


p

P(Nl b(o, R) = k|R, E0 ) = exp − 2πλl
exp(−2λv r2 − y 2 )dy
0


×

2πλl

Rr
0

exp(−2λv
k!

k
p
r2 − y 2 )dy
.

(25)

Proof: The proof follows from substituting E0 and Y0 = 0 in place of En and Yn in Lemma
10.

17

E. Laplace Transform of Interference Distribution
In this subsection, we will determine the Laplace transform of the distribution of the interference power conditioned on the serving distance R. We will first consider the case where the
typical receiver connects to the nth closest line to the origin. In this case, we group the sources
of interference into the following five sets: (i) the set of nodes present on the typical line, (ii)
the set of nodes present on the line that contains the serving node which is at a distance Yn , (iii)
the set of nodes present on the lines that are closer than Yn (excluding the typical line), (iv) the
set of nodes present on the lines that are farther than Yn but closer than the serving distance R
(an annular region), and (v) the set of nodes present on the lines whose distance from the origin
exceeds the serving distance R. We denote the interference from these five sets of nodes by I0 ,
In , Iin , Iann , and Iout , respectively. We will now derive the Laplace transform of distribution of
interference from each of these components.
The interference measured at the typical receiver from the nodes on the typical line is given
P
by I0 = wL ∈ΨL \b(o,R) GwL0 kwL0 k−α , where ΨL0 is the 1-D PPP on the typical line, GwL0
0

0

are the channel gains between the typical receiver and the interfering nodes at wL0 . While the
Laplace transform of distribution of interference from nodes of a 1D PPP is very well-known,
we still present the result in the following Lemma for completeness.
Lemma 11. Conditioned on the event En , serving distance R, and the distance of the nth closest
line Yn , the Laplace transform of distribution of interference from the nodes situated on the
typical line L0 is
"

Z

∞

LI0 (s|r, yn , En ) = exp − 2λv
r



#
sx−α −m 
dx .
1− 1+
m


(26)

Proof: The distribution of nodes on the typical line is independent of the distance of the
nth closest line Yn . Thus, the Laplace transform of distribution of interference from nodes on
the typical line can be computed as
"
LI0 (s|r, yn , En ) = E[e−sI0 ] = E EG

#
Y

exp − sGxL0 kwL0 k


−α

wL0 ∈ΨL0 \b(o,R)

"
(a)

=E

Y
wL0 ∈ΨL0 \b(o,R)



#
"
 #
Z ∞

sx−α −m
skwL0 k−α −m (b)
= exp − 2λv
1− 1+
dx ,
1+
m
m
r

where (a) follows from the Gamma distribution of channel fading gains, and (b) follows from
the PGFL of PPP and substituting x = kwL0 k.

18

Lemma 12. Conditioned on the event En , the serving distance R, and the distance of the nth
closest line form the origin Yn , the Laplace transform of distribution of interference from the
nodes on the line Ln is
"

Z

∞

LIn (s|r, yn , En ) = exp − 2λv √

2
r2 −yn


 #

s(x2 + yn2 )−α/2 −m
1− 1+
dx .
m

(27)

Proof: The proof follows along the same lines as that of Lemma 11.
Lemma 13. Conditioned on the event En , serving distance R, and the distance of the nth closest
line Yn , the Laplace transform of distribution of interference from the nodes located on the lines
that are closer than Yn is

Z
LIin (s|r, yn , En ) =

yn

"
exp − 2λv

0


 # !n−1

s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
dy
1− 1+
dx
.
√
m
yn
r2 −y 2

Z

∞

(28)
Proof: See Appendix D.
Lemma 14. Conditioned on the event En , serving distance R, and the distance of the nth closest
line from the origin Yn , the Laplace transform of distribution of interference from the nodes
located on the lines that are farther than Yn and closer than R is
Z
"

Z r
√
LIann (s|r, yn , En ) = exp
− 2πλl
exp(−2λv r2 − z 2 )dz
1−
yn

r


exp − 2λv

yn

∞

#

 

s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
dy
× √
.
1− 1+
dx
m
(r − yn )
r2 −y 2

Z

(29)

Proof: See Appendix E.
Lemma 15. Conditioned on the event En , serving distance R, and the distance of the nth closest
line from the origin Yn , the Laplace transform of the distribution of the interference from the
nodes located on the lines that are farther than the serving distance R is
"
Z ∞
Z ∞

LIout (s|r, yn , En ) = exp − 2πλl
1 − exp − 2λv
1
r



− 1+
Proof: See Appendix F.

0


s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
m

! #
dx dy

(30)

19

The aggregate interference at the typical receiver is given by I = I0 + Iin + In + Iann + Iout .
Conditioned on En , R, and Yn , the five components of interference are mutually independent
and hence, the conditional Laplace transform of the distribution of total interference power is
LI (s|r, yn , En ) = LI0 (s|r, yn , En )LIin (s|r, yn , En )LIn (s|r, yn , En )
× LIann (s|r, yn , En )LIout (s|r, yn , En ).

(31)

In case of event E0 , the five different sources of interference mentioned earlier is reduced to
three since the typical line and the line containing the serving node are the same and there are
no lines closer than the typical line. Therefore, the sources of interference in this case are: (i) the
set of nodes on the typical line, (ii) the set of nodes on the lines that are closer than the serving
distance R, and (iii) the set of nodes on the lines that are farther than the serving distance R.
We denote the interference from the three sets of nodes by I0 , Iin , and Iout , respectively. The
conditional Laplace transform of distribution of the interference from these three sources can be
directly obtained from the results in Lemmas 11, 14, and 15 by substituting E0 and Y0 = 0 in
place of En and Yn , as given in the following Corollary.
Corollary 5. Conditioned on the event E0 and the serving distance R, the Laplace transform of
interference power distribution is
LI (s|r, E0 ) = LI0 (s|r, E0 )LIin (s|r, E0 )LIout (s|r, E0 ),

(32)

where
"

∞

#
sx−α −m 
LI0 (s|r, E0 ) = exp − 2λv
1− 1+
dx ,
m
r
"
Z

Z r
√
LIin (s|r, E0 ) = exp
− 2πλl
exp(−2λv r2 − z 2 )dz
1−

Z





0

Z

∞

× √



r2 −y 2

(33)
r


exp − 2λv

0

  #

s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
dy
1− 1+
dx
,
m
r

(34)

and
"

Z

LIout (s|r, E0 ) = exp − 2πλl

∞



Z

1 − exp − 2λv
r

∞


1

0

 ! #
s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
dx dy .
− 1+
m


(35)

Now that we have determined the Laplace transform of distribution of interference power from
all the components for both the cases En and E0 , we will derive the coverage probability next.

20

F. Coverage Probability
The coverage probability is formally defined as the probability with which the SIR measured
at the receiver exceeds a predetermined threshold β required for a successful communication.
Using the results derived thus far, the total coverage probability at the typical receiver can be
obtained in terms of the conditional Laplace transform of the distribution of the interference
power as given in the following theorem.
Theorem 1. The coverage probability of the typical receiver Pc is

m−1
∞ m−1
X Z ∞ (−mβ)k  ∂ k
X
X Z ∞ Z ∞ (−mβ)k
Pc = P(E0 )
L (s|r, E0 )
fR (r|E0 )dr +
−kα k!
k I
r
∂s
r−kα k!
α
0
yn
s=mβr
n=1 k=0 0
k=0

 k
∂
(36)
LI (s|r, En , yn )
P(En |Yn )fR (r|En , yn )fYn (yn )drdyn .
×
∂sk
s=mβrα
Proof: The coverage probability can be computed as
∞
X
Pc = P(SIR > β) =
P(Ei )P(SIR > β|Ei )
i=0

= P(E0 )P(SIR > β|E0 ) +

∞
X

h
i
EYn P(En |Yn )P(SIR > β|En , Yn )

n=1


∞
h
i X
h
i
= P(E0 )ER P(SIR > β|E0 , R) +
EYn P(En |Yn )ER P(SIR > β|En , R, Yn )
n=1

Z

∞

= P(E0 )

P(SIR > β|E0 , R)fR (r|E0 )dr
0

+

∞ Z
X
n=1

0

∞

Z

∞

P(SIR > β|En , R, Yn )P(En |Yn )fR (r|En , yn )fYn (yn )drdyn

(37)

yn

Following the same approach presented in [26]–[28], we can obtain the final expression by
rewriting the conditional coverage probability in (37) in terms of derivative of Laplace transform
of the distribution of the interference power. This completes the proof.
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
In this section, we verify the accuracy of our analytical results by comparing the coverage
probabilities evaluated using the theoretical expressions with the results obtained from the MonteCarlo simulations. We also analyze the trends in coverage probability as a function of network
parameters. We then highlight the significance of our analysis by comparing our coverage
probability results with that of a homogeneous 2D PPP model with the same node density, which
is often used to approximate more sophisticated point processes that may not be as tractable as
a homogeneous PPP.

21

1

Coverage probability, Pc

Theory
Simulation
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Coverage probability, Pc

1

Increasing µl = 15,
25, 35, 45 km/km2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
0
-20

0

20

40

-20

-10

0

10

20

SIR threshold, β (dB)

SIR threshold, β (dB)

Fig. 5. Coverage probability of the typical receiver as a
2

Fig. 6. Coverage probability of the typical receiver as a

function of SIR threshold (µl = 35 km/km , λv = 35

function of SIR threshold (λv = 35 nodes/km, m = 1,

nodes/km, m = 1, and α = 4).

and α = 4).

A. Numerical Results
We simulate the Cox process model described in Section III in MATLAB with line density
µl = 35 km/km2 , node density λv = 35 nodes/km, and path-loss exponent α = 4. For this
setup, we evaluate the empirical coverage probability for a receiver located at the origin using
Monte-Carlo simulations. We observe that our analytical results match exactly with the MonteCarlo simulations as depicted in Fig. 5. The key network parameters that have an impact on the
coverage probability are the line density and the node density. Therefore, we will next study the
impact of each of these parameters separately on the coverage probability.
Impact of line density. We compute the coverage probability of the typical receiver for node
density of λv = 35 nodes/km and different line densities of µl = 15, 25, 35, and 45 km/km2 . It
can be observed from Fig. 6 that the coverage probability decreases as the line density increases.
This trend in the coverage probability can be easily understood by examining the case where
the receiver connects to a node on the typical line. In this case, an increase in the line density
does not have any effect on the serving distance, however, it increases the interference power
due to the reduced distance between the typical receiver and interfering nodes on other lines.
Impact of node density. We compare the coverage probability of the typical receiver for node
densities of λv = 20, 30, 40, and 50 nodes/km as a function of SIR threshold β. The other system
parameters were fixed at µl = 35 km/km2 , m = 1, and α = 4. It can be observed from Fig.
7 that the coverage probability increases as the density of nodes on the lines increases. Recall
that the distance from the typical receiver at the origin to any node on a line involves two

22

1

Coverage probability, Pc

Coverage probability, Pc

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

Increasing λv = 20, 30,
40, 50 nodes/km

µl = 10 km/km2 ,
λv = 100 nodes/km
µl = 35 km/km2 ,
λv = 35 nodes/km
µl = 150 km/km2 ,
λv = 5 nodes/km
2D PPP (λp = µl λv )

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2
0

-20

-10

0

10

20

-20

SIR threshold, β (dB)

Fig. 7. Coverage probability of the typical receiver as a
2

function of SIR threshold (µl = 35 km/km , m = 1, and

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

SIR threshold, β (dB)

Fig. 8. Coverage probability of the typical receiver as a
function of SIR threshold (m = 1 and α = 4).

α = 4).

components: (i) perpendicular distance of the line from the origin, and (ii) the distance of the
node (along the line) from the projection of the origin onto the line. When the density of nodes
increases, the nodes come closer along the direction of the line, which decreases the second
component of distance described above. Consequently, the decrement in the distance from the
typical receiver to the nodes located on the lines that are closer to the origin is relatively more
than the decrement in the distance to the nodes located on the lines that are farther away from
the origin. This increases the desired signal power at a faster rate than the interference power,
thus improving the SIR and hence the coverage probability at the typical receiver.
B. Comparison with a Homogeneous 2D PPP Model
In this subsection, we compare the coverage probability of the typical receiver obtained for the
Cox process driven by PLP described in Section III with the results from a homogeneous 2D PPP
model with the same node density, which is often used as a first-order approximation for more
sophisticated point processes whose analysis may not be as tractable as a homogeneous PPP. We
compute the coverage probability of the typical receiver for our setup with line density µl = 35
km/km2 and transmitter node density λv = 35 nodes/km. Thus, the equivalent node density
of a homogeneous 2D PPP is λp = µl λv = 1225 nodes/km2 . The notable difference between
the coverage probabilities obtained from the two models in Fig. 8 highlights the importance of
our model for the analysis of vehicular networks where the locations of nodes are restricted to
road systems. This suggests that the homogeneous 2D PPP is not a good approximation for the
proposed Cox process-based model in all operational scenarios. In order to glean better insights,

23

we will now study the asymptotic behavior of the proposed model by evaluating the coverage
probability for the extreme values of line and node densities.
Low line density and high node density. In this case, the collinearity of the locations of nodes
in the network is more distinct. Hence, the coverage probability for our setup with µl = 10
km/km2 and λv = 100 nodes/km deviates significantly from the results of 2D PPP model, as
shown in Fig. 8. Also, due to the high density of nodes on each line, the typical receiver almost
always connects to the closest node on the typical line. Therefore, the theoretical analysis for
this case is relatively simple and the corresponding results are already given in the Corollaries.
High line density and low node density. As the density of lines µl → ∞, it allows the nodes
to be positioned almost anywhere in R2 . In addition to this, if the density of nodes on each line
is low, only a small number of nodes appear to be aligned on a straight line. As a result, the
nodes appear to be uniformly distributed in the entire 2D plane like a PPP. This explains the
trend in Fig. 8, where the coverage probability of the typical receiver for our setup with a high
line density of µl = 150 km/km2 and low node density of λv = 5 nodes/km is quite close to
that of the 2D PPP model.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have presented an analytical method for the coverage analysis of a vehicular
network in which the locations of nodes are confined to road systems. We have modeled the
roads by a PLP and the nodes on each road by a homogeneous 1D PPP. Assuming that the typical
receiver connects to its closest node in the network, we began our analysis with the derivation of
several distance distributions which were necessary to determine the desired signal power at the
typical receiver. We then computed the conditional distribution of lines in order to accurately
characterize the interference at the typical receiver. We then derived an exact expression for
SIR-based coverage probability of the typical receiver in terms of the derivative of Laplace
transform of interference power distribution. We have verified the accuracy of our analytical
results numerically by comparing them with the results obtained from Monte-Carlo simulations.
Our analysis also reveals that the line density and the node density have a conflicting effect on
the coverage probability. We then highlighted the significance of our analysis by comparing our
coverage results with that of a homogeneous 2D PPP model with the same node density and
also studied the asymptotic behavior of our model.
This work has numerous extensions. First and foremost, the proposed model as well as the
canonical analysis presented in this paper can be readily applied to study other metrics of

24

interest, such as information throughput and area spectral efficiency, which were not directly
analyzed in this paper. The proposed approach can also be easily specialized to study the vehicular
network performance under specific system constraints, such as those imposed by the mmWave
frequencies, thus making the analysis relevant to a particular technology such as 5G. From
stochastic geometry perspective, it will be useful to develop appropriate generative models for
the proposed setup that simplify the analysis without compromising the accuracy of the results.
Finally, while the proposed model is a reasonable canonical model for vehicular networks, there is
always scope for making such models more accurate (often at the cost of reduced tractability) by
obtaining network parameters from the actual data [29]. Therefore, another worthwhile extension
of this work is to take a data-driven approach to vehicular network modeling, which will provide
useful insights into the parameter ranges that are of interest in different morphologies.
A PPENDIX
A. Proof of Lemma 4
The CDF of Un conditioned on Yn is






FUn (un |yn ) = 1 − P(Un > un |Yn ) = 1 − P Nv b(o, un ) = 0|Yn ,
where Nv (b(o, un )) denotes the number of nodes within the disc of radius un centered at o.
Therefore, we need to find the probability that there are no nodes on any of the lines that are
closer than Yn that intersect the disc b(o, un ). We know that there are n − 1 lines whose distance
from the origin is uniformly distributed in the range (0, yn ). Depending on the range of un , there
are two possible cases: (i) if un is smaller than yn , then the number of lines intersecting the disc
b(o, un ) follows a binomial distribution with parameters n − 1 and

un
,
yn

and (ii) if un exceeds

yn , then all the n − 1 lines intersect the disc b(o, un ). Thus, we obtain a piece-wise conditional
CDF for Un as follows:
FUn (un |yn )

n−1 

X






1
−
P
N
b(o,
u
)
=
0|N
b(o,
u
)
=
j,
Y
v
n
l
n
n



j=0






=
×P Nl b(o, un ) = j|Yn ,




n−1


Y 




1
−
P
N
L
∩
b(o,
u
)
=
0|Y

v
i
n
n

i=1

0 ≤ un < yn ,
yn ≤ un < ∞

25

(a)

=


n−1  
j 

X





1
−
P
N
L
∩
b(o,
u
)
=
0|Y
P
N
b(o,
u
)
=
j|Y
0 ≤ un < yn ,

v
n
n
l
n
n ,

j=0

 

n−1




1 − P Nv L ∩ b(o, un ) = 0|Yn

yn ≤ un < ∞,
(38)

where (a) follows from the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) locations of the nodes
on the lines. In step (a), L denotes an arbitrarily chosen line that intersects the disc b(o, un ). We
will now derive the expression for each term in (38). For the case 0 ≤ un < yn , we know that
the number of lines intersecting the disc b(o, un ) follows a binomial distribution. Therefore,

 n − 1 u j 

un n−1−j
n
1−
P Nl b(o, un ) = j|Yn =
.
(39)
yn
yn
j
We will now evaluate the probability that there are no nodes on the segment of an arbitrarily
chosen line L that intersects the disc b(o, un ). We denote the perpendicular distance of the line
from the origin by Z which is uniformly distributed in the range (0, un ) for the first case.
Conditioned on Z, the probability that there are no nodes on the segment that intersects b(o, un )
is given by


p


P Nv L ∩ b(o, un ) = 0|Z, Yn = exp − λv 2 u2n − z 2 .
This result follows from the void probability of 1D-PPP. By taking the expectation over Z, we
now obtain the probability that there are no nodes on the segment of a randomly chosen line
that intersects the disc b(o, un ) as

 Z

P Nv L ∩ b(o, un ) = 0|Yn =

un

p
1
dz.
(40)
exp − λv 2 u2n − z 2
un
0
Similarly, for the second case where yn ≤ un < ∞, the distances of the lines that intersect

the disc b(0, un ) are uniformly distributed in the range (0, yn ). Therefore, the desired probability
in this case is given by

 Z

P Nv L ∩ b(o, un ) = 0|Yn =

yn

p
1
dz.
(41)
exp − λv 2 u2n − z 2
yn
0
Upon substituting (39), (40), and (41) in (38) and simplifying the resulting expression, we

obtain the final result. The PDF of Un can then be computed by taking the derivative of
FUn (un |yn ) with respect to un .
B. Proof of Lemma 5
The CDF of Vn conditioned on Yn is



FVn (vn |yn ) = 1 − P(Vn > vn |Yn ) = 1 − P Nv b(o, vn ) \ b(o, yn ) = 0|Yn

26

∞

 
nl
X


= 1−
P Nl b(o, vn ) \ b(o, yn ) = nl |Yn P Nv L ∩ {b(o, vn ) \ b(o, yn )} = 0|Yn
,

(a)

nl =0

(42)
where (a) follows from the i.i.d. locations of nodes on the lines. Note that L denotes an arbitrarily
chosen line whose distance from the origin is greater than vn and smaller than yn . From the
definition of PLP, we know that the number of lines whose distances from the origin are in the
range (yn , vn ) follows a Poisson distribution with mean 2πλl (vn − yn ). Thus,

 exp − 2πλ (v − y ) 2πλ (v − y )nl

l n
n
l n
n
.
(43)
P Nl b(o, vn ) \ b(o, yn ) = nl |Yn =
nl !
The evaluation of the second term in the equation (42) is similar to that of (40) in the proof of
Lemma 4. The only change is that the distances of the lines in this case are uniformly distributed
in the range (yn , vn ). Hence, the desired probability is obtained as

 Z vn
p


P Nv L ∩ {b(o, vn ) \ b(o, yn )} = 0|Yn =
exp − λv 2 vn2 − z 2

1
dz. (44)
(vn − yn )
yn
Substituting (43) and (44) in (42), we obtain the final expression. The conditional PDF of Vn
can then be obtained by taking the derivative of FVn (vn |yn ) w.r.t. vn .
C. Proof of Lemma 10
The conditional PMF of number of lines can be computed as




 (a) P En Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k, Yn , R



P Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k En , Yn , R =
P En |Yn , R



× P Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k|Yn , R , (45)
where (a) follows from the application of Bayes’ theorem. We now need to determine each term
in (45) to compute the desired conditional PMF. The first term in the numerator is nothing but
the probability that there are no nodes inside a disc of radius r centered at the origin, given that
there are k lines that are farther than yn and closer than r. In addition to these k lines, there
are n − 1 lines that are closer than yn , one line at a distance of yn , and the typical line that
intersect the disc b(o, r). Therefore, the probability that there are no nodes on any of these lines
that intersect the disc b(o, r) can be computed as follows:



P En Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k, Yn , R




= P Nv b(o, r) = 0 Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k, Yn , R

 n−1

Y 


= P Nv L0 ∩ b(o, r) = 0|Yn , R
P Nv Li ∩ b(o, r) = 0|Yn , R
i=1

27

k
 Y



× P Nv Ln ∩ b(o, r) = 0|Yn , R
P Nv Ln+j ∩ b(o, r) = 0|Yn , R





(46)

j=1

n−1
p
p

dy
2
2
exp − 2λv r2 − yn2
exp(−2λv r − y )
= exp(−2λv r)
yn
0
Z r
k
p
 dy
2
2
exp − 2λv r − y
×
.
(r − yn )
yn
Z

yn

(47)

The second term in the numerator in (45) is the probability that there are k lines that are farther
than yn and closer than r. Since both r and yn are fixed, the number of lines that are farther than
yn and closer than r simply follows a Poisson distribution with mean 2πλl (r − yn ). Therefore,
the second term in the numerator is given by

 exp − 2πλ (r − y ) 2πλ (r − y )k

l
n
l
n
.
P Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k|Yn , R =
k!

(48)

The denominator in (45) is the probability of occurrence of event En conditioned on both Yn
and R. This is nothing but the probability that there are no nodes inside the disc of radius r.
This can be easily computed using law of total probability as follows:
∞

 X

 



P En |Yn , R =
P En Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k, Yn , R P Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = k|Yn , R
k=0

n−1
p
p

dy
exp(−2λv r2 − y 2 )
exp − 2λv r2 − yn2
yn
0
k  Z r
k
∞
p
X
 dy
2πλl (r − yn )
2
2
exp − 2λv r − y
× exp − 2πλl (r − yn )
k!
(r − yn )
yn
k=0


Z
r
p
p

= exp − 2λv r − 2λv r2 − yn2 − 2πλl
1 − exp − 2λv r2 − y 2 dy

Z
(a)
= exp(−2λv r)

yn

(49)

yn

Z
×

yn

exp(−2λv
0

p
dy
r2 − y 2 )
yn

n−1
,

(50)

where (a) follows from substituting (47) and (48) in (49).
Substituting (47), (48), and (50) in (45), we obtain the final expression.
D. Proof of Lemma 13
We know that there are n − 1 lines (excluding the typical line) closer than Yn whose distances
from the origin are uniformly distributed in the range (0, yn ). The Laplace transform of distribution of interference from an arbitrarily chosen line L, conditioned on its distance from the
origin Y is given by
"

Z

∞

LIL (s|r, yn , En , y) = exp − 2λv √

r2 −y 2



 #

s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
1− 1+
dx .
m

(51)

28

This expression is similar to the result obtained in Lemma 12. The lower limit of the integral
follows from the condition that there must be no nodes closer than r. Now, taking the expectation
over Y which is uniformly distributed in the range (0, yn ), we obtain the conditional Laplace
transform of distribution of interference from a single line as follows:
Z yn
dy
LIL (s|r, yn , En , y)
LIL (s|r, yn , En ) =
yn
Z0 yn "
Z ∞  
 #
dy
s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
exp − 2λv √
dx
.
=
1− 1+
m
yn

(52)

r2 −y 2

0

Owing to the i.i.d. locations of nodes on the lines, the conditional Laplace transform of distribution of interference from the nodes on all the n − 1 lines is given by
n−1
LIin (s|r, yn , En ) = LIL (s|r, yn , En )
Z yn "
Z ∞  
 # !n−1
s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
dy
=
exp − 2λv √
.
1− 1+
dx
m
yn

(53)

r2 −y 2

0

E. Proof of Lemma 14
We know that the distances of the random number of lines that are farther than yn and closer
than r are uniformly distributed in the range (yn , r). As given in (51), the Laplace transform of
interference from an arbitrarily chosen line L conditioned on the distance of the line from the
origin Y is
"

∞

 #


2
2 −α/2 −m
s(x + y )
dx .
1− 1+
√
m
r2 −y 2

Z

LIL (s|r, yn , En , y) = exp − 2λv

Thus, the conditionalZLaplace transform of distribution of interference from a single line is
"
Z ∞  
r
 #
dy
s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
.
exp − 2λv √
dx
LIL (s|r, yn , En ) =
1− 1+
m
(r − yn )
r2 −y 2

yn

(54)
Owing to the i.i.d. locations of nodes on the lines, the conditional Laplace transform of interference distribution from all the lines that are farther than Yn and closer than R can be computed
as
∞


i
X

LIann (s|r, yn , En ) =
P Nl b(o, r) \ b(o, yn ) = i LIL (s|r, yn , En )

(55)

i=0
(a)

= exp

"

Z

r

√

exp(−2λv r2 − z 2 )dz

− 2πλl

#


1 − LIL (s|r, yn , En )

,

yn

(56)
where (a) follows from the substitution of the PMF given by Lemma 10 in (55). Substituting
(54) in (56), we obtain the final expression.

29

F. Proof of Lemma 15
Following the same approach as in Lemma 14, we first determine the conditional Laplace
transform of distribution of interference from an arbitrary line L at a distance Y from the origin
as follows:
"

Z

∞



LIL (s|r, yn , En , y) = exp − 2λv
0

 #
s(x2 + y 2 )−α/2 −m
dx .
1− 1+
m


(57)

Owing to the independent distribution of nodes on the lines, for a given realization of the line
process, the conditional Laplace transform of interference distribution is simply the product of
the Laplace transform of distribution of interference from each of these lines. Therefore, we
can write the Laplace transform of distribution of interference conditioned on the line process
Φl0 ≡ Φl ∪ L0 as
LIout (s|r, yn , En , Φl0 ) =

Y

LIL (s|r, yn , En , y),

(58)

y∈Ψl0

where Ψl0 represents the set of distances of the lines from the origin, which is a 1D PPP with
density 2πλl as shown in the proof of Lemma 1. By taking the expectation over Ψl0 , we obtain
the desired result as follows:
LIout (s|r, yn , En ) = EΨl0

 Y


LIL (s|r, yn , En , y)

y∈Ψl0
(a)



Z

∞

= exp − 2πλl



1 − LIL (s|r, yn , En , y) dy ,

(59)

r

where (a) follows from the PGFL of PPP Ψl0 . We obtain the final expression upon substituting
(57) in (59).
R EFERENCES
[1] H. Hartenstein and L. P. Laberteaux, “A tutorial survey on vehicular ad hoc networks,” IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 46,
no. 6, pp. 164–171, Jun. 2008.
[2] S. Biswas, R. Tatchikou, and F. Dion, “Vehicle-to-vehicle wireless communication protocols for enhancing highway traffic
safety,” IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 74–82, Jan. 2006.
[3] P. Papadimitratos, A. D. L. Fortelle, K. Evenssen, R. Brignolo, and S. Cosenza, “Vehicular communication systems:
Enabling technologies, applications, and future outlook on intelligent transportation,” IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 47,
no. 11, pp. 84–95, Nov. 2009.
[4] H. S. Dhillon, R. K. Ganti, F. Baccelli, and J. G. Andrews, “Modeling and analysis of K-tier downlink heterogeneous
cellular networks,” IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Commun, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 550–560, Apr. 2012.
[5] J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans.
on Commun., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, Nov. 2011.
[6] J. G. Andrews, A. K. Gupta, and H. S. Dhillon, “A primer on cellular network analysis using stochastic geometry,” arXiv
preprint, Oct. 2016, available online: arxiv.org/abs/1604.03183.

30

[7] H. ElSawy, A. Sultan-Salem, M. S. Alouini, and M. Z. Win, “Modeling and analysis of cellular networks using stochastic
geometry: A tutorial,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 167–203, Firstquarter 2017.
[8] Y. Wang, K. Venugopal, A. F. Molisch, and R. W. Heath Jr., “MmWave vehicle-to-infrastructure communication: Analysis
of urban microcellular networks,” 2017, available online: arxiv.org/abs/1702.08122.
[9] F. Baccelli, M. Klein, M. Lebourges, and S. Zuyev, “Stochastic geometry and architecture of communication networks,”
Telecommunication Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 209–227, Jun. 1997.
[10] C. Gloaguen, F. Fleischer, H. Schmidt, and V. Schmidt, “Analysis of shortest paths and subscriber line lengths in
telecommunication access networks,” Networks and Spatial Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 15–47, Mar. 2010.
[11] F. Voss, C. Gloaguen, F. Fleischer, and V. Schmidt, “Distributional properties of Euclidean distances in wireless networks
involving road systems,” IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1047–1055, Sep. 2009.
[12] F. Morlot, “A population model based on a Poisson line tessellation,” in Proc., Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad
Hoc and Wireless Networks, May 2012, pp. 337–342.
[13] S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke, Stochastic geometry and its applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[14] M. Haenggi, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks.

Cambridge University Press, 2013.

[15] B. Blaszczyszyn, P. Muhlethaler, and Y. Toor, “Maximizing throughput of linear vehicular Ad-hoc NETworks (VANETs)
– a stochastic approach,” in European Wireless Conf., May 2009, pp. 32–36.
[16] S. Busanelli, G. Ferrari, and R. Gruppini, “Performance analysis of broadcast protocols in VANETs with Poisson vehicle
distribution,” in Intl. Conf. on ITS Telecommunications, Aug 2011, pp. 133–138.
[17] M. J. Farooq, H. ElSawy, and M. S. Alouini, “A stochastic geometry model for multi-hop highway vehicular communication,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 2276–2291, Mar. 2016.
[18] M. Mabiala, A. Busson, and V. Veque, “Inside VANET: Hybrid network dimensioning and routing protocol comparison,”
in Proc., IEEE Veh. Technology Conf., Apr. 2007, pp. 227–232.
[19] M. Ni, M. Hu, Z. Wang, and Z. Zhong, “Packet reception probability of VANETs in urban intersecton scenario,” in Intl.
Conf. on Connected Vehicles and Expo, Oct. 2015, pp. 124–125.
[20] E. Steinmetz, M. Wildemeersch, T. Q. S. Quek, and H. Wymeersch, “A stochastic geometry model for vehicular
communication near intersections,” in Proc., IEEE Globecom Workshops, Dec. 2015, pp. 1–6.
[21] C. Gloaguen, F. Fleischer, H. Schmidt, and V. Schmidt, “Simulation of typical Cox Voronoi cells with a special regard to
implementation tests,” Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 357–373, 2005.
[22] B. Blaszczyszyn and P. Muhlethaler, “Random linear multihop relaying in a general field of interferers using spatial Aloha,”
IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 3700–3714, Jul. 2015.
[23] S. Aditya, H. S. Dhillon, A. F. Molisch, and H. Behairy, “Asymptotic blind-spot analysis of localization networks under
correlated blocking using a Poisson line process,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Letters, to appear.
[24] R. Schneider and W. Weil, Stochastic and Integral Geometry.

Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.

[25] A. Leon-Garcia, Probability, Statistics, and Random Processes For Electrical Engineering.

Pearson Education, 2011.

[26] V. V. Chetlur and H. S. Dhillon, “Downlink coverage analysis for a finite 3D wireless network of unmanned aerial vehicles,”
IEEE Trans. on Commun., to appear.
[27] R. Tanbourgi, H. S. Dhillon, J. G. Andrews, and F. K. Jondral, “Dual-branch MRC receivers under spatial interference
correlation and Nakagami fading,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1830–1844, Jun. 2014.
[28] Y. J. Chun, S. L. Cotton, H. S. Dhillon, A. Ghrayeb, and M. O. Hasna, “A stochastic geometric analysis of device-todevice communications operating over generalized fading channels,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 7,
pp. 4151–4165, Jul. 2017.
[29] C. Gloaguen, F. Fleischer, H. Schmidt, and V. Schmidt, “Fitting of stochastic telecommunication network models via
distance measures and Monte–Carlo tests,” Telecommunication Systems, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 353–377, Apr. 2006.

