1

Interference Modeling for Cellular Networks
under Beamforming Transmission
Hussain Elkotby, Student Member IEEE and Mai Vu, Senior Member IEEE

arXiv:1706.00050v1 [cs.IT] 31 May 2017

Abstract
We propose analytical models for the interference power distribution in a cellular system employing
MIMO beamforming in rich and limited scattering environments, which capture non line-of-sight signal
propagation in the microwave and mmWave bands, respectively. Two candidate models are considered:
the Inverse Gaussian and the Inverse Weibull, both are two-parameter heavy tail distributions. We further
propose a mixture of these two distributions as a model with three parameters. To estimate the parameters
of these distributions, three approaches are used: moment matching, individual distribution maximum
likelihood estimation (MLE), and mixture distribution MLE with a designed expectation maximization
algorithm. We then introduce simple fitted functions for the mixture model parameters as polynomials of
the channel path loss exponent and shadowing variance. To measure the goodness of these models, the
information-theoretic metric relative entropy is used to capture the distance from the model distribution
to a reference one. The interference models are tested against data obtained by simulating a cellular
network based on stochastic geometry. The results show that the three-parameter mixture model offers
remarkably good fit to simulated interference power. The mixture model is further used to analyze the
capacity of a cellular network employing joint transmit and receive beamforming and confirms a good
fit with simulation.
Keywords: mmWave cellular; interference model; stochastic geometry; moment matching; maximum
likelihood estimation; mixture distribution.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The current scarcity of wireless spectrum coupled with the predicted exponential increase
in capacity demand has focused attention on denser network deployment and the underutilized
millimeter wave (mmWave) bands (30-300 GHz) [1]–[3]. Fifth generation (5G) wireless systems
aiming to cater for the capacity demand are expected to provide a minimum of 1 Gb/s data rate
anywhere with up to 5 Gb/s for high mobility users and 50 Gb/s data rates for pedestrians [2].
Both dense deployments and mmWave make promising candidates for the 5G systems through
the resources reuse over smaller areas and the huge amount of available spectrum [2], [4].
Modeling and characterization of wireless interference under these scenarios is essential for
cellular system analysis and design. Due to the different characteristics of signal propagation in
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA. Emails:
Hussain.Elkotby@Tufts.edu, Mai.Vu@Tufts.edu

2

conventional microwave and mmWave bands, we use the terminology rich and limited scattering
environments to refer to the signal propagation in microwave and mmWave bands.
A. Background and Related Works
We argue for the important role that interference characterization plays in evaluating and predicting the network performance in both microwave and mmWave bands. Traditionally, mmWave
bands are considered for backhaul in cellular systems and for high-volume consumer electronics
such as personal area and local area networks, but not for cellular access due to concerns about
short-range and non-line-of-sight coverage issues [2], [4]. MmWave has, however, recently been
shown to be suitable for cellular communications, provided short cell radius of the order of
100-200 meters and sufficient beamforming gain between communicating nodes [2]. Reducing
the cell radius leads to dense base station (BS) deployments. Even under beamforming, these
high BS and user densities can drive cellular networks to be more interference rather than noise
limited. While large adaptive arrays with narrow beams can boost the received signal power
and hence reduce the impact of out-of-cell interference [3], [5], this interference remains an
important performance-limiting factor in dense mmWave networks [6].
In next generation of wireless networks with a large number of subscribers and dense BSs
deployment, interference modeling is an important step towards network realization. Existing
stochastic geometry based work either uses the interference Laplace transform to evaluate simple transmission schemes [7], [8], or models the interference using moment matching gamma
distribution [9], [10]. Gaussian distribution is another approximation that is considered for the
centered and normalized aggregate wireless interference power [11], [12]. The central limit
theorem which justifies the Gaussian approximation, however, does not apply when some of the
interferers are dominant. Also, the Gaussian distribution does not model the interference very
well at low density of interferers or when the exclusion region, the region with no interferers, is
relatively small, as the cell sizes shrink. The distribution of the interference power at relatively
small exclusion regions has a heavy tail which can not be captured by the Gaussian distribution
[12]. Here we propose analytical distribution models characterized by only a few parameters,
which can be fitted to simple polynomial functions of channel path loss exponent and shadowing
variance, and test their fitness against network simulation based on stochastic geometry. A closed
form distribution of the interference helps in designing a cellular system by allowing the analysis
of system capacity and comparing different transmission techniques, which may not be directly
achievable with a characteristic function of the interference using the Laplace transform. Further,
having the interference distribution can significantly speed up system capacity evaluation by

3

generating the interference directly to use in capacity numerical computation, instead of running
time-consuming simulations.
To evaluate an interference model, we apply it to a cellular network and analyze the system
performance. For cellular network analysis, stochastic geometry is shown to capture the main
performance trends with analytical tractability. Stochastic geometry is used to develop a tractable
model for downlink heterogeneous cellular networks [8], which is applied to analyze coordinated
multipoint beamforming [7]. These stochastic geometry based networks are useful in verifying
that the performance of a cellular network matches experimental trends, and can also be used
to verify the accuracy of an interference model.
B. Approaches to Interference Modeling
The underlying question is "What parameterized distribution can best model out-of-cell interference and how can we estimate the parameters of this distribution?". We focus on parameterized
distributions with as few parameters as possible to make the model the simplest while having
a good fit. We test the goodness of the proposed interference models against simulation of a
cellular network based on stochastic geometry. We note that testing against actual measurement
data is also feasible and is desirable when such data are available.
To estimate the parameters of the proposed interference models, we use both moment matching
and maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) techniques. Specifically, we consider three approaches: analytical moment matching, individual distribution MLE, and mixture distribution
MLE. We exploit the iterative expectation maximization (EM) algorithm to estimate the parameters of the mixture MLE model. To evaluate the goodness of each model, we introduce the use
of the information-theoretic relative entropy or Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence as a measure
for the relative distance between the modeled distributions and simulated data.
In our interference model development, we consider the interference at a BS in a MIMO
uplink scenario, but the results are also applicable to downlink. The developed interference
models apply to all transmit beamforming techniques, as long as the beamforming vector is
independent of the interference channels. We verify the modeled interference power distribution
against network simulation for a wide range of realistic channel propagation parameters.
C. Main Results and Contributions
We develop out-of-cell interference models that represent the interference power as a random variable with a known, parametrized probability density function. This representation is
important for cellular network performance evaluation, prediction and design. We further apply
the developed models in analyzing the capacity and outage performance of a MIMO cellular
network employing joint transmit and receive beamforming.

4

The main contributions and novelties of this paper are a new analytical model for interference
power distribution and methods for estimating its parameters for both rich scattering and limited
scattering environments, which are summarized as:
1) We propose the use of two distributions to model interference power, each distribution
characterized by two parameters: the inverse Gaussian (IG) as a light-to-heavy tailed
distribution and the inverse Weibull (IW) as a heavy tailed one. Further, we propose a
novel model as a mixture of these two distributions with remarkably good fit to simulation
data while having only three parameters.
2) We apply three approaches to estimate the interference models parameters: moment
matching (MM), individual distribution MLE, and mixture distribution MLE. In the MM
approach, a simple matching of the first two interference power moments is used. In the
other two approaches, a combination of MM and MLE techniques is used in designing
an iterative EM algorithm which maximizes a log likelihood function of the interference
data.
3) We propose the use of the relative entropy or Kullback-Leibler distance from information
theory to measure the goodness of each model. This metric measures the relative distance
between a modeled distribution and reference (simulated) data, which gives a good
indication of how far the proposed interference model is from the referenced interference.
4) We provide simple polynomial functions with fitted coefficients to express the mixture
MLE model parameters in terms of channel characteristics, including the path loss exponent and shadowing standard deviation. These polynomials can be used as a simple
representation of network interference in complex system-level simulations.
5) We apply the interference models to evaluate the performance of a cellular network with
joint transmit and receive beamforming. User’s outage probabilities using the MM and
mixture MLE interference models are compared to stochastic geometry based system
simulation.
6) Our proposed mixture model shows excellent fit in both interference distribution and
network performance evaluation for a wide range of channel propagation parameters,
including path loss exponent from 2 to 5 and shadowing standard deviation from 0 dB
to 9 dB.
This work can be extended to model interference in more complicated propagation environments, including those with a probabilistically parametrized LOS and NLOS channel model, and
to more heterogeneous network deployment such as those involving relaying nodes [13]–[15].

5

The importance of our developed mixture model comes from the fact that we can fit the
data set of out-of-cell interference into a simple mathematical model, a distribution with known
probability density function. This mathematical model can be used to study the performance of
a cellular network where model parameters can be specifically tailored for each network setting.
These parameters can be derived by applying the MLE method to interference data obtained
either via simulation (such as those based on stochastic geometry networks, including point
processes and random shapes), or via actual measurement campaigns. The flexibility of adapting
the parameters of this mixture distribution makes it a versatile tool in modeling interference.
II. M ODELS FOR NETWORK AND CHANNEL PROPAGATION
A. Network model based on stochastic geometry
We consider a cellular system consisting of multiple cells with an average cell radius R0 . Each
cell has a single BS that is equipped with NBS antennas and serves multiple user equipments
(UEs). Each UE is equipped with NUE antennas and uses a distinct resource block in each cell,
hence there is no intra-cell interference. However, each UE suffers from out-of-cell interference
due to frequency reuse in all other cells. In this paper, we denote all transmissions on the same
resource block from all cells other than the cell under study as the out-of-cell interference.
Due to the irregular structure of current and future cellular networks, we employ stochastic
geometry to describe the network. We consider uplink transmissions in this paper, although
results are also applicable to downlink. We model the active UEs in different cells contending
for the same resource block and causing interference to each other as being distributed on a
two-dimensional plane according to a homogeneous and stationary Poisson point process (PPP)
Φ1 with intensity λ̃1 = ηλ1 , where η represents the user density factor and can be varied.
Furthermore, under the assumption that each BS serves a single mobile in a given resource
block, we adopt the model in [16] which places each BS uniformly in the Voronoi cell of its
served UE. According to this model, the distance, rc , between each BS and its served UE is
√
Rayleigh distributed and has an average value of Rc = 1/(2 ηλ1 ). Throughout this paper, we
assume that λ1 is fixed and that Rc changes with the parameter η.
In order to develop a model for the out-of-cell interference power in a stochastic geometry
based network, we consider a cell under study with a typical radius Rc in a field of active UE
interferers with intensity λ̃1 . As such, our network model consists of a typical cell under study
centered at its BS and surrounded by Voronoi cells of other active uplink UEs who interfere
with the considered BS at the origin. Our goal is to model this out-of-cell interference to the
considered BS receiver, taking into account channel propagation features as discussed next.

6

B. Channel propagation model
We consider two channel models for two different environments, the rich and the limited
scattering environments, which are typical for signal propagation in the microwave and mmWave
bands, respectively.
For the rich scattering environment, we consider a complete channel model with shadowing,
path loss and small scale fading. As such, we express a typical MIMO channel with Tx-Rx
distance r in the following form:
H=

p

l (r)H̃

(1)

where H̃ is a random matrix that captures the effects of small scale fading and which can be
modeled as i.i.d. CN (0, 1); and function l (r) captures the large scale fading which includes

both path loss and shadowing. The large scale fading function l (r) is modeled as a log-normal
random variable multiplied with the pathloss as a function of the distance r as follows:
l (r) = Ls βr −α = Ls lp (r),

(2)

where Ls ∼ log(0, σSF ) is a log-normal random variable with standard deviation σSF dB; α is

the pathloss exponent; and β is the intercept of the pathloss formula. The intercept represents
the reference attenuation point that determines the tilt of the path loss model [17].
For the limited scattering environment, as typical in mmWave, the signal propagation charac-

teristics differ considerably. The path loss in mmWave systems is severe with distance-dependent
LOS and NLOS propagation, often modeled as a probabilistic function of mixed LOS and NLOS
[4], [13]. Further, mmWave signals can be severely vulnerable to shadowing and blockage effects
[18]. For limited scattering, however, we only focus on the NLOS interference component in
this paper, leaving the composite interference from both NLOS and LOS components as a future
work. As such, the large scale fading can be modeled as having a single slope as in (2).
The main feature, due to limited scattering, is that the channel becomes highly directional.
Specifically, for the small scale fading, a directional H̃ can be defined for K scatterers as
K
X


H̃ =
ak1 urx θkrx1 u∗tx θktx1
(3)
k1 =1

where K denotes the number of channel path clusters; ak1 is the complex channel coefficient

of the k1th path cluster, assuming (2-D) beamforming; θkrx1 and θktx1 respectively are the horizontal
angles of arrival (AoA) and departure (AoD) of the k1th path cluster; and urx (·) ∈ CNBS and

utx (·) ∈ CNUE are the vector response functions for the BS and UE antenna arrays.

Based on these channel models, we can express the channels of the direct link between the

considered active UE and its BS and the interfering links from other active UEs as follows:

7

H0 =

q
l (kp0 k2 )H̃0 ,

Hk =

q

l (kzk k2 )H̃k ,

(4)

where p0 and zk are vectors representing the 2-D location of the considered active UE and the
k th interfering UE in Φ1 with respect to the origin (i.e. the considered BS). Here H0 is the direct
channel from the considered active UE and Hk is the channel from the k th interfering UE in
Φ1 to the considered BS.
Through a number of recent mmWave channel measurement campaigns, channel parameters
for the model in (2) have been identified [18]–[21]. For channel propagation at 28 GHz, typical
values of the path loss exponent range from 1.68 to 2.55 in LOS and from 2.92 to 5.76 in NLOS
environments. Shadowing standard deviation ranges from 0.2 dB to 8.66 dB in LOS and from
8.7 dB to 9.7 dB in NLOS. In this paper, we develop an interference model that works well for
these ranges of channel parameters and beyond, as shown later in the numerical section.
III. I NTERFERENCE F ORMULATION UNDER MIMO B EAMFORMING
In this section, we present the MIMO beamforming signal model and formulate the out-ofcell interference at the considered BS under transmit beamforming from all active UEs in rich
and limited scattering environments. Beamforming has been adopted as an essential technique
for mmWave communications to overcome the huge propagation loss at high mmWave carrier
frequencies [2], [22]. We then formulate the per-user achievable rate and outage probability under
an example of dominant mode joint transmit and receive beamforming in the rich scattering
environment, and directional analog beamforming in the limited scattering environment.
A. MIMO Beamforming Signal Model
We now describe the signal model for single-stream MIMO beamforming, i.e., no spatial
multiplexing. We model the received signal {y0 ∈ CNBS ×1 } at the considered BS as
y0 = H0 x0 + v0 + z0

(5)

where x0 ∈ CNUE ×1 is the transmitted signal vector from the considered UE; z0 ∈ CNBS ×1 is an
i.i.d. noise vector distributed as CN (0, σ 2 I); H0 ∈ CNBS ×NUE is the considered UE-to-BS channel

matrix; and v0 ∈ CNBS ×1 represents the interference vector received at the considered BS from
interfering UEs in all other cells.

The transmit signal vector under beamforming from each user can be generally described as
p
x = w PU.
(6)

where U is a standard Gaussian signal with zero mean and unit variance; P represents the total
power allocated to the active UE within a single transmission period; and w ∈ CNUE ×1 is the unit
norm beaforming vector at the active UE. We will use this signal model with the appropriate
subscript to denote the transmit vector from an active UE, either intended or interfering one.

8

B. Interference Signal Formulation
For the purpose of modeling network-wide interference, we emphasize that the distribution
of interference is independent of the beamforming scheme employed. The only condition is that
the transmit and receive beamforming vectors, which are designed for the intended channel, are
independent of the interference channels. This condition is realistic in most practical scenarios.
For the interfering active UE in the k th cell, denote the interference channel as Hk and the unitnorm interfering beamforming vectors as wk ∈ CNUE ×1 , which can represent either a baseband

digital precoder or analog RF beamforming or a hybrid of both of these forms.

1) Rich Scattering Environment: Given that wk depends on the direct channel between the
k th active UE and its associated BS, it is independent of the interference channel Hk . We can
denote the effective interference vector from the k th interfering active UE as
q
q
hk = Hk wk = l (kzk k2 )H̃k wk = l (kzk k2 )h̆k ,

(7)

where h̆k is a random vector with i.i.d. elements as CN (0, 1). This follows from the fact that

the inner product of a vector of i.i.d. complex Gaussian variables (the column of H̃k ) with
an arbitrary unit norm vector is a complex Gaussian variable of the same distribution as each
element in the original vector.
The interference vector at the receiving antenna array as presented in (5) can be expressed as
X
Xq
Pk l (kzk k2 )h̆k Uk ,
(8)
v0 =
hk xk =
k6=0

k6=0

where the summation is over all interfering users.
2) Limited Scattering Environment: In this environment, we assume directional analog beamforming only and consider the composite effect of both transmit beamforming vector, wk ,
and receive combining vector, w̄0 ∈ CNBS ×1 , on the received interference power. We further
approximate the BSs and UEs antenna array patterns by a sectored antenna model with M and

m representing the main and back lobes gains, and θM representing the beamwidth of the main
lobe. Then, given the independence between wk , w̄0 , and Hk , the received interference signal
after both transmit and receive beamforming is
Xq
X
∗
∗
w̄0 Hk wk xk =
v̄0 = w̄0 v0 =
Gk Pk l (kzk k2 )ak Uk ,
k6=0

(9)

k6=0

where ak is the effective channel coefficient and Gk is the effective antenna gain from the k th
interfering active UE and can be modeled, assuming channel clusters are well separated, as

9

Gk =



MM,








M 2
with probability p1 = K( θ2π
)

mM,

M
M 2
M
)( θ2π
) + (K 2 − K)( θ2π
)
with probability p2 = 2K( 2π−Kθ
2π

mm,

M 2
with probability p3 = ( 2π−Kθ
)
2π

(10)

where K is the number of clusters (the special case of a single cluster channel model, K = 1,
is discussed in [13], [23]). Note the difference between the formulations in (8) and (9) in that
(8) is an interference vector at the receiving antenna array, before receiver processing, whereas
the interference in (9) applies after receive beamforming.
3) Modeling the Interference: For each spatial and channel fading realization, based on the
large number of interferers, the out-of-cell interference can be modeled as a complex Gaussian
random vector for (8) or a complex Gaussian scalar for (9) with zero mean and covariance Σ0
or variance σ02 . These covariance and variance, however, are random and dependent on user locations and channel fading. The matrix Σ0 is symmetric with diagonal elements representing the
interference power at each receiving antenna element, and the off-diagonal elements representing
the correlation among interference signals at different antenna elements. The variance σ02 on the
other hand represents the total interference power after receiver beamforming. We analyze the
off-diagonal and diagonal elements of the covariance matrix separately in Sec. V-A. We show
later in the numerical analysis section that the correlation among antenna elements is weak and
negligible; hence we focus on modeling the interference power elements in Σ0 and σ02 .
C. Achievable Rate and Outage Probability Formulation
The main goal of this paper is to model the interference as formulated above. In order to
evaluate this model, we apply it in capacity analysis. In this section, we formulate the capacity
and show how it is affected by interference.
To establish the per-user capacity in the rich scattering environment, we assume the transmit
beamforming vector w0 as the right singular vector corresponding to the dominant mode of H0 ,
and consider either an interference-aware (IA) or interference-unaware (IU) receive combining
vectors. The noise plus interference in the received signal in (5) can be treated as a Gaussian
random vector with a random covariance matrix R0 , which is dependent on interfering nodes
locations and their interference channels. This covariance matrix can be expressed as
R0 = Σ0 + σ 2 I,

(11)

where Σ0 is the interference covariance matrix discussed in Sec. V-A. Applying a receive
combining vector sd ∈ CNBS ×1 to the received signal y0 in (5) to get
√
ỹ0 = s∗d y0 = s∗d H0 w0 P U0 + s∗d R0 z̃0 ,

10

where z̃0 is a vector of i.i.d. zero mean and unit variance complex normal entries, we can then
write the per-user capacity for the given combining vector sd as


|s∗d H0 w0 |2
P .
C = log 1 + ∗
sd R 0 sd

(12)

For interference-unaware (IU) combining, we design the receive combining vector without
knowledge of the interference statistics – particularly its covariance. As such, the IU combining
vector is chosen as the left singular vector corresponding to the dominant mode of H0 , sd =
v1 (H0 ), resulting in the following per-user capacity:


|λmax (H0 )|2
CIU = log2 1 + 2
P ,
σ + v1∗ Σ0 v1

(13)

where λmax (H0 ) is the maximum singular value of H0 .
As seen in capacity formula (13), with IU combining, the effective post-combining interference
is σI2 = v1∗ Σ0 v1 . Since Σ0 is a random covariance, this post-combining interference is also
random. Its distribution, however, can be characterized in the same way as the pre-combining
interference power at each antenna element, i.e., the diagonal elements of Σ0 , as stated in Lemma
1. As a result, the IU capacity depends only on the interference power at each antenna element
but not on the correlation between interference at different antenna elements.
Lemma 1 (Interference Power Distribution for IU Combining). The post-combining interference
power v1∗ Σ0 v1 is a random variable that has the same distribution as a diagonal element of Σ0 .
Proof: See Appendix A for detail.
For interference-aware (IA) combining, the receive combining vector can be designed as a
−1/2

1/2

function of the interference statistics. Define s̃d = R0 sd ; then replacing sd = R0
it is straightforward to see that the vector which maximizes (12) is
interference-aware per-user capacity can then be obtained as

CIA = log2 1 + ks̃⋆d k2 P .

s̃⋆d

= (R0 )

s̃d into (12),

−1/2

H0 w0 . The

(14)

This IA capacity depends on the complete interference covariance Σ0 ; it is therefore dependent
on both the interference power at each antenna element and the correlation between interference
at different antenna elements.
In the limited scattering environment, we can express the per-user capacity, assuming perfect
beam alignment between the UE and its serving BS [13], as


M 2 |a0 |2 l (kp0 k2 ) P
,
C = log2 1 +
σ 2 + σ02

(15)

11

where M is the antenna array main lobe gain; a0 is the effective complex channel coefficient;
p0 is the location of the active UE with respect to the BS; and σ02 is the total interference power.
Achieving the capacity in (15) does not require knowledge of the interference covariance matrix.
The rates in Eqs. (13) – (15) are random quantities due to channel fading and interference.
We investigate the outage probability at a given target rate as a performance metric, defined as
po (RT ) = P{C < RT },

(16)

where RT is the target rate at which the active UE under consideration transmits.
IV.

I NTERFERENCE M ODELING A PPROACHES

AND

F ITNESS M ETRIC

In wireless cellular networks at system level simulations, the most difficult part is to simulate
interference from other cells to the cell under study. This is mainly due to the processing and
memory power required. These simulations can be substantially simplified if we can characterize
the interference by a simple parametrized distribution that represents a good fit to the actual
interference. In this section, we introduce the approaches we use to model the interference power
terms on the diagonal of Σ0 and σ02 . Then, we introduce the information-theoretic based metric
used to measure the fitness of each of those models. Finally, we discuss candidate distributions
considered for the interference model, the Inverse Gaussian and Inverse Weibull distributions.
A. Interference Modeling Approaches
We introduce three different approaches for modeling the distribution of the interference power
at the receive antenna. These approaches are Moment Matching (MM), individual distribution
MLE (individual MLE), and mixture distribution MLE (mixture MLE).
1) MM Approach: In this approach, we leverage tools from stochastic geometry to analytically
derive the first two moments of each interference power term. Then, we match these two moments
with those of the two-parameter candidate distributions to estimate these two parameters and
hence specify the distribution. This approach is the simplest and does not require complex
computations to estimate the distributions parameters. Thus, it is often used in the literature to
produce analytically tractable models [10], [24], [25]. We will show, however, that this approach
may not produce a good fit for the model.
2) Individual MLE Approach: In this approach, to simplify parameter estimation but improve
the model fitness, we use a combination of MM and MLE, a powerful estimation technique which
is often used in signal detection and estimation [26]. Here we only match the first moment using
the analysis results derived based on stochastic geometry, which helps in either determining one

12

of the parameters for the candidate distribution, or getting one parameter in terms of the other.
Then, we use MLE to determine the other parameter of the candidate distribution.
3) Mixture Approach: This approach is the most complex but also most accurate, in which we
model the interference probability density function as a mixture of the two candidate distributions.
We again use a combination of MM and MLE techniques to simplify parameter estimation. In
this approach, we do not determine the optimal values of the distributions parameters in closed
form, but design an efficient Expectation Maximization (EM) iterative algorithm to identify these
paramters, as discussed in Sec. VI-C.
B. KL Divergence Fitness Metric
In order to measure the developed models goodness or fitness, we use a concept from information theory as the relative entropy [27]. In this paper, we measure the relative entropy
between a proposed model and the data obtained by simulating the network based on stochastic
geometry as discussed in Sec. II-A, but it should be noted that other data such as those obtained
from measurement campaigns can also be used to test our models via relative entropy. The
relative entropy of a distribution P with respect to another distribution Q, also called KullbackLeibler divergence DKL (P ||Q), reflects the difference, or distance, between these two probability

distributions. The distribution P usually represents the true distribution of data or observations,

while Q is typically used to represent a modeled distribution or an approximation to the true
distribution P . This relative entropy is defined for continuous probability distributions as
Z ∞
p(x)
dx
(17)
DKL (P ||Q) =
p(x) log
q(x)
−∞
where p(x) and q(x) denote the probability density functions of P and Q, respectively. This
definition can also be described as the expectation of the logarithmic difference between the
probabilities P and Q. Kullback-Leibler divergence metric has been used to measure the accuracy
of modeling composite fading and shadowing wireless channels such as the Rayleigh-Inverse
Gaussian and mixture Gamma distributions [28], [29].
C. Candidate Distributions for the Interference Model
We consider two candidate distributions for interference modeling: the inverse Gaussian (IG)
and the inverse Weibull (IW), both are characterized by two parameters. The IG distribution
is also known as the Wald distribution and is usually used to model nonnegative positively
skewed data. For example, a composite Rayleigh-IG distribution is used to approximate the
composite Rayleigh-Lognormal distribution in [28]. The name "Inverse Gaussian" comes from the

13

inverse relationship between the cumulant generating functions of these distributions and those
of Gaussian distributions. It is a two-parameter family of continuous probability distributions
which is specified by a shape parameter λ and a scale parameter µ. Given an IG random
variable γIG (µ, λ), its probability density function is defined as [30]–[32]
r


λ
−λ(t − µ)2
fγIG (t|µ, λ) =
,
t > 0, λ, µ > 0.
exp
2πt3
2µ 2 t
The mean and variance of γIG (µ, λ) can be written in the following form [32]
µ3
E[γIG ] = µ,
var[γIG ] =
.
λ

(18)

(19)

The IW distribution is also known as the complementary Weibull distribution and is usually
used to model nonnegative positively skewed data that exhibits a long right tail. It is also specified
by two parameters, a shape parameter c and a scale parameter b (or λIW in some text). Given
an IW random variable γIW (b, c), its probability
function is defined as [33], [34]
( density
 −c−1
 −c )
c t
t
fγIW (t|b, c) =
, t ≥ 0, b, c > 0.
(20)
exp −
b b
b
The mean and variance of γIW (b, c) can be written in the following form [33]
2
1
var[γIW ] = b 2 Γ(1 − ), if c > 2,
E[γIW ] = bΓ(1 − ), if c > 1,
c
c
R ∞ t−1 −x
where the Gamma function Γ(t) is defined as Γ(t) = 0 x e dx.

(21)

In a recent and independent work, the Gaussian, Gamma, Inverse Gamma, and Inverse Gaus-

sian distributions are considered as models for the interference distribution in a stochastic
geometry based spatial network [35]. Different point processes are considered in this work,
including PPP, Strauss process, and Poisson cluster process. The inverse Gaussian distribution
is shown to be a reasonable model for the interference created by BSs distributed according to
the Strauss point and Poisson cluster processes. Further, both the Gamma and IG were shown
to be suitable for the PPP network geometry. This prior work, however, considered a bounded
path loss model l(r) = (1 + r α )−1 and Rayleigh fading with no shadowing.
In our work, we find through simulations that the Gaussian, Gamma and Inverse Gamma distributions are all poor models for the interference power when shadowing is present. Shadowing
introduces large variation in the interference power and causes a medium to heavy tail, which
none of these distributions are capable of capturing. Thus we need to find other distributions that
can more closely model heavy tail interference. As such, we examine the Inverse Gaussian and
also introduce the Inverse Weibull as a good candidate for parameterized heavy tail distributions
that can capture shadowing with large standard deviation.

14

V.

A NALYTICAL M OMENTS

OF I NTERFERENCE AND

M OMENT M ATCHING M ODELS

In this section, we analytically derive the first two moments of the diagonal and off-diagonal
elements of the interference covariance matrix. We then use the derived moments of the interference power at each antenna element in rich scattering, and the post receive beamforming
interference power σ02 in the limited scattering environment, to develop the MM interference
models.
A. Analytical Moments of Interference
1) Interference Power: In the rich scattering environment, the diagonal elements of the interference covariance matrix Σ0 represent the interference power at each antenna element and
they are uncorrelated with the off-diagonal elements. A correlation between any two of these
diagonal elements exists and can be determined similarly to the second moment of the offdiagonal elements (Lemma 3). However, since this correlation is not strong as shown in the
numerical analysis in Sec. VII-A, we model the diagonal elements of Σ0 as a random vector of
independent elements. Each of these diagonal elements can be generally expressed as
X
l (kzk k2 )gk Pk .
q0 =

(22)

k>0:zk ∈Φ1

where gk are all i.i.d. exp(1) and represent the power gain of the small-scale Rayleigh channel
fading from the k th interferer.
Similarly, in the limited scattering environment, the interference power can be expressed as
X
(1)
(2)
(3)
σ02 = q̄0 =
Gk l (kzk k2 )gk Pk = q̄0 + q̄0 + q̄0 ,
(23)
k>0:zk ∈Φ2

where we assume that the interferers are distributed according to PPP Φ2 with intensity λ2 . Using
the thinning property of random point processes [23], from Φ2 , we define three independent PPPs
Ni , i ∈ {1, 2, 3} with intensities τi = pi λ2 . Then, we can define the normalized interference power
terms as

(i)
X
q̄0
=
l (kzk k2 )gk Pk ,
G(i) k>0:z ∈N
k

where G

(i)

(24)

i

∈ {MM, Mm, mm}. Comparing Eqs. (22) and (24), we note that the distribution of

the normalized interference power for each thinned process in (24) can be characterized as that
of the interference power in (22) by matching the intensity τi to the intensity of the interferers in
the rich scattering environment, λ̃1 . Hence, we focus on the characterization of the rich scattering
environment interference power in (22), based on which the three separate interference power
terms for the limited scattering environment in (23) can be derived.

15

Lemma 2 characterizes the first two moments of the out-of-cell interference power q0 at each
receiving antenna.
Lemma 2 (Interference Power Moments). For network-wide deployment of MIMO transmit
beamforming, the out-of-cell interference power at each antenna of the interfered receiver has
the following first and second moments:
E [q0 ] = νζ1 Rc2−α ,
where

var [q0 ] = 2ν̃ζ2 Rc2(1−α) .
ζ2 = 2Pk2,

ζ 1 = Pk ,
ν=

(25)

2πλ1 βE[Ls ]
,
α−2

ν̃ =

πλ1 β 2 E[L2s ]
.
2(α − 1)

(26)

Proof: See Appendix B for details.
2) Interference Correlation among Different Antennas: The first moment of the off-diagonal
elements of the covariance matrix Σ0 represents the direct correlation among interference signals
at different receiving antenna elements. The second moment, however, represents the correlation
between received interference powers. These off-diagonal elements are expressed as in (47) for
i 6= j in Appendix A. Assuming antenna elements are spaced sufficiently far apart such that

they experience independent fading, Lemma 3 characterizes their first and second moments.

Lemma 3 (Interference Correlation Moments). For network-wide deployment of MIMO transmit
beamforming, the correlation among interference at different receiving antenna elements of the
BS has the following first and second moments:

 1
E [q̃0 ] = 0,
E (q̃0 )2 = var [q0 ] .
2

(27)

where var [q0 ] is defined in Lemma 2.

Proof: See Appendix B for details.
The interference correlation coefficient Cxy can then be written as
Cxy =

q̃0
,
E [q0 ]

(28)

Based on Lemmas 2 and 3, we can derive the variance of this correlation coefficient as
2
 2
(α − 2)2 E [L2s ]
(α − 2)2 σζSF
var [Cxy ] = E Cxy = κ
e 2 ,
=κ
(α − 1)
(α − 1) (E [Ls ])2

κ=

ζ2
.
8πλ1 ζ12Rc2

(29)

This variance increases with increasing path loss exponent, α, and shadow fading standard
deviation, σSF . We perform numerical analysis of this correlation coefficient in Sec. VII-A and
show that the correlation among interference at different antenna elements is in general weak.

16

B. Moment Matching Interference Models
Given the first two moments of the interference power in Lemma 2, we can use moment
matching as the simplest and most straightforward method to estimate the parameters of the
candidate distributions. This method, however, may not produce the best fit. Specifically, we use
the two analytically derived moments to estimate the (µ, λ) and (b, c) parameters of the IG and
IW distributions. The fitted distribution can then be used to represent the marginal distribution
of the interference power at each receiving antenna element, as stated in Lemmas 4 and 5 next.
Lemma 4 (Estimation of IG Parameters using MM). Given the derived moments in Lemma 2,
the shape and scale parameters λ and µ of an IG model for the interference power γIG [µ, λ]
can be estimated as
µ = E[q0 ],

(E[q0 ])3
.
λ=
var[q0 ]

(30)

Proof: Follows directly from the definition of λ and µ in (19).
Lemma 5 (Estimation of IW Parameters using MM). Given the derived moments in Lemma 2,
the shape and scale parameters c and b of an IW model for the interference power γIW [b, c]
can be estimated, assuming c > 2, by solving the following equation:


Γ(1 − 2/c)
E[q0 ]
var[q0 ] −
− 1 (E[q0 ])2 = 0,
b=
.
2
Γ (1 − 1/c)
Γ(1 − 1/c)

(31)

If the above equation gives a value of c < 2, then set c = 2.01 and compute b accordingly.
Proof: Follows directly from the equations for b and c in (21).
The equation in (31) can be solved numerically to obtain c, which is then used to obtain b.

Remark 1. For the expressions in (21), we note that the mean is infinite for c < 1 and that the
variance is infinite for c < 2. This is a consequence of the heavy right tail of the IW distribution.
Hence, for the IW moment matching in Lemma 5, we assume that c > 2.
Remark 2. For the path loss exponent value α = 2, we use numerically evaluated mean and
variance to perform moment matching since the expressions in Lemma 2 can not be evaluated
analytically at this value of α.
VI.

I NDIVIDUAL

AND

M IXTURE MLE I NTERFERENCE M ODELS

In this section, we apply maximum likelihood estimation to compute the model parameters. We
discuss both the individual MLE and mixture interference models and develop an EM algorithm

17

to estimate the model parameters. Maximum likelihood is one of the dominant methods of
estimation in statistics. A typical MLE problem is to estimate the parameter set θ of a candidate
distribution p(y|θ) from a given data set y and can be expressed as an optimization as follows:
arg max log p(y|θ)
θ

subject to θ ∈ Θ,

(32)

where log p(y|θ) is the log likelihood of the observed data y, and Θ is a closed convex set.
A. Individual MLE Interference Models
In individual MLE interference model, we use only a single distribution from the candidates
to model the interference power at each antenna. We use the maximum likelihood optimization
problem in (32) to estimate the parameters of each distribution. However, to simplify the
estimation, we use moment matching first. In moment matching first, we match the mean, µY ,
of the observed data set to that of each of the candidate distributions. This matching results in
the scale parameters µ and b for the IG and IW distributions as
µY
µ = µY ,
b=
.
(33)
Γ(1 − 1/c)
Next, we replace these expressions of the scale parameters into the log-likelihood function in
(32) for each candidate distribution. In the case of IG distribution, this substitution results in a
single-parameter log-likelihood function as follows
1
λ (y − µY )2
1
log λ − log 2πy 3 − 2
= log fγIG (y|λ).
(34)
log fγIG (y|µ, λ) =
2
2
2µY
y
Hence, the MLE problem in (32) becomes very simple and has a closed form solution for λ.
Similarly, in the case of IW, the substitution results in a single-parameter log-likelihood function
c

µcY c
µY
log fγIW (y|b, c) = log
−
y −c = log fγIW (y|c). (35)
Γ(1 − 1/c)c y (c+1)
Γ(1 − 1/c)
The derivation and final expressions of the optimal parameters, λ and c, that optimize the fit of
each candidate distribution are presented in Sec. VI-C.
B. Mixture MLE Interference Model
In our mixture model, the probability density function (pdf) of the interference model is now
a mixture of both IG and IW distributions as defined in the next theorem.
Theorem 1. Given a data set Y , the pdf of the mixture interference model can be written as
fY (y|θ) = w1 fγIG (y|λ) + w2 fγIW (y|c),
(36)
P
where {w1 , w2 : 2i=1 wi = 1} are the weight parameters for mixing the IG and IW distributions

and fγIG (y|λ) and fγIW (y|c) are as given in Eqs. (34) and (35) with the scale parameters ob-

tained through moment matching first as in (33). This mixture model is a 3-parameter distribution
with the parameter set as θ = {w1 , λ, c}.

18

Given the pdf of the mixture model in Theorem 1, we note that the individual MLE models
are special cases of this mixture model. By setting w1 = 1 , we have the IG individual MLE
model and by setting w2 = 1, we have the IW individual model. Subsequently we focus on the
mixture model parameters estimation, which can be applied to the individual models as well.
C. MLE Models Parameters Estimation
We have three parameters to be optimized in the mixture model which is significantly more
than the single parameter in the individual MLE model. This mixture leads to a more complex
MLE optimization problem and the EM algorithm [36] becomes an appealing approach. Here, we
identify the complete data X as the observed data Y plus some hidden data Z, i.e. X = (Y, Z),
where Y is the observed set of points that we model by a weighted IG and IW distribution and
Z ∈ {1, 2} is a discrete random variable representing the assignment of each data point to the

two candidate distributions. Then, we can define the pdf of the complete data X ∈ R+ as
fX (x|θ) = fX (Y = y, Z = i|θ) = wi φi (y|θi ),

(37)

where φ1 (y|θ1 ) = fγIG (y|λ) and φ2 (y|θ2 ) = fγIW (y|c).
Next, we present the algorithm for estimating the parameters of the MLE interference models.
We focus on the representative case of the mixture MLE model, which includes the individual
MLE models as special cases. Given n observations, in order to develop the EM algorithm to
estimate the parameters of our mixture model, we use Proposition 1 below [37] which can be
easily verified using the independence assumption, the fact that the observed data Y = f (X) is
a deterministic function of the complete data X for some function f , and Bayes’ rule.
Proposition 1. [37] Let the complete data X consist of n i.i.d. samples: X1 , X2 , ..., Xn , which
Q
satisfies f (X|θ) = ni=1 f (Xi |θ) for all θ ∈ Θ, and let yi = f (xi ), i = 1, 2, ..., n, then
n
X
(m)
Q(θ|θ ) =
Qi (θ|θ(m) )
(38)
i=1

(m)

We also define a responsibility function γij , which represents our guess at the mth iteration
of the probability that the ith sample belongs to the j th distribution component, as
(m)

(m)
γij

= p(Zi = j|Yi = yi , θ

(m)

(m)

wj φj (yi |θj )

) = P2

l=1

(m)

wl

(m)

φl (yi |θl

)

,

i ∈ {1, 2, ..., n}, j ∈ {1, 2}

(39)

where θ1 and θ2 represent the shape parameters λ and c, respectively.
An EM algorithm includes two steps: the E-step to calculate the conditional expectation of
the log likelihood of the complete data, and the M-step to maximize this conditional expectation
function. Lemma 6 provides the final expression for the EM algorithm Q-function in the E-step.

19

Lemma 6. Let the complete data X consist of n i.i.d. samples: X1 , X2 , ..., Xn , which satisfies
Q
f (X|θ) = ni=1 f (Xi |θ) for all θ ∈ Θ, and let yi = T (xi ), i = 1, 2, ..., n, then we have
Q(θ|θ

(m)

) =

2
X

(m)
nj

j=1

(m)

(m)

where nj

=

n
1 (m)
λ X (m) (yi − µY )2
log wj + n1 log λ − 2
γ
2
2µY i=1 i1
yi
(m)

(m)

+ cn2 log µY − cn2 log Γ(1 − 1/c) + n2 log c
c X

n
n
X
µY
(m)
(m)
γi2 yi−c ,
− c
γi2 log yi −
Γ(1
−
1/c)
i=1
i=1

(40)

(m)

Pn

i=1

γij , j ∈ {1, 2}; and θ = {w1 , λ, c}.

Proof: See Appendix C for details.
In the M-step, to update our estimate of the parameter θ, we solve the following optimization
problem for the optimal θ∗ :
arg max Q(θ|θ
θ

(m)

)

subject to

2
X
j=1

The optimal θ∗ is then found as in Theorem 2.

wj = 1, wj ≥ 0 , j ∈ {1, 2}.

(41)

n
o
(m+1)
Theorem 2. The optimal new estimate of θ(m+1) = w1
, λ(m+1) , c(m+1) that maximizes the

Q-function in (40) at the mth iteration are determined as follows:
(m)
(m)
nj
n1 µ2Y
(m+1)
(m+1)
, j ∈ {1, 2},
λ
= Pn (m) (y −µ )2
wj
=
i
Y
n
i=1 γi1
yi

(42)

and c (m+1) is obtained by solving
the following equation numerically:
"
#
0




n
X
µY
1
1
(m)
γi2 log yi
log
=
1−ψ 1−
−
+
c
Γ(1 − c1 ) c
i=1

c
#
"
n
X
yi Γ(1 − c1 ) ψ(1 − c1 )
µ
Y
(m)
−c

+  
+
log
γi2 yi
µY
c
Γ 1 − 1c
i=1
(m)
n2

(43)

Proof: See Appendix D for details.

Algorithm 1 summarizes the EM algorithm for the mixture distribution interference model.
In the case of IG individual MLE model, we can set w1 = 1 and the resulting Q-function in
(52) represents the log-likelihood function of the IG distribution. Hence, problem (41) results in
the MLE of a single parameter, λ. The optimal value of λ can be obtained from (42) by setting
(m)

n1

(m)

= n and γi1 = 1. Similarly, the optimal value of c for the IW individual MLE model can
(m)

be obtained from the numerical solution of (43) after setting w2 = 1, n2

(m)

= n and γi2 = 1.

20

1.

(0)

Initialize wj , λ(0) , and c(0) , j ∈ {1, 2}, and compute the initial log-likelihood:

Initialization:

L(0)
(m)

=

n





1X
(0)
(0)
log w1 fγIG yi |λ(0) + w2 fγIW yi |c(0) .
n i=1
(m)

as given in Eq. (39) and nj

2.

E-step:

Compute γij

3.

M-step:

Compute the new estimate for wj

(m+1)

=

Pn

i=1

(44)

(m)

γij .

, λ(m+1) , and c(m+1) , j ∈ {1, 2} as given

in Eqs. (42), and (43), respectively.
4.

Convergence check:

Compute the new log-likelihood function

L(m+1) =

n





1X
(m+1)
(m+1)
fγIW yi |c(m+1) .
log w1
fγIG yi |λ(m+1) + w2
n i=1

(45)

Return to 2 if |L(m+1) − L(m) | ≥ δ for a preset threshold δ; Otherwise end the algorithm.

Algorithm 1. MLE Models EM Algorithm
D. Functional Fitting of MLE Model Parameters to Channel Propagation Characteristics
By performing the MLE parameters estimation, we observe that these parameters can be fitted
directly to rather simple functions of the channel features, including the shadowing variance and
path loss exponent. These functions present excellent fit with simulated data for the range of
mmWave propagation parameters as measured in recent campaigns [18]–[21].
Corollary 1 presents the polynomial function form that we use to fit the MLE parameters to
the channel shadowing variance. Note the same functional form applies to all three parameters
of the mixture MLE model, each parameter with a different set of fitting coefficients.
Corollary 1. For a given path loss exponent, the parameters of the mixture MLE algorithm can
be estimated directly as a function of the shadowing standard deviation σSF as
3
2
log10 (θ) = a3 σSF
+ a2 σSF
+ a1 σSF + a0

(46)

where θ represents any of the parameters {w1 , c, λ}. The function coefficients for each parameter

are obtained via numerical fitting based on the EM estimated parameter values. Parameters b
and µ can then be obtained analytically based on Eq. (33) and Lemma 2.

In Appendix E, we provide representative values of the functional coefficients fitted against
simulation data based on stochastic geometry.
Similarly, the MLE parameters can be fitted to functions of the channel path loss exponent
using a simple least square optimization procedure. Corollary 2 presents the polynomial function
forms that we use to fit the MLE parameters to the path loss exponent.
Corollary 2. At a fixed value of the shadowing variance, the IG weight w1 and the IW shape
parameter c of the mixture MLE model can be estimated directly as a 4th order polynomial

21

function of the path loss exponent α. The logarithm of the IG shape parameter log10 (λ) can be
estimated as a polynomial function of α of the 3rd degree. The coefficients for each function can
be obtained via least square fitting based on the EM estimated parameter values.
Using these functional fits, we can bypass the MLE iterative algorithm in Algorithm 1 and
directly use the table of fitted function coefficients. These functional fits therefore provide a
simple and powerful way of modeling the interference and its direct dependence on the channel
propagation features.
Note that the coefficients examples in Appendix E are verified against simulated data using
stochastic geometry based network settings and need further verification against actual measurement data, for which the coefficient values may change slightly. We expect, however, that the
identified function forms in (46) remain a good fit. To fit the function coefficients, apply the
MLE algorithm to the measured data to identify the interference model parameters. Then fit
these model parameters to the function forms in (46) to identify the coefficient values. Once
the fit is verified, the function with the identified coefficients can be used directly to model
the interference in a new environment with given shadowing variance and path loss exponent,
without the need to measure new data or perform the MLE algorithm again.
VII.

N UMERICAL P ERFORMANCE R ESULTS

In this section, we use simulation data obtained from the stochastic geometry based network
setting in Sec. II-A to numerically verify the validity of the analytical results and proposed
interference models. We first verify the validity of our moment matching interference models.
We then discuss the fit of the MLE individual and mixture interference models. Last, we apply
these interference models to evaluate the outage performance of a cellular system employing
MIMO joint transmit-receive dominant mode beamforming.
Since interference in the limited scattering environment can be derived as the sum of interference components from independent, thinned processes, each of which exhibits similar
characteristics as the interference in a rich scattering environment but with a different interferer
density as in [23], we focus on the rich scattering environment in our simulation. For the
simulations setting, we consider a typical cell of radius Rc = 150 m, which is related to the
active UEs density λ1 as ηλ1 = 0.25Rc−2 , where η = 1 in the typical case. Later we vary η to
examine the effect of user density on performance.
A. Interference Correlation among Different Antenna Elements
This part aims to examine the correlation between interference at different antenna elements
to see if this correlation is negligible. We use a kernel distribution to fit the actual interference

22

0.95

Probability(|C

xy

|≤0.3)

1
0.95

0.9

0.9
0.85
0.8

0.85

0.75
0.7
10

0.8

8

5
6

4

4

σ SF (dB)

3

2
0

α

0.75

2

Fig. 1: The probability of weak interference correlation versus shadowing standard deviation and path loss exponent.
correlation. A kernel distribution is a nonparametric representation of the probability density
function of a random variable. It can be used when a parametric distribution cannot properly
describe the simulation data, or when assumptions about the distribution of the data are to be
avoided, as is the case for testing the fit of our proposed parameterized interference distributions.
We examine the interference correlation via the correlation coefficient defined in Sec. V-A2.
In Fig. 1, we plot the probability that the correlation coefficient is smaller than 0.3, and show
that this probability is significant for a wide range of the shadowing standard deviation and the
path loss exponent. This figure demonstrates that the interference correlation among different
antenna elements is in general weak. As shown later in the system performance evaluation (Sec.
VII-E), the impact of interference correlation on transmission rate differs depending on the
receive combining vector, as discussed in Sec. III-C. For IA combining, interference correlation
can have an impact on capacity; whereas for IU combining, the interference correlation has no
impact and can be ignored. In this paper we do not model the interference correlation, hence
IU combining is more appropriate.
B. Moment Matching Interference Models Evaluation
We now use the relative entropy metric described in Sec. IV-A to measure the goodness of the
MM interference models in Section V-B. In Fig. 2a, we plot the relative entropy versus shadowing
standard deviation σSF at a sample path loss exponent value of α = 3.5. The result shows that
IG approximates the simulated interference distribution well at low values of shadowing standard
deviation σSF and diverges at higher values.
The IW distribution, on the other hand, does not show a good fit at the simulated path loss
value. Our extensive simulation and testing suggests that IW can be a good approximation of
the simulated data distribution only for low values of α (lower than shown in Fig. 2). The
moment matching IW distribution diverges significantly as the path loss exponent increases.
This divergence is caused by the fact that the optimal shape parameter c, as we will see later in

23

1.8

2.5

×10

4

Simulation Data
Moment Matching IW
Moment Matching IG

Moment Matching IG
Moment Matching IW

1.6
1.4

2

1

1.5

PDF

Relative Entropy

1.2

0.8
0.6

1

0.4
0.2

0.5

0
-0.2

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

σ SF (dB)

(a) Relative entropy at α = 3.5.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Interference Power (W)

3
×10

-4

(b) Sample PDF at α = 3.5, σSF = 4 dB.

Fig. 2: Relative entropy and sample interference distributions of moment matching interference models. System
parameters: Pmax = 30 dBm, η = 1, δ = 10−6 , σSF = 4 dB, α = 3.5.

this section, obtained at high values of α is close to or less than 2. At this range of c values,
the variance of the IW distribution is infinite and the moment matching model is not applicable.
In Fig. 2b, we show a sample interference power distribution at one antenna element for
α = 3.5 and σSF = 4 dB to visually confirm the match, or rather the mismatch, of the momentmatched IW interference distribution. The moment-matched IG distribution also starts to diverge
from the simulated data at this value of σSF , as indicated in Fig. 2a.
C. Individual and Mixture MLE Interference Models Evaluation
Next, we evaluate the fit of the individual and mixture MLE interference models. Fig. 3 shows
the relative entropy measures for these 3 models against simulated data as well as representative
sample distributions. In Fig. 3a, we see that our proposed mixture model outperforms both the
individual IG and IW models. This result aligns with our expectation since the pdf of the mixture
model is a combination of both the individual IG and IW distributions. Hence, performance of
the mixture model should be at least as good as that of the individual models. The fact that the
mixture model performs better than either individual one is because the relative entropy measure
is a non-linear function of the distribution densities.
Comparing between Figs. 2 and 3 also reveals that all MLE models perform much better than
the MM models: at the worst σSF = 9 dB, the IW distribution under individual MLE has a
maximum relative entropy of about merely 0.23 compared to a maximum of 1.8 under MM.
Further, we see that the proposed mixture model follows the simulated data distribution almost
exactly even at large shadowing: the maximum relative entropy is barely 0.03.
Consistently in all our extensive simulations and testing, the mixture MLE interference model
provides the best fit. This model requires an iterative algorithm to fit the parameters initially,
before fitting the functional coefficients as in Corollary 1. The MM models are attractive from
the simplicity point of view since the model parameters can be determined analytically without

24

7000

0.25
Mixture Model
IG MLE
IW MLE

0.2

Simulation Data
Mixture Model
IW MLE
IG MLE

6000

5000

4000

PDF

Relative Entropy

0.15

0.1

3000
0.05
2000
0

1000

-0.05

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

σ SF (dB)

1

2

3

4

5

Interference Power (W)

(a) Path loss exponent α = 3.5.

6

7

8
×10

-4

(b) Sample PDF at α = 3.5, σSF = 9 dB.

Fig. 3: Relative entropy and sample interference distributions of the individual and mixture MLE models. System
parameters: Pmax = 30 dBm, η = 1, δ = 10−6 , σSF = 9 dB, α = 3.5.

optimization. However, our simulation results suggest that the IG MM model should only be
used for the range of shadowing standard deviation σSF < 3 dB, at which the relative entropy
of the IG MM model is approximately within 1% of the mixture model.
In Fig. 4, we plot the number of iterations required by Algorithm 1 to obtain the optimal values
of the mixture MLE model parameters versus σSF at two samples of the path loss exponent
α = {2.5, 4}, where the preset threshold value is chosen to be δ = 10−6 , the model weights are
(0)

(0)

initialized as w1 = w2 = 0, and the model shape parameters λ(0) and c(0) are initialized to the
optimal values of the corresponding individual MLE models. The number of iterations required
by the EM algorithm to obtain the optimal mixture MLE model parameters is in general less
than 200. In Fig. 5, we study the sensitivity of Algorithm 1 to the initial values of the parameters.
We consider the sample data obtained at path loss exponent α = 2, shadowing value σSF = 4
(m)

dB, and density factor η = 1. In this figure, we plot the IG weight parameter w1
iteration (m) for different initial values

(0)
w1 ,

at each

which shows that the weight parameter converges

to the same value after at most 170 iterations. We also note from simulations that the likelihood
function is concave in both of the shape parameters c and λ at a fixed value of the weight
parameter, therefore it has a unique maximum. Hence, we can conclude based on numerical
evidence that Algorithm 1 converges to the same optimal parameter values irrespective of their
initializations.
D. Mixture Model Parameters and Function Coefficients Fitting
In this section, we use the EM algorithm discussed in Sec. VI-C. along with Theorem 2
to obtain the mixture model parameters. We then fit the estimated parameters w1 , c, λ, into a
function in terms of σSF as in Corollary 1. After that, Eq. (33) can be used to determine the
parameter b. We can also use (25) to determine the parameter µ directly, but instead we provide

25

0.9

220

w 1(0) = 0.1

α = 2.5
α =4

200

w (0)
= 0.5
1

0.8

w 1(0) = 0.9

180

0.7

160

0.6

w (m)
1

# Iterations

140
120

0.5
0.4

100
0.3
80
0.2
60
0.1
40
20
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0
10

0

10

1

10

2

Iteration # (m)

σ (dB)

Fig. 4: Number of iteration required to obtain optimal Fig. 5: Sensitivity analysis of the MLE EM algorithm
parameters of the mixture MLE model versus σSF at path

using sample data obtained at path loss exponent and

loss exponent values α = {2.5, 4} using the threshold

shadowing standard deviation values of α = 2, σSF =

value δ = 10−6 .

4 dB and η = 1.

a function fitted to the simulated data for this parameter, since (25) is invalid at α = 2. The
coefficients of the fitted functions are provided for representative values in Appendix E.
In Fig. 6, we plot the mixture model weight factor obtained from both simulation (cross
markers) and functional fit (lines). The estimated parameters and fitted functions show an
excellent fit to the simulated data. The results confirm that larger shadowing results in an increase
in the IW component and a decrease in the IG component in our mixture interference model. The
increase in shadowing standard deviation σSF implies a higher probability of high interference
power, leading to a heavier interference distribution tail. As the path loss exponent α increases,
however, the IW distribution starts to diverge from the simulated data and hence reduces in
weight, thus the IG weight w1 increases as shown. Note also that as α increases, shadowing
has less effect on the mixture model weights, especially at low active UEs density. As such, the
weight distribution at high path loss is less sensitive to shadowing.
In Fig. 7, we plot the IW and IG shape parameters {c, λ} versus σSF at α = 3. These curves

match the simulated data perfectly, verifying the functional fits in Corollary 1. At higher path
loss exponents, however, we noted some irregularities in the values of simulated c specifically
at α ≥ 4 and σSF ≤ 4 (not shown in the figure). This irregularity is caused by the fact that the

IG distribution has a much higher weight than IW in this range, hence the IW distribution can

assume a looser range of values for its parameters without affecting the goodness of the fit. The
functional fit for c in (46) thus can still be applied in this high path loss range.
These plots demonstrate that the fitted functions for parameters of the mixture MLE model are
accurate for the practical ranges of channel path loss and shadowing. These functions therefore
provide an extremely simple yet accurate way to estimate interference distribution parameters.

26

1
Sim Data
α =2
α =3.5
α =5

0.9
0.8

10

0

IW, c
Shape Parameters

0.7

IG weight

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

10

-1

10

-2

Sim Data
η=1
η=3

IG, λ

0.1
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

σ SF (dB)

σ SF (dB)

Fig. 6: IG weight, w1 , in the mixture MLE model. Fig. 7: IW and IG parameters comparison between
System parameters: Pmax = 30 dBm, η = 3, δ = 10−6 ,

simulation (markers) and fitted functions in Corollary

α = {2, 3.5, 5}.

1 (lines). System settings: Pmax = 30 dBm, α = 3,
η = {1, 3}, δ = 10−6 .

E. Rate CDF and Outage Performance
We now apply the proposed interference models to evaluate the cellular system performance.
In particular, we evaluate the transmission rate cumulative distribution function (CDF), which
is related to the outage probability, of a cell edge user at a distance of 145 m from the base
station with η = 1 (note Rc = 150 m and ηλ1 = 0.25Rc−2 ). In this simulation scenario, we do
not consider uplink scheduling; instead, we consider a random user with a random channel to
the considered BS. We further normalize the simulation results by the channel bandwidth and
show rates in bps/Hz. The uplink maximum transmission power is 30 dBm. We use the dominant
mode transmit beamforming discussed in Sec. III-C and assume a noise variance of σ 2 = −124
dBm/Hz and a path loss intercept β = −72.3 dB.

In Fig. 8, we plot the interference-aware capacity in (14) and compare the user transmission

rate CDFs based on IG MM and mixture interference models to the simulated data. Both models
show good accuracy for the interference power as in the left plot at a low σSF value. At larger
shadowing, however, as in the right plot with σSF = 9 dB, only the mixture model remains
accurate while the IG MM model diverges significantly. This result also suggests that interference
has a strong impact on user transmission rate CDF even at the somewhat high noise variance
of σ 2 = −124 dBm/Hz. We also note that the slight mismatch between the mixture model and

simulation is due to the interference correlation, which we did not model but does have an impact
on capacity in an interference-aware combining scheme.
To further examine the accuracy of the mixture interference power model, we consider the
interference-unaware combining scheme with capacity in (13). IU capacity does not depend on
interference correlation as a result of Lemma 1. Results in Fig. 9 shows that the capacity using
interference power model matches with simulation almost perfectly in all considered antenna

1

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

Outage Probability

Outage Probability

27

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Mixture Model
Moment Matching IG
Sim Data

0.1

Mixture Model
Moment Matching IG
Sim Data

0.1

0

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

Rate (bps/Hz)

(a) σSF = 1 dB.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Rate (bps/Hz)

(b) σSF = 9 dB.

Fig. 8: User transmission rate CDF comparison among simulation, IG MM model, and mixture MLE model.
System settings: Pmax = 30 dBm, η = 1, α = 3, σSF = {1, 9} dB.

configurations, even at a high shadowing variance of σSF = 9 dB. This result confirms the
validity of our interference power distribution in capacity evaluation.
Our interference distribution models have been validated against simulation based on stochastic
geometry. The ideal next step would be to evaluate the models against actual measurement data,
but at the point of writing this paper, such data are not available. As stochastic geometry has
been shown to reasonably capture cellular performance compared to actual data [8], we expect
that the mixture model with adjusted functional coefficients will also present a good fit to actual
measurement data. The mixture MLE model can provide a valuable tool for cellular system
performance evaluation and prediction.
VIII. C ONCLUSION
We introduced new interference models based on moment matching and maximum likelihood
estimation techniques for both the rich scattering and limited scattering NLOS propagations. A
novel model as a mixture between the Inverse Gaussian and Inverse Weibull presents remarkably
good fit with simulation, capturing the heavy-tail characteristics of interference especially in
high shadowing environments. We designed an expectation maximization algorithm to estimate
the parameters of this mixture model. We also fitted the mixture model parameters to simple
polynomial functions of the channel propagation features, which provide a simple way to model
the interference without any optimization. The fitted mixture model can then be integrated into
a more complex system level simulation to evaluate and predict cellular performance, or used
to aid system design. The next step would be to test the mixture model with appropriately
adjusted parameters and functional fitting coefficients against data from measurement campaigns
to evaluate the model in an actual system setting.

28

1
0.9
0.8

Outage Probability

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Analysis, N UE = N BS = 2
Analysis, N UE = N BS = 4
Analysis, N UE = N BS = 8

0.1

Sim Data

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Rate (bps/Hz)

Fig. 9: User transmission rate CDF comparison among simulation and mixture MLE model. System settings:
Pmax = 30 dBm, η = 1, α = 3, σSF = 9 dB, NUE = NBS = {2, 4, 8}.

A PPENDIX A: P ROOF

OF

L EMMA 1

Given the interference vector in (8), the element in the ith row and j th column of the
interference covariance matrix Σ0 can be expressed as
X
[Σ0 ]ij =
l (kzk k2 )h̆(k,i) h̆∗(k,j) Pk ,

(47)

k>0:zk ∈Φ1

where h̆(k,i) , h̆(k,j) are i.i.d. CN (0, 1) representing the Rayleigh small-scale fading channels

from the k th UE to the ith and j th antenna element of the considered BS, respectively. The

post-combining interference power term v1∗ Σ0 v1 can then be written as
!
!∗
X
X
X
Pk l (kzk k2 )
v1∗ Σ0 v1 =
[v1 ]i h̆(k,i)
[v1 ]i h̆(k,i) .
i

k>0:zk ∈Φ1

(48)

i

Since the direct channel small-scaling fading component is assumed to be independent of
interference channels small-scale fading, v1 is independent of all h̆k . Thus the distribution of
P
∗
i [v1 ]i h̆(k,i) is CN (0, 1) as v1 is unit-norm, which renders the distribution of v1 Σ0 v1 in (48)
the same as that of the diagonal elements of Σ0 in (47).
A PPENDIX B: P ROOF

OF

L EMMAS 2 AND 3

We first derive the Laplace transform of the interference power term, q0 , which is then used
to characterize its moments. We develop the Laplace transform of the interference power at the
destination as follows:


Y


Lq0 (s) = Eq0 e−sq0 = EΦ1 ,T 

zk ∈Φ1 \z0



= EΦ1 

Y

zk ∈Φ1 \z0





e−sgk l (kzk k2 )Pk  , i 6= j


LJ0 (s, kzk k2 ) = exp −2πλ1

Z

∞

Rc



(1 − LJ0 (s, r)) rdr ,

(49)

29

where the last equality follows from the Laplace functional expression for PPP using polar
coordinates and assuming the field of interferers outside a cell of fixed radius Rc ; LT (s) is the
d

Laplace transform of the composite shadowing and small scale fading channel, where T = Ls G
with G ∼ exp(1) as an exponential random variable, and LJ0 (s, kzk k2 ) is expressed as
LJ0 (s, kzk k2 ) = LT (slp (kzk k2 )Pk )

(50)

Then, we obtain the results in Lemma 2 based on the interference power Laplace transform
and evaluating the following formulas:
E [q0 ] =−

∂Lq0 (s)
∂s

,

var [q0 ] =

s=0

∂ 2 Lq0 (s)
− (E [q0 ])2 .
2
∂s
s=0

(51)

The proof to Lemma 3 follows the same procedure with the only difference in that we replace
q0 in Eqs. (49) and (51) with q̃0 , and the Laplace transform, LT (s), in eq. (50) with the Laplace
d

transform LT ∗ (s) of the composite random variable T ∗ = Ls H̃1 H̃2 where H̃1 , H̃2 ∼ CN (0, 1)

are independent and identically distributed complex normal random variables.
A PPENDIX C: P ROOF

OF

L EMMA 6

We start by writing the expression for the EM algorithm Q-function using Proposition 1 as
Q(θ|θ

(m)

) =

n
X
i=1

=

EXi |Yi ,θ(m) [log fXi (xi |θ)] =

2
n X
X

(m)
γij

log wj +

n
X
i=1

i=1 j=1

(m)
γi1

2
n X
X
i=1 j=1

p(Zi = j|Yi = yi , θ(m) ) log fXi (xi |θ)

log φ1 (yi |θ1 ) +

n
X
i=1

(m)

γi2 log φ2 (yi |θ2 ).

(52)

Using the probability density functions of IG and IW distributions in Eqs. (18) and (20) along
with moment matching first, we can write log φ1 (yi |λ) and log φ2 (yi |c) as in Eqs. (34) and
P
(m)
(m)
(35), respectively. Then, substituting into Eq. (52), replacing ni=1 γij by nj , and dropping
constant terms without affecting the EM algorithm, we get the final expression in Eq. (40).
A PPENDIX D: P ROOF

OF

T HEOREM 2

We first solve for wj using the method of Lagrange multipliers as follows.
!
2
2
X
X
(m)
J(w, ν) =
nj log wj + ν 1 −
wj
j=1

∂J
∂wj

=

(m)
nj

wj

j=1

(m)

− ν = 0 , j ∈ {1, 2}

⇒

nj
ν=
.
wj

(53)

30

Substituting into the constraint
(m)

(m+1)
wj

nj

= Pk

P2

(m)
j=1 nj

j=1 wj

= 1, we get the weight wj update as
(m)

(m)

= Pk

j=1

nj
Pn

i=1

(m)

γij

(m)

nj
= Pn

nj
=
n
i=1 1

, j ∈ {1, 2}.

(54)

Then, we can find the update of λIW by simply taking the partial derivative of the Q-function
w.r.t. λIW as

∂Q θ|θ(m)
∂λ



n
1 (m)
1 X (m) (yi − µY )2
=
n − 2
γ
= 0.
2λ 1
2µY i=1 i1
yi

(55)

Solving for λ (m+1) results in Eq. (42).

Similarly, taking the partial derivative of the Q-function w.r.t. c to get
"


# X
n
∂Q θ|θ(m)
1
1
µ
Y
(m)
(m)
+
1 − ψ(1 − )
log
= n2
−
γi2 log yi
∂c
c
Γ(1 − 1c ) c
i=1
#c n
#c ! n
"
"
X
X (m)
d
µY
µY
(m) −c
γ
y
log
y
−
γi2 yi−c . (56)
+
i
i2
i
1
1
dc
Γ(1 − c ) i=1
Γ(1 − c )
i=1

Equating to zero, we obtain the equation in (43).

A PPENDIX E: F ITTED F UNCTIONAL C OEFFICIENTS

FOR THE

M IXTURE MLE M ODEL

The fitted coefficient values in Table I are obtained for the functional fits in (46) by comparing
our Mixture model against simulation data. These coefficients are estimated for a maximum
transmission power of Ps = 30 dBm. To estimate the mixture distribution parameters at a different
transmission power Pnew dBm, we only need to update the b, λ and µ parameters by scaling
each of them by the corresponding transmit power scaling factor, i.e. bnew = 100.1(Pnew −Ps ) × b.

Parameter c stay unchanged with respect to the transmission power.
R EFERENCES
[1]

S. Rajagopal, S. Abu-Surra, and M. Malmirchegini, “Channel feasibility for outdoor non-line-of-sight mmwave mobile
communication,” in IEEE Vehicular Tech. Conf. (VTC Fall), Sept 2012, pp. 1–6.

[2]

W. Roh, J.-Y. Seol, J. Park, B. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Kim, J. Cho, K. Cheun, and F. Aryanfar, “Millimeter-wave beamforming
as an enabling technology for 5G cellular communications: theoretical feasibility and prototype results,” IEEE Comm.
Magazine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 106–113, February 2014.

[3]

F. Boccardi, R. Heath, A. Lozano, T. Marzetta, and P. Popovski, “Five disruptive technology directions for 5G,” IEEE
Comm. Magazine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 74–80, Feb. 2014.

[4]

T. Bai, V. Desai, and R. W. Heath, “Millimeter wave cellular channel models for system evaluation,” in IEEE ICNC,
2014, pp. 178–182.

[5]

T. Bai, A. Alkhateeb, and R. Heath, “Coverage and capacity of millimeter-wave cellular networks,” IEEE Comm. Magazine,
vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 70–77, September 2014.

31

coeff.
α
2

a3

a2

a1

a0

-111.99

-589.09

-1021.1

-873.55

coeff.

a3

a2

a1

a0

2

7.5381

-23.171

-133.81

685.25

α

3

-41.663

-214.46

-443.27

-433.55

3

5.9903

-11.084

-81.932

314.72

3.5

13.4287

-43.972

-230.91

-243.78

3.5

7.0852

8.8851

-105.21

239.38

4

16.8309

-17.117

-137.71

-149.15

4

15.616

15.137

-142

223.73

5

5.7399

-1.4256

-40.481

-122.15

5

11.126

-6.9276

-121.18

224.88

(a) IG weight parameter w1 (×103 ).
coeff.

(b) IW shape parameter c(×103 ).

a3

a2

a1

a0

2

-0.6594

12.124

17.277

1134.1

3

1.258

47.252

128.5

3.5

1.604

56.81

4

8.84

56.04

5

13.99

49.3

α

coeff.

a3

a2

a1

a0

2

0.05993

19.152

44.478

-351.06

-2502.3

3

0.25864

105.43

313.42

-2929.1

117.1

-4102

3.5

0.82885

105.83

311.6

-4186.3

78.43

-5577

4

0.96339

105.86

311.24

-5398.9

65.3

-8338

5

1.1855

105.94

310.68

-7752.1

α

(c) IG shape parameter λ(×103 ).

(d) IG scale parameter µ(×103 ).

TABLE I: Fitting coefficients for the mixture model parameters w1 , b, λ, and µ at η = 1.
[6]

M. Rebato, M. Mezzavilla, S. Rangan, F. Boccardi, and M. Zorzi, “Understanding noise and interference regimes in 5g
millimeter-wave cellular networks,” in European Wireless 2016; 22th European Wireless Conference, May 2016, pp. 1–5.

[7]

A. Giovanidis and F. Baccelli, “A stochastic geometry framework for analyzing pairwise-cooperative cellular networks,”
CoRR, vol. abs/1305.6254, 2013.

[8]

J. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. on
Comm., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, November 2011.

[9]

H. ElSawy, E. Hossain, and M. Haenggi, “Stochastic geometry for modeling, analysis, and design of multi-tier and
cognitive cellular wireless networks: A survey,” IEEE Comm. Surveys Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 996–1019, 2013.

[10]

R. Heath, M. Kountouris, and T. Bai, “Modeling heterogeneous network interference using Poisson point processes,” IEEE
Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 61, no. 16, pp. 4114–4126, Aug 2013.

[11]

S. Ak, H. Inaltekin, and H. V. Poor, “Gaussian approximation for the downlink interference in heterogeneous cellular
networks,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), July 2016, pp. 1611–1615.

[12]

M. Aljuaid and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Investigating the gaussian convergence of the distribution of the aggregate interference
power in large wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4418–4424, Nov 2010.

[13]

T. Bai and R. Heath, “Coverage and rate analysis for millimeter-wave cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Comm.,
vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1100–1114, Feb 2015.

[14]

H. Elkotby and M. Vu, “Uplink user-assisted relaying in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Comm., vol. 14,
no. 10, pp. 5468–5483, Oct 2015.

[15]

A. Altieri, L. Rey Vega, P. Piantanida, and C. Galarza, “Analysis of a cooperative strategy for a large decentralized wireless
network,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1039–1051, Aug 2014.

[16]

T. Novlan, H. Dhillon, and J. Andrews, “Analytical modeling of uplink cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless
Comm., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 2669–2679, June 2013.

[17]

G. R. MacCartney, J. Zhang, S. Nie, and T. S. Rappaport, “Path loss models for 5G millimeter wave propagation channels
in urban microcells,” in 2013 IEEE Global Comm. Conf. (GLOBECOM), pp. 3948–3953.

32

[18]

M. R. Akdeniz, Y. Liu, M. K. Samimi, S. Sun, S. Rangan, T. S. Rappaport, and E. Erkip, “Millimeter wave channel
modeling and cellular capacity evaluation,” IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Comm., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1164–1179, 2014.

[19]

M. Samimi, T. Rappaport, and G. Maccartney, “Probabilistic omnidirectional path loss models for millimeter-wave outdoor
communications,” IEEE Wireless Comm. Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 357–360, Aug 2015.

[20]

T. Rappaport, S. Sun, R. Mayzus, H. Zhao, Y. Azar, K. Wang, G. Wong, J. Schulz, M. Samimi, and F. Gutierrez,
“Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5G cellular: It will work!” IEEE Access, vol. 1, pp. 335–349, 2013.

[21]

T. Rappaport, F. Gutierrez, E. Ben-Dor, J. Murdock, Y. Qiao, and J. Tamir, “Broadband millimeter-wave propagation
measurements and models using adaptive-beam antennas for outdoor urban cellular communications,” IEEE Trans. on
Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1850–1859, April 2013.

[22]

Y. Niu, Y. Li, D. Jin, L. Su, and A. V. Vasilakos, “A survey of millimeter wave (mmwave) communications for 5G:
Opportunities and challenges,” CoRR, vol. abs/1502.07228, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.07228

[23]

E. Turgut and M. C. Gursoy, “Coverage in heterogeneous downlink millimeter wave cellular networks,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1608.01790, 2016.

[24]

A. Afzal and S. A. Hassan, “A stochastic geometry approach for outage analysis of ad hoc SISO networks in Rayleigh
fading,” in 2013 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec 2013, pp. 336–341.

[25]

S. Akoum and R. W. Heath, “Interference coordination: Random clustering and adaptive limited feedback,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 1822–1834, April 2013.

[26]
[27]

H. V. Poor, An introduction to signal detection and estimation.

Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Differential Entropy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005, pp. 243–259. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/047174882X.ch8

[28]

R. Agrawal et al., “On efficacy of Rayleigh-Inverse Gaussian distribution over K-distribution for wireless fading channels,”
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2007.

[29]

S. Atapattu, C. Tellambura, and H. Jiang, “A Mixture Gamma Distribution to Model the SNR of Wireless Channels,”
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 4193–4203, December 2011.

[30]

M. C. Tweedie, “Statistical Properties of Inverse Gaussian Distributions. I.” The Annals of Math. Stat., pp. 362–377, 1957.

[31]

M. C. Tweedie et al., “Statistical Properties of Inverse Gaussian Distributions. II.” The Annals of Math. Stat., vol. 28,
no. 3, pp. 696–705, 1957.

[32]

R. S. C. J. L. Folks, “The Inverse Gaussian Distribution and Its Statistical Application – A Review,” Journal of the Royal
Stat. Society. Series B (Methodological), vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 263–289, 1978.

[33]

H. Rinne, The Weibull distribution: a handbook.

CRC Press, 2008.

[34]

K. Sultan, N. Alsadat, and D. Kundu, “Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood Estimations of the Inverse Weibull parameters
under progressive type-II censoring,” Journal of Stat. Computation and Sim., vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 2248–2265, 2014.

[35]

M. Kountouris and N. Pappas, “Approximating the interference distribution in large wireless networks,” in 2014 11th
IEEE Int. Symp. on Wireless Comm. Systems (ISWCS), pp. 80–84.

[36]

A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin, “Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm,”
Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (methodological), pp. 1–38, 1977.

[37]

Y. Chen and M. R. Gupta, “EM demystified: An Expectation-Maximization Tutorial,” University of Washington, 2010.

