Downlink coverage probability in cellular networks with

arXiv:1803.06172v1 [cs.IT] 16 Mar 2018

Poisson-Poisson cluster deployed base stations
Naoto Miyoshi
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Abstract
Poisson-Poisson cluster processes (PPCPs) are a class of point processes exhibiting attractive point
patterns. Recently, PPCPs are actively studied for modeling and analysis of heterogeneous cellular
networks or device-to-device networks. However, surprisingly, to the best knowledge of the author, there
is no exact derivation of downlink coverage probability in a numerically computable form for a cellular
network with base stations (BSs) deployed according to a PPCP within the most fundamental setup such
as single-tier, Rayleigh fading and nearest BS association. In this paper, we consider this fundamental
model and derive a numerically computable form of coverage probability. To validate the analysis, we
compare the results of numerical computations with those by Monte Carlo simulations and confirm the
good agreement.
Keywords: Downlink cellular networks, spatial stochastic models, Poisson-Poisson cluster processes,
coverage probability.

1

Introduction

Poisson-Poisson cluster processes (PPCPs) are a class of point processes (PPs) exhibiting attractive (clustering) point patterns (see, e.g., [1]). A stationary PPCP is constructed by independent, identical and
ﬁnite Poisson point processes (PPPs), called daughter processes, placed around points of a homogeneous
PPP, called a parent process (detailed in the next section). Recently, PPCPs are actively studied for modeling and analysis of heterogeneous cellular networks (HetNets) or device-to-device (D2D) networks (see,
e.g., [2–9]). This is because locations of small (pico or femto) base stations (BSs) in HetNets or user devices
in D2D networks are distributed in a clustering nature in user hotspots. However, surprisingly, to the best
knowledge of the author, there is no exact derivation of downlink coverage probability in a numerically
computable form for a cellular network with BSs deployed according to a PPCP within the most fundamental setup such as single-tier, Rayleigh fading and nearest BS association. In this paper, we challenge this
fundamental problem.
Indeed, there are several related results. Suryaprakash et al. [2] and Deng et al. [3] study two-tier
1

HetNets, where macro BSs are deployed according to a homogeneous PPP and small BSs are according
to a PPCP. Both of [2] and [3] derive the Laplace transform of downlink interference and, using this,
conditional downlink coverage probability given the distance to the serving BS. One may think that our
fundamental problem is covered by their results combined with the distribution of contact distance (distance
to the nearest point from the origin) of PPCPs derived in [10, 11] (as suggested in [12]). However, the
problem is not so optimistic because we have to take into account the correlation between the locations of
the serving BS and the interferers through the sharing parent point (PPCPs do not have the property of
independent increments unlike PPPs). Chun et al. [4] consider a K-tier downlink HetNet, where BSs in
each tier are deployed according to a PPCP. They, however, assume orthogonal multiple access and do not
consider interference from BSs in the same cluster as the serving BS. Saha et al. [5] extensively investigate
several models of HetNets using PPPs and PPCPs. Though their models cover one of the most fundamental
settings as a special case, a diﬀerence from ours is that they consider the max-SIR association, where a
user is associated with the BS oﬀering the maximum signal-to-interference ratio (SIR). In the max-SIR
association, one does not have to consider the distribution of distance to the serving BS. On the other hand,
the nearest BS association is the single-tier homogeneous version of max-averaged-power association, where a
user is associated with the BS from which the user receives the maximum signal power averaged over fading.
Afshang and Dhillon [6] also consider a model of two-tier HetNets, where locations of users and small BSs are
both distributed according to PPCPs with the same parent process while macro BSs are deployed according
to an independent PPP. In their model, a user can connect to any macro BSs but to the small BSs with
the same parent point. For D2D networks, Afshang et al. [7], Yi et al. [8] and Joshi and Mallik [9] consider
the models, where user devices are distributed according to a PPCP and a device communicates only with
another device in the same cluster.
We here consider the most fundamental setup of downlink cellular networks, where single-tier BSs are
deployed according to a PPCP. Under the assumption of Rayleigh fading and the nearest BS association,
we derive a numerically computable form of coverage probability. To do this, we ﬁrst derive the conditional
coverage probability given the parent process. Since a PPCP is in the class of Cox (doubly stochastic Poisson)
processes (see, e.g., [13]), it is conditionally an inhomogeneous PPP provided the parent process. Therefore,
we can apply the discussion for PPP networks and then arrive at the goal by unconditioning. To validate
the analysis, we compare the results of numerical computations with those by Monte Carlo simulations.

2

Poisson-Poisson cluster processes

A stationary PPCP on R2 is constructed by an independently marked homogeneous PPP as follows. Let
Φ(p) = {Xi }i∈N denote a homogeneous PPP on R2 , called a parent process, with intensity λp . A mark
Ψi = {Yi,j }j∈N of the point Xi is a ﬁnite (therefore inhomogeneous) PPP on R2 , called a daughter process,
R
with intensity function λd (x), x ∈ R2 , satisfying R2 λd (x) dx = α; that is, the number of daughter points per
2

parent follows a Poisson distribution with mean α. Then, a PPCP is given as Φ = {Zi }i∈N =

S

i∈N {Xi + Ψi },

which is stationary with intensity λp α. Throughout this paper, we focus on radially symmetric daughter
processes, so that λd (x) = α fd (kxk) and Φ is isotropic as well. Two main examples of the PPCPs are
the (modiﬁed) Thomas PP (TPP) and the Matérn cluster process (MCP) (see, e.g., [13]). When fd (s) =
(TPP)

fd

(s) = exp{−s2 /(2σ 2 )}/(2πσ 2 ), σ > 0, the PPCP is called the TPP, where daughter points are

independently and normally distributed around each given parent point with covariance matrix σ 2 I (I
(MCP)

denotes the identity matrix). On the other hand, when fd (s) = fd

(s) = 1[0,rd ] (s)/(πrd 2 ), rd > 0, the

PPCP is called the MCP, where daughter points are independently and uniformly distributed on the ball
of radius rd centered at each given parent point. PPCPs are a class of Cox PPs, so that, when the parent
process Φ(p) = {Xi }i∈N is provided, the PPCP Φ is conditionally an inhomogeneous PPP with the shot-noise
intensity function;
λ(y | Φ(p) ) =

∞
X

λd (y − Xi ) = α

∞
X

fd (ky − Xi k),

y ∈ R2 .

(1)

i=1

i=1

For a stationary PP Φ on R2 , contact distance of Φ is deﬁned as the distance from an arbitrary ﬁxed
reference point on R2 to the nearest point of Φ. Here, due to the stationarity, we can choose the origin
o = (0, 0) as the reference point. The conditional distribution of the contact distance given the parent
process is derived as follows.
Lemma 1 Let Φ denote a PPCP described above. The conditional distribution function of contact distance
of Φ provided the parent process Φ(p) = {Xi }i∈N is given by
Fcd (r | Φ

(p)

)=1−

∞
Y

i=1

where G(r | s) = 2

RrRπ
0

0

u fd

density function is given by


exp −α G(r | kXi k) ,

(2)

p

u2 + s2 − 2 us cos φ dφ du. Furthermore, the corresponding conditional

fcd (r | Φ(p) ) = α

∞
X

g(r | kXi k)

i=1

i=1

where g(r | s) = ∂G(r | s)/∂r = 2 r

Rπ
0

∞
Y


exp −α G(r | kXi k) ,

(3)

p

r2 + s2 − 2 rs cos φ dφ.

fd

Proof: Let bo (r), r > 0, denote the ball on R2 centered at the origin with radius r. When the parent process
Φ(p) = {Xi }i∈N is provided, Φ is (conditionally) an inhomogeneous PPP with the intensity function given in
(1). Therefore, the conditional probability that Φ has no points in bo (r) is given by
Z
∞
n
 Y

(p)
exp −α
=
P Φ bo (r) = 0 Φ

bo (r)

i=1

o
fd (ky − Xi k) dy .

Putting y = (u cos φ, u sin φ) and Xi = (Xi,1 , Xi,2 ) in the integral on the right-hand side above yields
Z

bo (r)

fd (ky − Xi k) dy =

Z rZ
0

0

2π

u fd

q

(u cos φ − Xi,1 )2 + (u sin φ − Xi,2 )2 dφ du
3

= G(r | kXi k),

which leads to (2) since Fcd (r | Φ(p) ) = 1 − P Φ bo (r) = 0

gives (3).


Φ(p) . Diﬀerentiating (2) with respect to r

Note that G(r | ·) and g(r | ·) in Lemma 1 are, respectively, a probability distribution function and the
R∞
corresponding density function with respect to r ∈ [0, ∞) in the sense that limr→∞ G(r | kxk) = 0 g(r |
R
kxk) dr = R2 fd (ky − xk) dy = 1 for any x ∈ R2 . The distribution G(· | s) gives the conditional distribution

of the distance to a daughter point from the origin provided that its parent point is located at x satisfying

kxk = s.
(TPP)

Example 1 (TPP) For the TPP, applying fd

(s) = exp{−s2 /(2σ 2 )}/(2πσ 2 ), the conditional distribu-

tion G(r | s) on the right-hand side of (2) reduces to
Z r
 u 2 + s2   u s 
s r
1
(TPP)
,
,
u exp −
I
du
=
1
−
Q
G
(r | s) = 2
0
1
σ 0
2σ 2
σ2
σ σ
where I0 denotes the modiﬁed Bessel function of the ﬁrst kind with order zero; I0 (z) = π −1
and Q1 denotes the ﬁrst-order Marcum Q-function deﬁned as (see, e.g., [14])
Z ∞
 x2 + a2 
Q1 (a, b) =
x exp −
I0 (a x) dx.
2
b

(4)
Rπ
0

ez cos φ dφ,

Therefore, diﬀerentiating (4) gives the density function;
g (TPP) (r | s) =

1 s r
,
q ,
σ
σ σ

(5)


where q(a, b) = −∂Q1 (a, b)/∂b = b exp −(a2 + b2 )/2 I0 (ab).
(MCP)

Example 2 (MCP) For the MCP, since fd

(s) = 1[0,rd ] (s)/(πrd 2 ), the conditional distribution G(r | s)

in (2) reduces to
Z rZ π
n
2
u2 + s2 − rd 2 o
dφ du
u 1 cos φ ≥
2
π rd 0 0
2 us

Z
 u 2 + s2 − r 2  

1 
2 r∧(rd +s)
d
+ 2
= 2
du ,
(6)
+
r ∧ (rd − s)
u arccos
rd
π r∧|rd−s|
2 us
Rπ
where x+ = max(x, 0), x∧y = min(x, y), and we use 0 1{cos φ ≥ x} dφ = π 1(−∞,−1] (x)+arccos x 1(−1,1] (x)
G(MCP) (r | s) =

in the second equality. Hence, the density function is given as


 r 2 + s2 − r 2 
2r
1
d
g (MCP) (r | s) = 2 1[0,(rd −s)+ ] (r) + arccos
1[|rd −s|,rd +s] (r) .
rd
π
2 rs

(7)

Note that (5) has the same form as (3) in [10] and that (7) does so as the couple of (2) and (3) in [11].
We can obtain the same results as in [10, 11] by plugging (4) or (6) into (2) and then unconditioning it on
Φ(p) with the use of the probability generating functional (PGFL) for PPPs (see, e.g., [13]). In other words,
we have a uniﬁed form of contact distance distributions for PPCPs as


Z ∞



Fcd (r) = 1 − exp −2 πλp
1 − exp −α G(r | s) s ds ,
0

4

r ≥ 0.

3

Coverage probability for a downlink cellular network

We consider a fundamental model of single-tier homogeneous downlink cellular networks. Let Φ = {Zi }i∈N
denote a stationary PP on R2 representing locations of BSs, where the order of the points is arbitrary but
Z1 is the nearest from the origin; that is, kZ1 k < kZi k for i ≥ 2. All the BSs transmit signals at the same
power level and each user is associated with the nearest BS. Due to the stationarity and homogeneity, we can
focus on a typical user located at the origin. For each i ∈ N, let Hi denote a nonnegative random variable
representing a fading eﬀect on a signal from the BS at Zi to the typical user, where we assume Rayleigh
fading and Hi , i ∈ N, are mutually independent and exponentially distributed, as well as independent of Φ.
We assume EH1 = 1 without loss of generality and ignore shadowing. The path-loss function representing
R∞
signal attenuation with distance is given by ℓ(r), r > 0, which satisﬁes ǫ r ℓ(r) dr < ∞ for any ǫ > 0. With
this setup, the SIR for the typical user is deﬁned as

H1 ℓ(kZ1 k)
SIRo = P∞
.
i=2 Hi ℓ(kZi k)

(8)

Since Z1 is the nearest point of Φ from the origin, kZ1 k gives the contact distance of Φ. Our interest is in
the coverage probability P(SIRo > θ) for θ > 0 when the PP Φ is given as a PPCP.
Theorem 1 For the downlink cellular network model described above, when the PP Φ is a stationary PPCP
given in Section 2, we have
P(SIRo > θ) = α

Z

∞

T (r, θ) M (r, θ) dr,

(9)

0

where
Z ∞
T (r, θ) = 2 πλp
g(r | s) C(r, s, θ) s ds,

 0
Z ∞


1 − C(r, s, θ) s ds ,
M (r, θ) = exp −2 πλp
0

with g(· | ·) given in Lemma 1 and


Z
C(r, s, θ) = exp −α 1 −

r

∞

ℓ(u) −1
g(u | s) du
1+θ
ℓ(r)


.

(10)

Proof: Since Φ is conditionally an inhomogeneous PPP provided Φ(p) = {Xi }i∈N , we can follow the standard
discussion for the PPP network with Rayleigh fading (see, e.g., [15] for the homogeneous PPP case); that is,
application of (1) and (3) to (8) leads to
P(SIRo > θ | Φ

(p)

Y

∞
ℓ(kZi k) −1
(p)
1+θ
)=E
Φ
ℓ(kZ1 k)
i=2
 Z



Z ∞

ℓ(kyk) −1
(p)
(p)
=
fcd (r | Φ ) exp −
1− 1+θ
λ(y | Φ ) dy dr,
ℓ(r)
0
kyk>r

(11)

where we use the distribution function and the Laplace transform of exponential random variables in the ﬁrst
equality, and the PGFL for (inhomogeneous) PPPs in the second equality. By (1) and g(· | ·) in Lemma 1,
5

the integral inside the exponential function above is equal to the sum over i ∈ N of
Z
Z ∞h
h


ℓ(kyk) −1 i
ℓ(u) −1 i
1− 1+θ
α
1− 1+θ
fd (ky − Xi k) dy = α
g(u | kXi k) du
ℓ(r)
ℓ(r)
kyk>r
r


Z ∞
ℓ(u) −1
g(u | kXi k) du ,
= α G(r | kXi k) −
1+θ
ℓ(r)
r
where G(r | s) = 1 − G(r | s) and the same discussion as in the proof of Lemma 1 is used. Therefore,
plugging this into (11) and using (3), we reduce (11) to
Z ∞X
∞
∞
Y
C(r, kXi k, θ) dr,
g(r | kXi k)
P(SIRo > θ | Φ(p) ) = α
0

i=1

i=1

where C is given in (10). Hence, unconditioning on Φ(p) , we have

Z ∞ X
∞
∞
Y
C(r, kXi k, θ) dr
g(r | kXi k)
E
P(SIRo > θ) = α
0

= α λp

Z

0

i=1
∞Z
R2

i=1



Z


g(r | kxk) C(r, kxk, θ) dx exp −λp
1 − C(r, kxk, θ) dx dr,

(12)

R2

where we apply the Campbell-Mecke formula (see, e.g., [13]) by regarding

Q∞

j=1,j6=i

C(r, kXj k, θ) as a mark

of the point Xi , and then use the PGFL for homogeneous PPPs in the second equality (this type of transform is also used in [16]). It is immediate to see that the right-hand side of (12) is equal to that of
(9). Actually, we have to conﬁrm whether the PGFL is applicable in (12) and this is done by showing
R
λp R2 log C(r, kxk, θ) dx < ∞ (see, e.g., [17, pp. 59–60]). By (10), noting that g(· | s) is a probability
density function for any s > 0, we have

Z ∞
Z ∞
Z
ℓ(u) −1
1+θ
1−
log C(r, kxk, θ) dx = 2 πα
g(u | s) du s ds
ℓ(r)
r
0
R2

Z ∞
Z ∞
ℓ(u)
g(u | s) du s ds.
= 2 πα
G(r | s) + θ
θ ℓ(u) + ℓ(r)
0
r

(13)

For the ﬁrst term in the integrand above, the symmetry of s g(r | s) = r g(s | r) (see Lemma 1) implies
Z ∞
Z r
r2
G(r | s) s ds =
u du =
< ∞,
2
0
0
R∞
where we use 0 g(s | r) ds = 1. For the second term in the integrand of (13), we have similarly
Z ∞Z ∞
Z ∞
ℓ(u)
u ℓ(u)
g(u | s) du s ds =
du
θ ℓ(u) + ℓ(r)
θ ℓ(u) + ℓ(r)
0
r
r
Z ∞
1
≤
u ℓ(u) du < ∞,
ℓ(r) r
where the last inequality follows from the assumption on the path-loss function.

4

Numerical experiments

Figure 1 and 2 display the comparison results of numerical computations based on our analysis and Monte
Carlo simulations. Throughout the experiments, we ﬁx the path-loss function as ℓ(r) = r−4 , r > 0, and the
6

1

Analysis, σ2=1.5
Simulation, σ2=1.5
Analysis, σ2=0.7

Coverage probability

0.8

Simulation, σ2=0.7
Analysis, σ2=0.3
Simulation, σ2=0.3

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

θ (dB)

Figure 1: Coverage probability in the TPP network with λp = 0.1/π, α = 10.
parameters λp = 0.1/π, α = 10. In both the TPP and the MCP, three cases of E[kYi,j k2 ] = 0.6, 1.4, and
3.0 are computed (that is, σ 2 = 0.3, 0.7, and 1.5 in the TPP, and rd 2 = 1.2, 2.8, and 6.0 in the MCP). In
each simulation run, samples of parent points are put on the disk with radius 100 and daughter points are
scattered around the parent points. Then, the estimated coverage probability is obtained by average taken
over 20,000 independent copies. The agreement between the theoretical and simulation results supports the
validity of our analysis.
We should notice that the actual numerical computation of the coverage probability using (9) is not
so easy. In particular, the integral inside function M in Theorem 1 hardly converges in a numerical sense
(though the ﬁnite existence is ensured in the proof of Theorem 1) and we should take a truncation technique
carefully.

5

Conclusion

We have considered a spatial downlink cellular network model with BSs deployed according to a PPCP and,
within the most fundamental setup such as single-tier, Rayleigh fading and nearest BS association, we have
derived the coverage probability in a numerically computable form. This work does not only ﬁll in a hole
of the literature but also is expected to play a role of a building block for analysis of, for example, HetNets
with a tier consisting of open access small cell BSs.

7

1

Analysis, rd2 = 6.0
Simulation, rd2 = 6.0
Analysis, rd2 = 2.8

Coverage probability

0.8

Simulation, rd2 = 2.8
Analysis, rd2 = 1.2
Simulation, rd2 = 1.2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

θ (dB)

Figure 2: Coverage probability in the MCP network with λp = 0.1/π, α = 10.

Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to one of the anonymous reviewers of the author’s another paper [18], whose comment asking
the existence of analytical results for coverage probability in TPP networks motivated the author.
The author’s work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid
for Scientiﬁc Research (C) 16K00030.

References
[1] B. Blaszczyszyn and D. Yogeshwaran, “Clustering comparison of point processes with applications to
random geometric models,” in Stochastic Geometry, Spatial Statistics and Random Fields: Models and
Algorithms, V. Schmidt, Ed. Springer, 2014, pp. 31–71.
[2] V. Suryaprakash, J. Møller, and G. Fettweis, “On the modeling and analysis of heterogeneous radio
access networks using a Poisson cluster process,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 14, pp. 1035–1047, 2015.
[3] N. Deng, W. Zhou, and M. Haenggi, “Heterogeneous cellular network models with dependence,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 33, pp. 2167–2181, 2015.
[4] Y. J. Chun, M. O. Hasna, and A. Ghrayeb, “Modeling heterogeneous cellular networks interference using
Poisson cluster processes,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 33, pp. 2182–2195,
2015.
8

[5] C. Saha, M. Afshang, and H. S. Dhillon, “3GPP-inspired HetNet model using Poisson cluster process:
Sum-product functionals and downlink coverage,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, 2017, in
press.
[6] M. Afshang and H. S. Dhillon, “Poisson clustered process based analysis of HetNets with correlated
user and base station locations,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2018, in press.
[7] M. Afshang, H. S. Dhillon, and P. H. J. Chong, “Modeling and performance analysis of clustered
device-to-device networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 15, pp. 4957–4972,
2016.
[8] W. Yi, Y. Liu, and A. Nallanathan, “Modeling and analysis of D2D millimeter-wave networks with
Poisson cluster processes,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, pp. 5574–5588, 2017.
[9] S. Joshi and R. K. Mallik, “Coverage and interference in D2D with Poisson cluster process,” IEEE
Communications Letters, 2018, in press.
[10] M. Afshang, C. Saha, and H. S. Dhillon, “Nearest-neighbor and contact distance distributions for
Thomas cluster process,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 6, pp. 130–133, 2017.
[11] ——, “Nearest-neighbor and contact distance distributions for Matérn cluster process,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 21, pp. 2686–2689, 2017.
[12] B. Blaszczyszyn, M. Haenggi, P. Keeler, and S. Mukherjee, Stochastic Geometry Analysis of Cellular
Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
[13] S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke, Stochastic Geometry and its Applications, 3rd ed.
Wiley, 2013.
[14] J. Proakis and M. Salehi, Digital Communications, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2007.
[15] J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular
networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 59, pp. 3122–3134, 2011.
[16] U. Schilcher, S. Toumpis, M. Haenggi, A. Crismani, G. Brandner, and C. Bettstetter, “Interference
functionals in Poisson networks,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, pp. 370–383,
2016.
[17] D. J. Daley and D. Vere-Jones, An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes: Volume II: General
Theory and Structure, 2nd ed.

Springer, 2008.

[18] Y. Takahashi, Y. Chen, T. Kobayashi, and N. Miyoshi, “Simple and fast PPP-based approximation of
SIR distributions in downlink cellular networks,” 2017, submitted.

9

