1

Boundaries can Enhance Physical Layer Security at
High Data Rates

arXiv:1708.04186v1 [cs.IT] 14 Aug 2017

Konstantinos Koufos and Carl P. Dettmann

Abstract—In this paper, we study the receiver performance
with physical layer security in a Poisson field of interferers. We
compare the performance in two deployment scenarios: (i) the
receiver is located at the corner of a quadrant, (ii) the receiver is
located in the infinite plane. When the channel state information
(CSI) of the eavesdropper is not available at the transmitter, we
calculate the probability of secure connectivity using the Wyner
coding scheme, and we show that hiding the receiver at the
corner is beneficial at high rates of the transmitted codewords and
detrimental at low transmission rates. When the CSI is available,
we show that the average secrecy capacity is higher when the
receiver is located at the corner, even if the intensity of interferers
over there is four times higher than the intensity of interferers
in the bulk. Therefore boundaries can also be used as a secrecy
enhancement technique for high data rate applications.
Index Terms—Interference modeling, physical layer security,
stochastic geometry.

I. I NTRODUCTION
With the forecasted deployment of indoor ultra-dense wireless networks, it becomes important to develop models that
consider the impact of boundaries in the performance analysis [1]–[6]. It is well-known that close to the boundary,
the connection probability degrades due to isolation [1], [5],
but it improves in terms of interference [2], [4]. Analytical
models considering finite deployment areas have so far been
used to study spatial and temporal interference aspects [2]–
[4], optimize the base station density in cellular networks [2],
assess millimeter-wave network performance [6], etc.
Physical layer security (PLS) without exchanging secret
keys was first proposed by Wyner [7] and refers to the
protection of information messages against eavesdropping with
the aid of channel coding. PLS would be well-suited for
devices with light computational power, e.g., in certain types
of sensor networks, where conventional security techniques
fail to adapt [8]. Nevertheless, the impact of boundaries on
connectivity and rate with PLS has so far received limited
attention.
A great deal of research has adopted a type of random
geometric graphs, known as the secrecy graph [9]–[11],
and studied the Probability Distribution Function (PDF) of
the in- and out-connectivity degree with PLS, the isolation
probabilities, percolation threholds, etc. Another category of
research considered the impact of interference on PLS, and
applied stochastic geometry to study the performance for
the typical user in networks with infinite extent [12]–[15].
K. Koufos and C.P. Dettmann are with the School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, BS8 1TW, Bristol, UK. {K.Koufos,
Carl.Dettmann}@bristol.ac.uk
This work was supported by the EPSRC grant numbers EP/N002458/1 and
EP/N002350/1 for the project Spatially Embedded Networks.

In [12], the trade-off between the connection and the secrecy
probabilities in cellular systems is studied, and in [13] it
is shown that cluttered environments and blockage can be
helpful in meeting secrecy constraints. In [14], secure vehicleto-vehicle communication is considered; a subset of antennas
is used for beamforming towards the receiver, while the rest
send jamming signals towards other directions. In [15], relays
forward the data between the sensors and the sinks, and their
density is optimized for maximizing the average secrecy rate.
In general, protecting the information messages against
eavesdropping with PLS comes along with a cost on the connection probability [12] and the throughput [16]. To mitigate
the cost, secrecy enhancement techniques may be applied,
especially when the density of eavesdroppers exceeds a threshold [17]. When the channel state information (CSI) of the
intended receiver is known, eigen-beamforming can be used
to maximize the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) of the intended
channel [18]. Eigen-beamforming outperforms sectoring at the
cost of knowing the CSI instead of the direction [18]. Secrecy
can be further enhanced when artificial noise is transmitted
to the direction of the other sectors or to the null space of
the intended channel [19]. When the transmitter can obtain
some information about the location of the eavesdroppers,
guard zones can be constructed; each transmitter will send
confidential information when its guard zone is free from
eavesdroppers, and the secrecy transmission capacity, especially under high security constraints, is enhanced [16].
The information theoretic approaches [9]–[11] and the
analysis using stochastic geometry [12]–[19] assume that the
locations of the transmitters and the eavesdroppers follow the
uniform distribution in the infinite plane. To the best of our
knowledge, the only available study considering the impact of
boundaries on secrecy performance is [20]. This work neglects
the interference effects, and shows that the mean in- and outconnectivity degrees with PLS are not necessarily equal, unlike
in the infinite plane.
With boundaries, the interference field becomes nonhomogeneous. Therefore a natural question to ask is whether
placing the receiver close to the boundary, where the interference is less, can enhance PLS. Before looking at the
impact of boundaries on the secrecy performance, let us
consider the homogeneous scenario, where the receiver and
the eavesdropper are deployed in the infinite plane (or in
the bulk of the deployment area), and discuss the impact of
interferer’s intensity on the probability of secure connectivity,
i.e., the joint event of successful decoding at the receiver
and failure to decode at the eavesdropper [21], [22]. We
assume a single receiver and a single eavesdropper at fixed
and known locations in a Poisson field of interferers. The

2

signal level over the main and the eavesdropper channels stay
the same; it is only the interference level changing. When
the intensity of interferers decreases, the interference level
becomes less at the receiver and the eavesdropper. In that
case, the probability of secure connectivity should decrease at
low rates of the transmitted codewords (with reference to the
Wyner encoding scheme), because the eavesdropper becomes
capable of decoding low-rate transmissions almost surely. On
the other hand, at high rates of the transmitted codewords, the
probability of secure connectivity should increase because the
performance is dominated by the connection probability of the
receiver, which increases under a lower intensity of interferers.
The above discussion gives an initial insight into the impact
of boundaries on secure connectivity but it does not reveal the
complete story. Placing the receiver close to the boundary is
not equivalent to placing the receiver in the bulk along with
a reduction in the intensity of interferers. The boundary may
introduce a trade-off which does not exist in the bulk and it
is discussed next.
Let us consider a quadrant, where the receiver is placed at
the corner, i.e., at the point of minimum interference, and the
eavesdropper along the side. The interference at the receiver
and the eavesdropper is correlated because it is due to the same
set of interferers [23]. We will show that the spatial correlation
of interference is higher along the boundary than in the bulk,
for the same distance separation between the receiver and the
eavesdropper. Therefore placing the receiver at the corner is
detrimental for PLS because the reception conditions at the
receiver and the eavesdropper become favorable at the same
time. On the other hand, placing the receiver at the corner
should benefit PLS because the eavesdropper is exposed to
higher interference than the receiver. The motivation of this
paper is to study this interplay.
The impact of interference correlation on the probability
of secure connectivity in infinite cellular systems has been
recently studied in [22]. Over there it is shown that interference
correlation plays a significant role in secrecy performance
when the typical eavesdropper is located close to the typical
user. In this paper, we consider an ad hoc type of system
and compare the receiver performance at the corner and in
the bulk considering both cases with known and unknown
CSI of the eavesdropper channel at the transmitter. We will
show that when the CSI is not available, the boundary is
beneficial/detrimental at high/low transmission rates. In addition, when the transmitter can adapt the rate based on the
instantaneous CSI, the average capacity with PLS is higher
at the corner even if the intensity of interferers over there
is four times higher than the intensity of interferers in the
bulk. This means that the impact of higher interference at the
eavesdropper than at the receiver dominates over the higher
correlation of interference.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section II, we present the system model. In Section III, we
calculate the mean, the variance, the correlation coefficient of
interference, and the connection probability of the receiver and
the eavesdropper. In Section IV, we calculate the probability
of secure connectivity assuming that the CSI is not available at
the transmitter. In Section V, we assume perfect knowledge of

Receiver
Transmitter
Interferers
Eavesdropper

Main channel
Eve channel
Interference channel

d

0

θ

φ
u

Fig. 1. The geometry in which the receiver is located at the corner of the
deployment area. The location of the eavesdropper is (u, 0).

the CSI and calculate the average secrecy capacity. Section IV
and Section V contain the main analysis of this paper and the
comparison of the receiver performance at the boundary and
in the bulk. In Section VI, we summarize the results of this
paper and outline future work.
II. S YSTEM

MODEL

We consider an ad hoc network where the locations of
the transmitters follow the Poisson Point Process (PPP) with
intensity λ, and each receiver is placed at a fixed link distance
d0 and a random angle θ from the associated transmitter,
see Fig. 1 for an illustration. We would like to assess the
performance, i.e., connectivity and rate, with PLS. In areas
with boundaries, the performance is location-dependent. We
consider two locations for the receiver: at the corner of a
quadrant and in the bulk of the deployment area. In addition,
we consider a single eavesdropper which is located at distance
u from the receiver. When the receiver is located at the
corner, the eavesdropper is located at the boundary. The
locations of the receiver and the eavesdropper are fixed and
known. The origin of the coordinate system is set at the
location of the receiver unless otherwise stated. The location
of the eavesdropper is (u, 0). The transmitter, the receiver
and the eavesdropper are equipped with a single antenna.
The eavesdropper does not employ any advanced technique
for intercepting the transmitter’s message, e.g., successive
interference cancellation, and the ad hoc network does not
apply any secrecy enhancement technique, e.g., artificial noise.
Considering just a single eavesdropper at an arbitrary location may seem overly simplistic, but it is used to get
an insight on the performance comparison with and without
boundaries. Considering two-dimensional random locations
for the eavesdroppers has been left as a future topic to study
but the main conclusions of this paper are unlikely to change.
After all, a high (low) intensity of eavesdroppers means that
the distance separation between the receiver and the most
detrimental eavesdropper would be small (large), and the
results of this paper are still applicable.

3

In order to avoid unnecessary complexity, we normalize the
link distance d0 to unity, d0 = 1, and the transmit power
level to unity. When the receiver is located at the corner,
the location of the transmitter associated to it, hereafter the
transmitter, is (cos θ, sin θ), where theRandom
Variable (RV)

θ follows the uniform distribution in 0, π2 , thus fΘ (θ) = π2 .
In the bulk, the location of the transmitter should naturally
follow the uniform distribution in [0, 2π]. Nevertheless, we
would like to compare the receiver performance at the two
locations on a fair basis. In order to do that, the distribution
of signal level over the eavesdropper channel should stay the
same. Therefore
we constrain the location of the transmitter

over 0, π2 in both cases. We denote by Z the RV describing
the distance-based propagation
pathloss over the eavesdropper

channel, Z = g kejΘ −uk , where g (r) = min (1, r−η ) is the
distance-based propagation pathloss function and η > 2 stands
for the pathloss exponent. The PDF fZ (z) is derived in the
Appendix.
Due to the Slivnyak’s Theorem, the locations of the transmitters generating interference to the receiver and the eavesdropper, hereafter the interferers (or the users), follow a PPP
with intensity λ. Their transmission probability is ξ. For a
high intensity of active users λξ, the impact of noise can
be ignored in the performance assessment. The fast fading
h over all channels, i.e., main channel, eavesdropper channel and interfering channels is independent and identically
distributed (i.i.d.) following the exponential PDF with unit
mean E {h} = 1. The assumption of independent fast fading
between the receiver and the eavesdropper should be valid for
distances u larger than half the wavelength. We assume that
the considered distances meet this constraint.
In order to assess the performance with secrecy, we follow
the Wyner encoding scheme [7], where the rate of transmitted
codewords is Rt , and the rate of confidential messages is
Rs . Let us denote by γx,r the RV describing the instantaneous Signal-to-Interference Ratio (SIR) at the receiver, where
x ∈ {bu,co} indicates the reveiver location in the bulk or at
the corner. The connection probability of the receiver can be
calculated as Pcx,r = P {γx,r > µ}, where µ = 2Rt − 1. Similarly,
let us denote by γx,e (u) the RV describing the SIR at the
eavesdropper, and by Pcx,e (u) = P {γx,e (u) > σ} the probability
that the eavesdropper succeeds to decode the transmitter’s
message. According to the Wyner scheme, σ = 2Re − 1, where
the rate Re = Rt−Rs reflects the rate cost to secure the message
against the eavesdropper. For a positive secrecy rate Rs ≤ Rt ,
it is required that µ ≥ σ. When the CSI of the main and the
eavesdropper channels is not available at the transmitter, the
rates Rt , Rs are kept fixed. A pair of rates (Rt , Rs ) can be
associated with a probability of secure connectivity, Psc
x , which
can be expressed as the joint event [21], [22]
Psc
x (u) = P (γx,r > µ, γx,e (u) < σ) .

(1)

When the CSI at the receiver and the eavesdropper is
perfectly known, nthe transmitter
ocan adapt the transmission

1+γx,r
based on the instantaneous
rate equal to max 0, log 1+γx,e
CSI, and the performance is described in terms of average

secrecy capacity [24], [25].

Z ∞Z γx,r 
1 + γx,r
sc
log2
C x (u) =
fr,e (γx,r , γx,e ) dγx,e dγx,r , (2)
1 + γx,e
0
0
where fr,e (γx,r , γx,e ) is the joint PDF of the SIR at the receiver
and the eavesdropper.
While studying the performance with secrecy, we will need
the mean and the variance of interference at the receiver
and the eavesdropper, the correlation of interference between
the two locations, and the connection probabilities. These
quantities are calculated in the next section.
III. I NTERFERENCE MOMENTS

AND CONNECTION

PROBABILITY

In the bulk, the mean and the variance of interference are
independent of the location. Therefore it suffices to calculate
the moments of interference at the receiver
R ∞ R 2π
(a)
E {Ibu,r } =λξ 0 0 g (r) rdφ dr = λξηπ
η−2 .
(3)
R ∞ R 2π 2
(b) 2λξηπ
Var {Ibu,r } =2λξ 0 0 g (r) rdφ dr = η−1 ,

where (a) and (b) follow after taking into account the piecewise nature of the propagation pathloss function g(·), and the
factor 2 in the calculation of the variance comes from the
second moment of a unit-mean exponential RV, E h2 = 2.
The mean and the variance of interference at the corner of a
quadrant can be calculated after scaling the respective statistics
in the bulk, see equation (3), by 14 , i.e., E {Ico,r } = 14 E {Ibu,r }
and Var {Ico,r } = 41 Var {Ibu,r }. In addition, the mean and the
variance of the interference at the eavesdropper located at the
boundary and at distance u from the corner become easier to
calculate after shifting the origin to (u, 0).
R ∞ R φ (u,r)
E {Ico,e (u)} =λξ 0 0 co
g (r) rdφ dr.
(4)
R ∞ R φco(u,r) 2
Var {Ico,e (u)} =2λξ 0 0
g (r) rdφ dr,

where φco (u, r) = π for r ≤ u, and φco (u, r) = π − arccos ur
for r > u.
After differentiating equations (4) with respect to u using
the integral rule, one may show that the mean and the variance
increase as we move away from the corner. Therefore an
eavesdropper at the boundary is exposed to higher interference
than the receiver at the corner. Due to the piecewise nature
of the propagation pathloss function, we have to separate
between two cases, u ≷ 1, in equation (4), before expressing
E {Ico,e (u)} and Var {Ico,e (u)} in semi-closed form.
 R

R1
u<1
u
E{Ico,e (u)} = λξ π 0 rdr+ u π−arccos ur rdr+
R∞
 1−η 
u
r
dr
π−arccos
r
1
√

2

+η(π−arccos(u))
−
= λξ (η−2)u 1−u2(η−2)
1 η−1 η+1
u 2F1( 2 , 2 ; 2 ;u2 )

 (η−1)(η−2)
√ 2−η
πu
Γ( η−1
u>1
π
2 )
E{Ico,e (u)} = λξ 2(η−2) − 2(η−2)Γ(η/2)
 √
2
u<1
Var{Ico,e (u)} = 2λξ u 1−u
+ η(π−arccos(u))
−
2
2(η−1)

u
1 2
1 1
2(η−1)(2η−1) 2F1 η− 2 , 2 ;η+ 2 ;u
√
2πηΓ(η)−u2−2η π Γ(η− 21 )
u>1
,
Var{Ico,e (u)} = 2λξ
4Γ(η)(η−1)

(5)



4

0.9

Simulation
Corner
Bulk

0.5

Simulation, σ = 1
Bound, σ = 1
Integration, σ = 1
Simulation, σ = 2
Bound, σ = 2
Integration, σ = 2

0.8

Connection probability

Correlation coefficient ρ

0.7
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.1
0.1
0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Distance u

0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Distance u from the corner

Fig. 2. Spatial correlation coefficient of interference at distance u from
the receiver. The receiver is placed at the corner and in the bulk. In the
numerator of equation (6), the integral is evaluated numerically. At the corner,
equation (6) is verified with simulations. Pathloss exponent η = 4, and user
density λ = 0.2.

Fig. 3. Connection probability for the eavesdropper w.r.t. the distance u from
the corner. Pathloss exponent η = 4, and user density λ = 0.2. The transmitter
is located at the boundary at (0, 1). The calculation uses equations (9a)
and (9b) and the integrals I1 , Iu are evaluated numerically. The bound uses
the approximations in equations (10a) and (10b).

where 2 F1 is the Gaussian
hypergeometric function [26,
R∞
pp. 556], and Γ(x) = 0 tx−1 e−t dt is the Gamma function.
In order to calculate the covariance of interference between
the receiver and the eavesdropper, one should keep in mind that
the set of interferers for the two locations are fully correlated.
The Pearson correlation coefficient takes the following form:
R ∞R φ

λξ 0 0 x g(r) g krejφ −uk rdφ dr
p
p
,
(6)
ρx (u) =
Var {Ix,e (u)} Var {Ix,r }

where s = g(dµ0 ) = µ since the link distance d0 has been taken
equal to unity.
Let us assume for the moment that the location of the
transmitter is fixed and known. In order to calculate the
connection probability of the eavesdropper in the bulk, one
should substitute φx = 2π, and se = g(kejθσ−uk) = σz −1 instead
of µ in equation (7b).





η−2 2η−2
1,
;
;−s
s
F
e
e2
1
η
η
se
c

. (8)
+
Pbu,e
(u) = exp−2πλ
2 (1+se )
η−2

where x ∈ {co, bu}, φbu = 2π, φco = π2 , and the interference in
the bulk does not depend on the location, thus Var{Ibu,e (u)} =
Var{Ibu,r} ∀u.
Note that the correlation coefficient ρx is independent of the
user density λ and user activity ξ. In addition, we have seen
that the user activity is just a scaling factor in the calculation
of the mean and variance. Hereafter, we omit the activity
probability from the expressions for brevity, and the user
intensity λ describes the intensity of users after thinning with
the activity probability.
In Fig. 2, we depict the correlation coefficient at the corner
and in the bulk with respect to the distance u. We see
that placing the receiver at the corner increases the spatial
correlation of interference for the same distance separation
between the receiver and the eavesdropper.
In order to calculate the connection probability of the
receiver in the interference-limited regime, we need to evaluate
the Laplace Transform of the interference Pcx,r =
 −sI
E e x,r [27]. Using the Probability Generating Functional
(PGFL) of the PPP we get
!
Z ∞Z φx
sg(r)
c
rdφ dr
(7a)
Px,r = exp −λ
0 1+sg(r)
0




η−2 2η−2
1,
;
;
−µ
µ
F
2
1
η
η
µ
, (7b)
= exp−λφx
+
2 (1+µ)
η−2

When the eavesdropper is located at the boundary, one
should substitute se instead of s, and φco (u, r) instead of φx in
equation (7a). After shifting the origin to (u, 0) and separating
between u ≷ 1 in the double integral in equation (7a), we get



p
λse 
u<1
c
2
π+u 1−u −arccos(u) −λI1 (9a)
Pco,e (u) =exp −
2(1+se)


η−2 2η−2

 1
1,
;
;−s
F
e
2
1
η
η
u>1
c
+
−
Pco,e
(u) =exp −λπse
2(1+se )
η−2

 η−2 2η−2 s 
u2−η
e
;
;− η − λIu , (9b)
2 F1 1,
η−2
η
η
u
R∞

s
er
where I1 = 1 π−arccos ur se +r
and Iu =
η dr,
R∞
se r
u
π−arccos r se +rη dr.
u
If we bound
the inverse trigonometric function as, π −

arccos ur > π2 + ur , ∀r ≥ u, we may get a tight upper
bound on the connection probability of the eavesdropper after
substituting the following lower bound approximations in the
above equations


1/η
1 η+1
1
use
+
− u 2 F1 1, ;
;−
I1 &
sinc(π/η)
η
η
se


η − 2 2η − 2
πse
(10a)
;
; −se
2 F1 1,
2 (η − 2)
η
η

5



1/η
use
1 η + 1 uη
2
Iu &
+
− u 2 F1 1, ;
;−
sinc(π/η)
η
η
se


η − 2 2η − 2
se
πse u2−η
;
; − η , (10b)
2 F1 1,
2 (η − 2)
η
η
u
where sinc(x) = sin(x)
x .
The tightness of the bound is illustrated in Fig. 3. The
connection probability of the eavesdropper decreases rapidly
along the boundary because the interference becomes higher
over there, and at the same time the signal level over the
eavesdropper channel decreases. The trend is similar when the
location of the transmitter follows the uniform distribution. In
that case, the connection probability can be calculated after
integrating (numerically) equations (8)−(9b) over the PDF of
the signal level over the eavesdropper channel fZ (z).
The connection probabilities for fixed and known transmitter’s location given in equations (8) and (9b) would be
of use in Section IV while approximating the probability of
secure connectivity at high transmission rates Rt and large
distance separation u between the receiver and the eavesdropper. For a large u, the correlation coefficient of interference
may become negligible, see Fig. 2, and the probability of
secure connectivity can be approximated as the product of the
connection probability of the receiver with the complementary
of the connection probability of the eavesdropper. We will
expand the connection probability of the eavesdropper for
σ → 0/σ → ∞ to approximate the probability of secure connectivity for high/low secrecy rates Rs under the assumption
of uncorrelated interference.
IV. P ROBABILITY

OF SECURE CONNECTIVITY

UNKNOWN

−

CSI

Using that the fading over the main and the eavesdropper
channels is Rayleigh, the probability of secure connectivity in
equation (1) can be read as

 −s I
x,r
1 − e−se Ix,e (u) = Pcx,r −Jx (u), (11)
Psc
x (u) = E e

where Jx (u) = E e−sIx,r −se Ix,e (u) is the joint connection
probability of the receiver and the eavesdropper.
In a recently published paper [22], the quantity Jx (u)
has been calculated taking into account the fact that the
interference at the receiver and the eavesdropper is correlated.
In order to take into account the correlation of interference
in our problem setting, we condition on the location θ of
the transmitter, and we average over the fading states of the
interfering channels at the receiver and the eavesdropper, as
well as over the locations and activities of the interferers. After
using the PGFL of the PPP and the fact that the fading samples
in the interfering channels at the receiver and the eavesdropper
are i.i.d. unit-mean exponential RVs we get [22]



Z
Z π2
1
1
dS fΘ dθ
Jx (u) = exp −λ 1−
1+sg (r) 1+se g(d)
0
Sx



Z
Z
1
1
dSfZ dz(12)
= exp−λ 1−
1+µg (r) 1+σz −1g(d)
Z

Sx

where Sx is the infinite plane for x = bu and the upper-right
quadrant for x = co, dS = rdrdφ is the integration element,
d = krejφ − uk is the distance between the integration element

and the eavesdropper, se = σz −1 , and z = g kejθ − uk is the
realization of the RV Z describing the distance-based pathloss
over the eavesdropper channel.
Lemma 1. For low transmission rates Rt , the probability of
secure connectivity is higher in the bulk than at the corner.
Proof. A low rate Rt necessitates a low SIR threshold µ.
After setting s = µ in equation (7a), expanding at µ = 0, and
keeping up to the second order terms, we can approximate the
connection probability for low rates Rt as follows
 Z


c
2 2
Px,r ≈exp −λ
µg(r) − µ g (r) dS
Sx


µ2
Var(Ix,r )
=exp −µE{Ix,r } +
2

µ2 
Var(Ix,r ) + E{Ix,r }2 . (13)
≈1 − µE{Ix,r } +
2

In order to approximate the quantity Jx (u) in equation (12)
for low rates Rt , we expand around σz −1 = 0 and µ = 0, again
keeping up to the second order terms.
Z 
Z
Jx (u)≈ exp −λ µg(r)+σz −1g(d)−µ2g 2(r) −
Sx
Z
!

σ 2z −2g 2(d)−µσz −1g(r) g(d) dS fZ dz

2
≈1−µE{Ix,r}−σE Z −1 E{Ix,e (u)}+µ2 Var(Ix,r )+
 −2
σ2
x,e (u)) +
2 E Z
 Var(Ip
ρx (u)µσE Z −1 Var(Ix,r )Var(Ix,e (u))+
 −1 2
2 µ2
2
σ2
E{Ix,e (u)}
+ 2 E{Ix,r } +
2 E Z
p
µσE Z −1 ρx (u) Var(Ix,r )Var(Ix,e (u)).

(14)

After subtracting equation (16) from equation (13) we get
 −1
Psc
E{Ix,e (u)}−
x (u) ≈ σE Z


 −1 2
σ2
−2
E
Z
Var(I
E{Ix,e (u)}2 − (15)
x,e (u))+E Z
2
p

2ρx (u) µσE Z −1
Var(Ix,r )Var(Ix,e (u)).

Recall that in the bulk the interference is independent of the
location u, and the probability for secure connectivity can be
simplified after substituting E {Ibu,r } instead of E{Ibu,e (u)} in
equation (15). In addition, due to the fact that E{Ico,e (u)} ≤
lim E{Ico,e (u)} = 12 E{Ibu,r } ∀u, the probability for secure
u→∞
connectivity at the corner, for low rates Rt , can be upperbounded after substituting 21 E{Ibu,r } instead of E{Ico,e (u)}
in the first-order term in equation (15). Finally, we get that
E{Z −1 }E{Ico,e(u)}
Psc (u)
E{Ibu,r }
limσ→0,µ→0 Pscco (u) = E{Z −1 }E{Ibu,e(u)} ≤ 2E{I
= 21 .
bu,r }
bu

Lemma 1 can be intuitively explained as follows. At the
boundary, the interference is low, thus both the receiver and the
eavesdropper are capable of decoding low rate transmissions
almost surely. Because of that, secure connectivity degrades.
On the other hand, in the bulk, where the mean interference is
at least twice than that at the boundary, there might be network
instances where the eavesdropper may fail to decode a low rate

6

−1

10

−2

10

Bulk
Bulk, Approx.
Corner
Corner, Approx.

0.16

Probability of secure connectivity

Probability of secure connectivity

0.18
Bulk, µ=1/4
Bulk, µ=1/4, Approx.
Corner, µ=1/4
Corner, µ=1/4, Approx.
Bulk, µ=1/10
Bulk, µ=1/10, Approx.
Corner, µ=1/10
Corner, µ=1/10, Approx.

−3

10

0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02

−4

10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0

0

0.05

Secrecy rate R (bps)

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Rate R (bps)

s

t

(a) Rs ≥ 0

(b) Rs = 0

Fig. 4. Validating the approximations for the probability of secure connectivity at low transmission rates Rt . (a) The approximation is given in equation (15).
The rate of the transmitter codewords is Rt = log2 (1 + µ). (b) The approximation is given in equation (16). The secrecy rate is Rs = 0, i.e., µ = σ. In both
figures, the exact probability is calculated numerically based on equations (11) and (12). Pathloss exponent η = 4, user density λ = 0.2, distance u = 1.

transmission due to unfortunate interference conditions, and at
the same time the receiver can successfully decode.
A case of particular interest is Rs = 0, or equivalently, µ =
σ , γ. The probability of secure connectivity in equation (15)
is simplified to
 −1
Psc
E{Ix,e (u)} −
x (u) ≈ γE Z
 −2

2
2
γ2
Var(Ix,e (u))+E Z −1 E{Ix,e (u)} + (16)
2 E Z

p

Var(Ix,r )Var(Ix,e (u)) .
4ρx (u) E Z −1
The accuracy of approximation (15) for the probability of
secure connectivity at the corner and in the bulk is illustrated
in Fig. 4a w.r.t. the secrecy rate Rs ≤ Rt and a low rate Rt .
The accuracy of equation (16) is illustrated in Fig. 4b w.r.t.
the rate Rt . In both figures we see that the performance in the
bulk is superior to the corner.

Lemma 2. For high transmission rates Rt and large distance
separation u between the receiver and the eavesdropper, the
probability of secure connectivity is higher at the corner than
in the bulk.
Proof. For a large distance separation u, we may assume
that the interference at the receiver and the eavesdropper is
uncorrelated. In that case, the joint connection probability
Jx (u) is equal to the product of the connection probabilities
of the receiver and the eavesdropper, and the probability of
secure connectivity
in equation
(11) is simplified to Psc
x (u) =
 −s I (u)

c
e x,e
. For a high transmission rate Rt or
Px,r 1 − E e
equivalently for a large µ, the connection probability of the
receiver at the corner, see equation (7b), can be approximated
λπµ2/η

as Pcco,r ≈ e− 4sinc(2π/η) . In the bulk, the exponent should be
λπµ2/η

scaled by four, Pcbu,r ≈ e− sinc(2π/η) .
The connection probability
of the eavesdropper at the

boundary, Pcco,e (u) = E e−se Ico,e (u) , can be approximated
after substituting Iu from equation (10b) into (9b). For a
low secrecy rate Rs , or equivalently for a large σ, we can
approximate the connection probability of the eavesdropper as

Pcco,e ≈ EZ



2/η z −2/η
1/η z −1/η
− λπσ
− uλσsinc(π/η)
4sinc(2π/η)
e
. In order to obtain a

lower bound for the probability of secure connectivity at the
corner, we can upper-bound the connection probability of the
eavesdropper at the boundary. One way to do that is to fix the
signal level over the eavesdropper channel at the maximum
value z2 = (u − 1)−η , see the Appendix. Finally, we get


2/η (u−1)2
1/η u(u−1)
λπµ2/η
−4sinc(2π/η)
−λπσ
−λσsinc(π/η)
4sinc(2π/η)
Psc
(u)
&
e
1−e
e
. (17)
co
In the bulk, the connection probability of the eavesdropper
for a low secrecy 
rate Rs can be approximated as Pcbu,e ≈
2/η
−2/η
λπσ
z
. An upper-bound for the probability of
EZ e− sinc(2π/η)
secure connectivity can be obtained by fixing the signal level
over the eavesdropper channel at the minimum value z1 =
−η/2
1 + u2
. Finally, we get
!
λπσ2/η (1+u2 )
λπµ2/η
− sinc(2π/η)
−
sc
sinc(2π/η)
Pbu (u) . e
1−e
.
(18)

λu(u−1)
λπ
4sinc(2π/η) and y = sinc(π/η) . In order
sc
P (u)
that limµ→∞ Pbusc(u) < 1, it suffices to show that
co
exp(−4xµ2/η )(1−exp(−4xσ2/η (1+u2 )))

Let us denote x =
to show
limµ→∞

exp(−xµ2/η )(1−exp(−xσ2/η (u−1)2 −yσ1/η ))

= 0, which

is true. For Rs = 0, or equivalently µ = σ , γ, we also get that
exp(−4xγ 2/η )(1−exp(−4xγ 2/η (1+u2 )))
limγ→∞ exp −xγ 2/η 1−exp −xγ 2/η (u−1)2 −yγ 1/η = 0.
))
)(
(
(
When the secrecy rate Rs is high, or equivalently σ is
low, one can approximate the connection probability of the
eavesdropper after substituting equation (10b) into (9b) and
expanding around σ = 0.


(η−1) ηπ−(4−π+(π−2) η) u2−η −η2
c
.
z
Pco,e
(u) ≈ 1−λσ 2/η EZ
2 (η−1) (η−2)
Psc
bu(u)
sc
µ→∞ Pco(u)

Since σ → 0, it is straightforward to show that lim
1, and the proof is complete.

<

7

0.8

µ=30
µ=30, Approx.
µ=50
µ=50, Approx.
µ=100
µ=100, Approx.

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

Bulk
Bulk, Approx.
Corner
Corner, Approx.

0.7

Probability of secure connectivity

Probability of secure connectivity

0.4

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.1
0

1

2

3

4

5

Secrecy rate R (bps)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rate R (bps)

s

t

(a) Rs ≥ 0

(b) Rs = 0

Fig. 5. Illustrating the approximation accuracy of the bounds given in equation (17) for the corner, and in equation (18) for the bulk at high transmission
rates Rt , low transmission rates Rs and large distance separation u. The distance is selected u = 3. The rest of the parameter settings can be found in the
caption of Fig. 4. The exact probability is calculated numerically after substituting equation (12) into (11). In (a) we depict the results only pertinent to the
corner because the probability of secure connectivity at high transmission rates Rt in the bulk is very low.

The intuitive explanation of Lemma 2 is as follows: For a
large distance separation u, the signal level over the eavesdropper channel becomes low, and the probability of secure
connectivity at high transmission rates Rt is dominated by the
connection probability of the receiver. Therefore the performance is better at the corner, where the interference level is
lower than in the bulk.
The accuracy of the approximations for the probability of
secure connectivity in Lemma 2 is illustrated in Fig. 5 for
distance separation u = 3. At this distance, the correlation
coefficient is less than 10−1 both at the corner and in the
bulk, see Fig. 2. In Fig. 5a, we see that for decreasing σ, or
equivalently, for increasing secrecy rate Rs the approximation
accuracy degrades. As expexted, the approximation accuracy
improves for increasing rate Rt (or µ). In Fig. 5a, we also see
that for high transmission rates Rt , we can allow for increasing secrecy rates Rs over some range, without a noticeable
decrease in the probability of secure connectivity. Finally, we
note that the approximation given in equation (18) for the bulk
is an upper bound only for high µ, σ, which is not visible in
Fig. 5b.
For small distances u, the impact of correlated interference
at the receiver and the eavesdropper should not be ignored.
Extending Lemma 2 for small u and a positive secrecy rate
Rs is tedious. We show the extension only for secrecy rate
Rs = 0, or µ = σ , γ.
Lemma 3. For high transmission rates Rt and small distance
separation u between the receiver and the eavesdropper, the
probability of secure connectivity is higher at the corner than
in the bulk for secrecy rate Rs = 0.
Proof. Let us assume that u ≤ 1 since the correlation coefficient of interference is large for small distances u. In addition,
let us assume that γ ≥ 1 since we consider high transmission
rates Rt . First, we will approximate the term Jx (u) at high
transmission rates Rt , then the connection probability of the
receiver.

In order to approximate the term Jx (u), we note that for
u ≤ 1, the signal level over the eavesdropper channel becomes
equal to one with probability p, while it takes values from the
continuous distribution fZc with probability (1−p), see the
Appendix for the definition and the derivation of the PDF
fZc (z). Due to the fact that the RV Z follows a mixture
distribution for u ≤ 1, the quantity Jx (u) in equation (12)
can be read as
 
 Z 
1
1
dS +
1−
Jx (u) = p exp −λ
1+γg(r) 1+γg(d)
Sx



Z
Z z2
1
1
dSfZcdz (19)
(1−p) exp−λ 1−
1+γg(r) 1+γz −1g(d)
z1
Sx

−η/2
where z1 = 1 + u2
is the minimum signal level and z2
is the maximum signal level over the eavesdropper channel.
Next, we show how to 
approximate the integral I(u) =
R π/2R ∞
1
1
1− 1+γg(r) 1+γg(d) dS at the corner for a large γ.
0
0
In order to do that, we will divide the quadrant Sco into disjoint
1
regions and select a suitable expansion for the terms 1+γg(r)
1
and 1+γg(d) over each region. For γg(r) > 1, or equivalently
1
1
for r < r0 , where r0 = γ 1/η , we get 1+γg(r)
≈ γg(r)
. On
the other hand, for r > r0 the term γg(r) becomes small, and
1
1
2 2
1+γg(r) ≈ 1−γg(r)+γ g (r). The expansion of the term 1+γg(d)
is more involved as it does not depend only on r, but also on φ.
We will split the plane into three regions w.r.t. the distance r:
r < r0 , r0 ≤ r ≤ r0+u and r > r0+u. The corresponding
integral
P3
contributions are denoted by Ij (u), I(u) = j=1 Ij (u).
For
angles
o φ < φ(r), where φ(r) =
n r < r0 and
r 2 +u2 −r02
, the distance d to the eavesmin π2 , arccos
2ur
1
1
dropper is small, thus γg(d) > 1 and 1+γg(d)
≈ γg(d)
. On
the other hand, for r < r0 and φ > φ(r), the distance to
the eavesdropper becomes large, thus the term γg(d) becomes
1
small, and 1+γg(d)
≈ 1−γg(d)+γ 2 g 2 (d). Finally, the integral

8

0.9

(20)

Jco(1/2)
Psc
(1/2)
co

0.7

Pcco(1/2) − Approx.

0.6

Let us define r1 = r0 +u. For r0 ≤ r ≤ r1 , the term γg(r)
becomes small, while the term γg(d) might be small or large
depending on the angle.

Z rZ1 φ(r)
1 − γg(r) + γ 2g 2(r)
dS+
1−
I2 (u) &
γg(d)
r0 0
!
Z rZ1 π2
(21)
1 − γg(r) + γ 2g 2(r)
1−
dS.
−1
(1−γg(d)+γ 2g 2(d))
r0 φ(r)
Finally, for r > r1 , both terms γg(r) , γg(d) become small
independent of the angle φ, thus
!
Z ∞
Z π2
1 − γg(r) + γ 2g 2(r)
1−
I3 (u) &
dS.
(22)
(1 − γg(d) + γ 2g 2(d))−1
r1 0
In order to approximate I(u) we need to sum up the
approximations from the different regions. For a small u and
a large γ, we get that φ(r) ≈ π2 ∀r ≤ r0 and r1 ≈ r0 .
Therefore, the terms that dominate the integral I(u) is the
first term in equation (20) and equation (22). Next, we show
how to approximate the dominant terms at a high rate Rt or
equivalently for a large γ.
Since Rr1 R> 1, the leading order
 approximation for the
π/2 ∞
2 2
integral 0 r1 γg(r) − γ g (r) dS is calculated after substituting g(r) = r−η and performing the integration. Fiηπγ 2/η
nally, we get 4(η−1)(η−2)
. On the other hand, the integral
R π/2R ∞

2 2
γg(d)−γ g (d) dS cannot be conputed in closed0
r1
form. Nevertheless, after approximating g(d) , g 2 (d) for a
large r, i.e., g(d) ≈ r−η + ηr−1−η u cos φ and g 2(d) ≈
−1−2η
r−2η + 2ηr
u cos φ, which should
 be valid for r1 ≫ u,

ηuγ 1/η
ηπγ 2/η
we get 4(η−1)(η−2) + (2η−1)(η−1) . Using the large r apR π/2R ∞
proximation for g(d), the integral γ 2 0 r1 g(r) g(d)dS is
 2/η

−π)uγ 1/η
πγ
approximated as 4(η−1)
− (2η(π−1)
for a large γ.
4η−2
 42

R π/2R ∞ 3
2
2
The term 0 r1 γ g(r)g (d)+g (r)g(d) −γ g (r) g 2(d) dS


2
(π−1)−π(7η−1)
(5η−2)πγ 2/η
− 2η+12η
uγ 1/η , and the
gives 4(2+η(6η−7))
2+2η(12η−7)



R πR r 
2/η
ηuγ 1/η
1
term 02 0 0 1− γ 2g(r)g(d)
dS gives ηπγ
. After
+
4(1+η)
2η+1
summing up,


π
η
η+2
5η−2
I(u)&
γ 2/η +
+
+
4 η+1 (η−1) (η−2) 2+η (6η−7)
π
3η
+
−
2
2
(4η −1) (η−1)
!
2η+12η 2 (π−1)−π (7η−1)
uγ 1/η .
2+2η (12η−7)

Pcco(1/2)

0.8

(23)

In order to approximate the second integral in equation (19),
we note that the behaviour of the term γz −1 g(d) depends on
the signal level z which is continuous over [z1 , z2 ). One way

Probabilities

I1 (u) can be approximated as

Z rZ0 φ(r)
1
1− 2
dS+
I1 (u) &
γ g(r) g(d)
0 Z
0 π

Z
r0 2
1 − γg(d) + γ 2 g 2 (d)
dS.
1−
γg(r)
0 φ(r)

Jco(1/2) − Approx.
Psc
(1/2) − Approx.
co

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10

1

2

10

SIR Threshold γ

10

Fig. 6. Illustrating the accuracy of the approximations made in Lemma 3.
The connection probability of the receiver (blue curves) is calculated at the
corner using equation (7b) and approximated using equation (28). The quantity
Jco (u) (black curves) is calculated numerically based on equation (12) and
approximated using equation (25). The probability of secure connectivity (red
curves) is evaluated after substracting Jco from the connection probability.
Pathloss exponent η = 4, user density λ = 0.2, distance u = 12 .

to simplify the approximation is to bound the integral using
the maximum value of the signal level,

Z Z z2
1
1
f (z)dzdS ≥
1−
−1g(d) Zc
Sco z1Z  1+γg(r) 1+γz

1
z2
1−
dS.
1+γg (r) z2 +γg (d)
Sco
(24)
We can expand the right-hand side of the above inequality
similar to equations (20)−(22). Though, we will have to
modify some of the integration limits and the way that the
angle φ (r), separating between small and large distances d,
is computed. Firstly, in order to calculate the term I1 (u),
we will still carry out the integration
0 ≤ r ≤ γ 1/η
n
o,
over
r 2 +u2 −(γ/z2 )2/η
π
but the angle φ(r) = min 2 , arccos
.
2ur
Secondly, the term I2 (u) is calculated after integrating over
 2/η
γ 1/η ≤ r ≤ u+ zγ2
, and using the updated expression for
φ (r). Finally, the term I3 (u) is calculated after integrating
 2/η
over r ≥ u+ zγ2
.
Note that for u ≤ 1, we have z2 = 1, and the probability p to
experience signal level Z = 1 at the eavesdropper is larger than
1
2 , see the Appendix. Therefore using p = 1, in the calculation
of Jco (u) for small distance separations u ≤ 1 introduces small
approximation error, see Fig. 6 (set of black curves).
2

η+2
λπγ η  η
+
+
Jco (u)&exp −
4
η+1 (η−1) (η−2)
 π
5η−2
3η
−
+
−
2
2+η (6η−7)
2 (4η −1) (η−1)
!
2η+12η 2 (π−1)−π (7η−1) 
λuγ 1/η . (25)
2+2η (12η−7)
Finally, recall that all approximations made, i.e., expansion

9

1
1
for the terms 1+γg(r)
, 1+γg(d)
in equations (20)−(22), leading
order terms in equation (23) and inequality (24) are lower
bounds to the integrals, thus the approximation would upperbound the quantity Jco (u), see Fig. 6.
Following similar steps, the integral I(u) in the bulk is
dominated by the following two terms for a large γ and a
small distance separation u

Z rZ0 π
1
dS+
1− 2
I(u) & 2
γ g(r) g(d)
0 0
!
Z
Z
(26)
∞ π
1−γg(r)+γ 2g 2(r)
1−
2
dS,
−1
(1−γg(d)+γ 2g 2(d))
r1 0

Lemma 4. For secrecy rate Rs = 0 and small distance
separation u between the receiver and the eavesdropper, the
transmission rates Rt = log2 (1 + γ) maximizing the probability of secure connectivity in the bulk and at the corner are
∗
∗
related as γbu
= 2−η γco
.

where c3 > 0 is the coefficient of uγ 1/η in equation (23), c2 is
the coefficient of γ 2/η in equation (23), and (a) follows from
0 < c1 < c2 ∀η > 2.

∂F
where (a) uses integration by parts, and (b) uses that ∂γ
=
r
R γe
f
(γ
,
y)
dy,
thus
the
first
two
terms
in
equation
(29a)
are
r
0
cancelled out.

Proof. Using the leading order γ 2/η in equation (23) and
equation (28), the probability of secure connecticity at the
corner can be approximated as the difference between two
−λc1 γ 2/η −λc2 γ 2/η
exponentials, Psc
−e
. This kind of function
co ≈ e
η/2

log(c2 /c1 )
∗
. For η = 4, we get
accepts a maximum at γco = λξ(c2 −c1 )

log(54/35)
∗
, which is close to the value seen in Fig. 6.
γco
= 11025
361λ2 ξ 2 π 2
where the factor 2 is used to account for angles π ≤ φ ≤ 2π.
Similarly, the transmission rate maximizing the probability of

η/2
The leading order terms in equation (26) can be computed
log(c2 /c1 )
∗
secure connectivity in the bulk is γbu
= 4λξ(c
, thus
−c
)
2
1
following similar steps to equation (23)
∗
∗
= 2−η γco
.

 
 γbu
2
η+2
5η−2
η
λπγ η . Recall that in Lemma 3 the plane has been divided into
Jbu (u) & exp −
+
+
η+1 (η−1) (η−2) 2+η (6η−7)
(27) three areas w.r.t. to the distance r from the receiver, i.e., r ≤
Comparing with equation (23), we see that the coeffi- r0 , r0 < r < r1 and r ≥ r1 . The extension of Lemma 3 for
cient of γ 2/η in the bulk, as expected, it is equal to the positive secrecy rates Rs > 0 is tedious because for µ 6= σ
respective coefficient at the corner after scaling by four. we need to separate between more cases while identifying
In addition, in the bulk, the approximation of the integral the areas where the terms µg(r) and σg(d) accept different
I(u) at high transmission rates does not require a correction expansions. Apart from that, the proof will follow exactly the
term depending on the distance separation u. This is due same steps with Lemma 3.
In Fig. 7a we see that the probability of secure connectivity
to the following reasons: (i) in the bulk, the mean and the
is
higher
in the bulk for low transmission rates Rt (correspondvariance of interference
are
location-independent
and,
(ii)
R πR ∞
R πR ∞
the terms 2γ 2 0 r1 g(r)g(d)dS and 2γ 4 0 r1 g 2(r)g 2(d)dS ing to µ = 1) confirming Lemma 1, and higher at the corner for
accept a total correction −4πuγ 1/η Rat Rhigh rates, but this high transmission rates (corresponding to µ = 10), confirming
π ∞
is cancelled out due to the terms 2γ 3 0 r1 g 2(r)g(d)dS and Lemma 3. Same behaviour is observed for Rs = 0 in Fig. 7b,
R R
3 π ∞
2
where we see that for increasing distance separation between
2γ 0 r1 g(r)g (d)dS.
Having approximated the terms Jx (u), the approximation of the receiver and the eavesdropper, the receiver performance at
the connection probability of the receiver at high transmission the corner outweighs the performance in the bulk over a wider
rates Rt is rather trivial. It can be done using different range of transmission rates Rt .
γg(r)
at small and large distances
expansions for the term 1+γg(r)
V. AVERAGE SECRECY CAPACITY − KNOWN CSI
r. The connection probability of the receiver at the corner is

Let us denote by f (γr , γe ) and F (γr , γe ) the PDF and the
Z π/2Z γ 1/η
1
Cummulative Distribution Function (CDF) of the joint SIR
1−
Pcco,r & exp − λ
dS+
γg(r)
0
0
distribution at the receiver and the eavesdropper, where the
!!
Z π/2Z ∞

(28) dependency on the location is omitted for brevity. The inner
γg(r)−γ 2g 2(r) dS
integral in equation (2) can be read as
1/η
0


 γ 
Z γr
η
η
λπ
γ 2/η .
+
& exp −
(log2 (1 + γr ) − log2 (1 + γe )) f (γr , γe ) dγe
IR =
4 η+2 (η−1) (η−2)
0
Z γr
The quality of the above approximation for the connection
f (γr , γe ) dγe −
= log2 (1 + γr )
probability is illustrated in Fig. 6, set of blue curves.
0
Z γr
The connection probability in the bulk for a high trans∂ 2F (γr , γe )
dγe
log2 (1 + γe )
mission rate Rt can be approximated following the same
∂γr ∂γe
0
2/η

γ
c
−4λc1 γ
Z γr
steps
, where c1 =
∂F r
(a)
 with equation (28), Pbu,r & e
f (γr , γe ) dγe − log2 (1+γe)
= log2 (1 + γr )
+
η
η
π
∂γr 0
4 η+2 + (η−1)(η−2) .
0
Z
γr
The ratio of the probabilities of secure connectivity in the
1
1 ∂F
dγe
(29a)
bulk and at the corner as γ → ∞ is
log(2) 0 1 + γe ∂γr
Z
2/η
2/η
γr
1 ∂F
1
(b)
e−4c1 λγ − e−4c2 λγ
Psc (u)
(a)
dγe ,
(29b)
=
=
0,
=
lim
lim bu
2/η
2/η −c uλγ 1/η
−c
λγ
−c
λγ
log(2)
1
+
γe ∂γr
1
2
3
γ→∞
γ→∞ Psc
0
e
−e
e
co (u)

10

0.8

u=1/2, µ=1, Bulk
u=1/2, µ=1, Corner
u=1/2, µ=10, Bulk
u=1/2, µ=10, Corner
u=1, µ=1, Bulk
u=1, µ=1, Corner
u=1, µ=10, Bulk
u=1, µ=10, Corner

0.25

0.2

u = 1/2, Bulk
u = 1/2, Corner
u = 1, Bulk
u = 1, Corner
u = 2, Bulk
u = 2, Corner
u = 3, Bulk
u = 3, Corner

0.7

Probability of secure connectivity

Probability of secure connectivity

0.3

0.15

0.1

0.05

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0

3.5

0

1

Secrecy rate R (bps)
s

2

3

4

SIR Threshold γ

(a) Rs ≥ 0

5

(b) Rs = 0

Fig. 7. Probability of secure connectivity at the corner and in the bulk using equation (11). Pathloss exponent η = 4, user density λ = 0.2.

where in (a) we have changed the order of integration, (b)
uses that F (∞, γe ) = Fe (γe ), see for instance [28, Chapter
6], with Fe (γe ) being the CDF of the SIR
eaveso
n at the
−γz −1 Ix,e (u)
,
dropper, and (c) uses that Fe(γ) = 1 − E e

n
o
−γz −1 Ix,e (u)
−γIx,r
, and Jx (u, γ)
F (γ, γ) = E 1−e
1−e
stands for the joint connection probability of the receiver and
the eavesdropper given in equation (12) for µ = σ , γ.
Equation (30) indicates that for computing the average
secrecy capacity with known CSI one has to integrate the probability of secure connectivity in equation (11) for µ = σ , γ
over the derivative of the rate function. Another way to put
equation (30) is to see that the transmitter has to sacrifice some
of its rate to achieve PLS, and the amount of loss depends
on the location of the receiver, the eavesdropper and the
interference effects, incorporated into the quantity Jx (u, γ).
Z ∞
1
Jx (u, γ)
sc
C x (u) = C x −
dγ,
(31)
log(2) 0
1+γ
whereRthe average transmission rate without secrecy is C x =
∞ 1−Fr (γ)
1
log(2) 0
1+γ dγ, see for instance [29], and Fr (γ) is the
CDF of the SIR at the receiver.
For independent interference at the receiver and the eavesdropper, F (γ, γ) = Fe(γ) Fr (γ), and the analysis in [25,
Equation (12)] is confirmed. In Fig. 8, we depict the average

3.5

Corner, λ
Bulk, λ/4
Bulk, λ
Corner, λ, Sim.
Bulk, λ/4, Sim.
Bulk, λ, Sim.

3

Average secrecy rate

After substituting equation (29b) into equation (2) we get
Z ∞Z γr
1
1 ∂F
sc
C x (u) =
dγe dγr
log(2) 0 0 1 + γe ∂γr
Z ∞Z ∞
1
1 ∂F
(a)
dγr dγe
=
log(2) 0 γe 1 + γe ∂γr
Z ∞
1
1
[F (γr , γe )]∞
=
γe dγe
log(2) 0 1+γe
Z ∞
1
1
(b)
(Fe(γe )−F (γe , γe )) dγe
=
log(2) 0 1+γe
Z ∞
1
1
(Fe(γ)−F (γ, γ)) dγ
=
log(2) 0 1+γ
Z ∞  −γIx,r
− Jx (u, γ)
E e
1
(c)
=
dγ,
(30)
log(2) 0
1+γ

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Distance u

Fig. 8. Average capacity with secrecy assuming known CSI at the transmitter
w.r.t. to the eavesdropper location. In the bulk, the results are generated for
intensity of interferers equal to λ as well as λ
. Pathloss exponent η = 4, user
4
intensity λ = 0.2.

capacity with secrecy after evaluating equation (31) numerically. The results are also verified by simulations. We see that
placing the receiver at the corner offers higher average capacity
for all distances between the receiver and the eavesdropper,
even if the intensity of interferers is four times higher than
the intensity of interferers in the bulk.
Lemma 5. The average secrecy capacity with known CSI at
the transmitter is higher when the receiver is located at the
corner than in the bulk even if the intensity of interferers at
the corner is four times higher.
Proof. Based on equation (30), it suffices to show that the
probability of secure connectivity for µ = σ , γ is higher
at the corner than in the bulk for all γ. This is possible
to show as follows: Firstly, for a high γ and a small distance u, the probability of secure connectivity at the corner
can be expressed, according to Lemma 3, as Psc
co (λ) ≈
2/η
2/η
1/η
e−λc1 γ −e−λc2 γ e−λc3 uγ . In the bulk, the probability

11

areas, also with more complex geometries, is a direction for
future work.

0.8

Probability of secure connectivity

0.7
0.6

u = 1/2, Corner
u = 1/2, Bulk
u = 2, Corner
u = 2, Bulk
u = 3, Corner
u = 3, Bulk

A PPENDIX

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
−3
10

−2

10

−1

10

0

10

SIR Threshold γ

1

10

2

10

3

10

The distance between the transmitter and
 the eavesdropper, kejθ − uk, ranges in |u − 1| , 1 + u2 . After deriving
the distance distribution, one may calculate that for 0 <
u < 2, the distance
is smaller than one with probability
q
2−u
p = π4 arctan
2+u . Due to the fact that the distancebased pathloss becomes equal to unity for distances smaller
than one, the RV Z for 0 < u < 2 follows the mixture
distribution fZ (z) = p δ(z − 1) + (1 − p) fZc (z), where δ (·)
is the Dirac delta function. The PDF of the continuous RV
Zc = kejΘ − uk−η : Zc < 1 can be derived from the distance
distribution and it is equal to
2

Fig. 9. Probability of secure connectivity at the corner and in the bulk w.r.t.
the SIR threshold γ and the location u of the eavesdropper. Pathloss exponent
η = 4. The user density is λco = 0.2 at the corner, and λbu = 0.05 in the bulk.


2/η
2/η
λ
λ
−4 λ
4 c1 γ
−e−4 4 c2 γ ,
of secure connectivity is Psc
bu 4 ≈ e

λ
sc
see Lemma 3. For a positive u > 0, Psc
bu 4 < Pco (λ) due
to the fact that c3 > 0 ∀η >2. Only in the limit γ → ∞,
sc λ
we get that Psc
co (λ) = Pbu 4 . If the distance separation is
sc
large, we can usenthe approximations in Lemma
o 2, Pco (λ) ≈
2/η −2/η
1/η −1/η
2/η
λ
−yγ
z
and Psc
1 − EZ e−xγ z
e−xγ
bu 4 ≈
o
n


2/η −2/η
2/η
λ
sc
, thus Psc
1 − EZ e−xγ z
e−xγ
bu 4 < Pco (λ) for
y > 0. Secondly, for a low γ, the probability of secure
connectivity is dominated by the mean interference at the
eavesdropper, see equation (15). Due to the scaled intensity
of users, the mean interference at the receiver is equal at the
corner and in the bulk, however, the mean interference at the
eavesdropper is higher at the boundary for u > 0 than in the
λ
sc
bulk. Therefore Psc
bu 4 < Pco (λ) for a low γ too. Example
illustration using numerical integration of equation (11) is
available in Fig. 9.

4z −1−η (πη)−1
1
q
q
, z1 ≤ z < z2 ,
2
2
1−p
2
2
z −η −(u−1) (u+1) −z −η
− η
where z1 = 1 + u2 2 and z2 = 1.
For distances u ≥ 2, we get p = 0, and the RV Z becomes
−η
continuous in [z1 , z2 ] where z2 = (u − 1) .
The computation of the mean link gain can take a compact
form for pathloss exponent η = 4. We give below the expressions for the mean link gain for u ≥ 2. For u < 2, we give the
mean of the continuous part of the distribution
fZc (z) =

2

E {Z} =
E {Zc } =
E {Zc } =
E {Zc } =

1
4u(u2 −1)+(1+u2 ) (π+4 arctan( u
))
, u ≥ 2.
2 −1)3 (1+u2 )
π(u



2
3u−u3
1
2(1+u ) 2 arctan( u )−arcsin
2

+

2−1)3
(1−p)π(u
√
2u(2−(1+u2 ) 4−u2 )
(1−p)π(u2−1)(u4−1) , 1 < u < 2.
√
3 3−2
= 1.
2π , u




3
1
−π
2(1+u2 ) 2 arctan( u
)+arcsin 3u−u
2
3
2
√(1−p)π(u −1)
2u(2−(1+u ) 4−u2 )
(1−p)π(u2−1)(u4−1) , 0 < u <

+

2

1.

R EFERENCES
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have calculated the probability of secure
connectivity and the average secrecy capacity in a Poisson field
of interferers. The receiver performance has been assessed
in the infinite plane and also at the corner of a quadrant,
and the results have been compared. The analysis shows
that hiding the receiver at the corner can provide secrecy
enhancement for high dara rate applications. Exposing the
receiver at less interference than the eavesdropper is beneficial
for physical layer security, even if the boundaries enhance
the spatial correlation of interference. On the other hand, for
low-rate applications, the impact of boundaries is detrimental
because the interference level is reduced overall, and the
eavesdropper can mostly decode the low-rate transmissions. In
that case, applying further secrecy enhancement techniques,
e.g., transmission of jamming signals could be of use to
increase the interference level at the boundary. Studying the
performance of secrecy enhancement techniques over finite

[1] J. Coon, C.P. Dettmann and O. Georgiou, “Full connectivity: Corners,
edges and faces”, Journal Statistical Physics, vol. 147, no. 4, pp. 758778, 2012.
[2] S.A. Banani, A.W. Eckford, and R.S. Adve, “Analyzing the impact of
access point density on the performance of finite-area networks”, IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 63, pp. 5143-5161, Dec. 2015.
[3] D. Torrieri and M.C. Valenti, “The outage probability of a finite ad hoc
network in Nakagami fading”, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 60, pp. 35093518, Nov. 2012.
[4] K. Koufos and C.P. Dettmann, “Temporal correlation of interference in
bounded mobile ad hoc networks with blockage”, IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 20, pp. 2494-2497, Dec. 2016.
[5] C.P. Dettmann, O. Georgiou, and J. Coon, “More is less: Connectivity
in fractal regions”, IEEE Int. Symp. Wirless Commun. Systems, (ISWCS),
Aug. 2015.
[6] K. Venugopal, M.C. Valenti, and R.W. Heath, “Device-to-Device millimeter wave communications: Interference, coverage, rate, and finite
topologies”, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, pp. 6175-6188,
Sept. 2016.
[7] A.D. Wyner, “The wire-tap channel”, The Bell System Technical Journal,
vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1355-1387, Oct. 1975.
[8] W. Trappe, “The challenges facing physical layer security”, IEEE Commun. Magazine, vol. 53, pp. 16-20, Jun. 2015.
[9] M. Haenggi, “The secrecy graph and some of its properties”, IEEE Int.
Symp. Inf. Theory, pp. 539-543, 2008.

12

[10] P.C. Pinto, J. Barros, and M.Z. Win, “Secure communication in stochastic wireless networks − Part I: Connectivity”, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics
and Security, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 125-138, Feb. 2012.
[11] P.C. Pinto, and M.Z. Win, “Continuum percolation in the intrinsically
secure communications graph”, IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory Applications
(ISITA) Oct. 2010.
[12] H.M. Wang et. al., “Physical layer security in heterogeneous cellular
networks”, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, pp. 1204-1219, Jan. 2016.
[13] S. Vuppala, S. Biswas, and T. Ratnarajah, “An analysis on secure
communication in millimeter/micro-wave hybrid networks”, IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 64, pp. 3507-3519, Aug. 2016.
[14] M.E. Eltayeb, J. Choi, T.Y. Al-Naffouri, and R. W. Heath, “Enhancing
secrecy with multi-antenna transmission in millimeter wave vehicular
communication systems”, to be published IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
2017.
[15] Y. Deng et. al., ”Physical layer security in three-tier wireless sensor
networks: A stochastic geometry approach”, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics
and Security, vol. 11, pp. 1128-1138, Jun. 2016.
[16] X. Zhou, R.K. Ganti, J.G. Andrews, and A. Hjørungnes, “On the
throughput cost of physical layer security in decentralized wireless
networks”, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, pp. 2764-2775,
Aug. 2011.
[17] M.A. Kishk, and H.S. Dhillon, “Stochastic geometry-based comparison
of secrecy enhancement techniques in D2D networks”, available at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00298
[18] X. Zhou, R.K. Ganti, and J.G. Andrews “Secure Wireless Network
Connectivity with Multi-Antenna Transmission”, IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 10, pp. 425-430, Feb. 2011.
[19] X. Zhang, X. Zhou, and M.R. McKay, “Enhancing Secrecy With MultiAntenna Transmission in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”, IEEE Trans. Inf.
Forensics and Security, vol. 8, pp. 1802-1824, Nov. 2013.
[20] K. Koufos and C.P. Dettmann, “Distribution of cell size in bounded
Voronoi tesselations with application to secure local connectivity”, submitted for publication, available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.02375
[21] X. Zhou, M.R. McKay, B. Maham, and A. Hjørungnes, “Rethinking the
secrecy outage formulation: A secure transmission design perspective”,
IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 302-304, Mar. 2011.
[22] K.S. Ali, H. ElSawy, M. Haenggi, and M.-S. Alouini, “The effect
of spatial interference correlation and jamming on secrecy in cellular
networks”, to be published, IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett.
[23] R. Ganti and M. Haenggi, “Spatial and temporal correlation of the
interference in ALOHA ad hoc networks”, IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 13,
pp. 631-633, Sept. 2009.
[24] M. Bloch, J. Barros, M.R.D. Rodrigues, and S.W. McLaughlin, “Wireless information-theoretic security”, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 54,
pp. 2515-2534, Jun. 2008.
[25] L. Wang et. al., “Physical layer security of maximal ratio combining in
two-wave with diffuse power fading channels”, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics
and Security, vol. 9, pp. 247-258, Feb. 2014.
[26] M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun. Handbook of mathematical functions
with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables. 1972.
[27] J.G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R.K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to
coverage and rate in cellular networks”, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59,
pp. 3122-3134, Nov. 2011.
[28] A. Papoulis. Probability, random variables and stochastic processes. 3rd
Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, 1991.
[29] X. Lin and J.G. Andrews, “A general approach to SINR-based performance metrics with application to D2D and carrier aggregation,” in Proc.
Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comput., Nov. 2013, pp. 738-742.

