Increasing the Throughput of an Unlicensed
Wireless Network through Retransmissions
Iran Ramezanipour˚ , Pedro. H. J. Nardelli: , Hirley Alves˚ and Ari Pouttu˚
˚ Centre

for Wireless Communications (CWC), University of Oulu, Finland
University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
Firstname.lastname@oulu.fi, Firstname.lastname@lut.fi

arXiv:1706.05813v2 [cs.IT] 6 Mar 2018

: Lappeenranta

Abstract—This paper analyzes the throughput of an unlicensed
wireless network where messages decoded in outage may be
retransmitted. We assume that some wireless devices such as
sensors are the unlicensed users, which communicate in the
licensed uplink channel. In this case, the licensed users that
interfere with the unlicensed transmissions devices are mobile
devices whose spatial distribution are assumed to follow a Poisson
point process with respect to a reference unlicensed link. We
investigate how the number of allowed retransmissions and the
spectrum efficiency jointly affect the throughput in [bits/s/Hz]
of a reference unlicensed link for different licensed network
densities, constrained by a given required error rate. The optimal
throughput is derived for this case as a function of the network
density. We also prove that the optimal constrained throughput
can always reach the unconstrained optimal value. Our numerical
results corroborate those of the analytical findings, also illustrating how the number of allowed retransmissions that leads to the
optimal throughput changes with the error rate requirements.
Index Terms—Poisson point process, unlicensed spectrum access, sensor networks, cognitive network

I. I NTRODUCTION
During the past decade, with the advancements in technology, more and more devices are being connected to the
Internet each day [1]. The number of IoT enabled devices is
estimated to reach hundreds of billions globally by the end
of 2020. IoT is modernizing the way applications, services
and humans are communicating with each other, covering
broad areas such as transportation, public safety, healthcare,
industries and housing.
Before being incorporated under the IoT umbrella, wireless
sensor networks (WSNs) have been for some time implemented to monitor their corresponding environments. Now
with widespread connections to internet, the sensor nodes
as a part of IoT are able to join the internet when needed.
However, the integration of WSNs in the IoT will open up
new challenges as shown in [1]. We are going to witness
a massive network of devices needing to join the internet
and wireless networks during the upcoming years which is
going to create several challenges for the current networks in
terms of different network properties such as spectrum and
bandwidth. Among the most urgent problems, the availability
of the frequency spectrum and its current allocation policies
impose challenges in both technical and political domains
(refer to [2], [3] and references therein).
The general idea of cognitive radio tries to use the available
spectrum more efficiently via adaptive solutions including, for

instance, dynamic spectrum access. Within such a broad scope,
we choose to focus on the concept of unlicensed spectrum
access where unlicensed users share the same frequency band
with the licensed users. As discussed in [4], [5], this choice
makes sense for low-power IoT-based systems that employ
the licensed uplink channel. In a nutshell, the authors exploit
the fixed position of the unlicensed users to justify the use
of highly directional antennas in the unlicensed links with
limited transmit power. In this case, the interference from
the unlicensed network to the licensed may be neglected. On
the other hand, the unlicensed users of the uplink channel
experience the interference from the mobile users of the
licensed network.
In [4], [5], however, the study was centered on a specific
smart grid application, limiting its possible usages. Knowing
this, we generalize here those ideas by extending the scope
of the proposed scenario. But, more importantly, we follow
[6], [7] and include the possibility of retransmitting messages
decoded in outage. In those papers, the authors showed that
allowing for a limited number of retransmissions may increase
the transmission capacity [6] and the spatial throughput [7] of
ad hoc networks.
Here, we adapt the previous system model to analyze the
link throughput with focus on optimizing such a metric by
jointly setting the spectral efficiency and the allowed retransmissions. Our main contributions are:
‚ We derive the number of allowed retransmissions and
the spectrum efficiency that leads to the maximum link
throughput for a reference unlicensed link;
‚ We show that the number of allowed retransmissions that
maximizes the link throughput changes with the density
of interferers and the error rate requirement;
‚ We prove that the unconstrained maximum throughput is
always achievable regardless of the outage constraint.
II. S YSTEM MODEL
We consider an extension to the scenario initially introduced
in [4], [5] to deploy the communication network in which
the sensors transmit their data to their corresponding aggregator/controller. Specifically, we assume any application that the
following assumptions hold.
‚ Assumption 1: Unlicensed spectrum access scenario
where licensed and unlicensed/specially licensed users
share the frequency bands allocated to the uplink channel.

Assumption 2: Licensed link is established between
static cellular base-stations and mobile users. Unlicensed
users are sensors that send data to a controller entity
through the uplink channel, and their positions are fixed.
‚ Assumption 3: Sensors transmit with limited power. The
maximum power allowed for the unlicensed users can
be seen as an imposition from the licensed network or
related to the sensors’ own capabilities.
‚ Assumption 4: Packet collisions between sensors associated with the same aggregator/controller are neglected
since the transmitted messages are assumed to be small
and multiple access solutions are effective for the size of
the unlicensed network.
These assumptions allow for some simplifications that are
needed to carry out our analysis, as discussed next. Assumption 2 states that the positions are fixed so the use of directional
antennas in the unlicensed links is feasible as far as orientation
errors can be eliminated [8]. Assumption 3 indicates the
maximum range that the sensors’ signal can reach. Then, the
radiation pattern created by the unlicensed transmission can be
considered a line segment starting at the sensors to a maximum
related to the maximum transmit power.
Based on Assumptions 1, 2 and 4, the co-channel interference happens: (i) from mobile users to aggregators/controllers,
(ii) from sensors to cellular base-stations, (iii) from sensors to
aggregators/controller that are not associated with each other.
From what was previously explained, it is possible to eliminate
the interference in cases (ii) and (iii) by considering specific
locations when implementing licensed/unlicensed networks.
Even if the positions are randomly chosen, the probability that
the base station or the controller are in the same line segment
related to the sensor signal approaches zero.
The only relevant interference in this network is the case (i),
which requires capturing the uncertainty of the active mobile
users’ positions to characterize the effect of this interference
on the system performance. To do so, the interfering nodes
are modeled to follow a Poisson point process Φ distributed
over an infinite two-dimensional plane with spatial density λ
(a more detailed explanation about this way of modeling can
be found in [9]).
The wireless channel is modeled considering distancedependent path-loss and fast fading. Let ri be the distance
between the reference receiver and the ith interferer and gi to
be the channel gain between them. Then, the received power
at the reference receiver is given by W gi ri´α , where W is
the transmit power and α ą 2 is the path-loss exponent. The
signal to interference ratio SIR0 at the reference receiver is:
‚

SIR0 “

Ws g0 r0´α
ÿ
,
Wp
gi ri´α

(1)

Fig. 1: An illustration of the proposed scenario, where licensed and
unlicensed users share the up-link channel. The reference sensor
(unlicensed transmitter) is depicted by the sensor, the controller
(unlicensed receiver) by the CPU and its antenna, the handsets are
the mobile licensed users (interferers to the controller) and the big
antenna is the cellular base-station. As the sensors uses directional
antennas with limited transmit power (bold arrow), its interference
towards the base-station can be ignored. The thin black arrows
represent the licensed users’ desired signal, while the red ones
represent their interference towards the controller.

The reference link employs point-to-point Gaussian codes
and interference-as-noise decoding rules [3], [11] so a spectral
efficiency of log2 p1 ` βq in bits/s/Hz can be attained only
if the signal to interference ratio (SIR) is greater than a
given threshold β (i.e SIR ą β). An outage event occurs
whenever SIR ď β. The probability that such an event occurs
is denoted by Pout . If recurrent outage events happen, the
message can be retransmitted up to m times [6]. If the message
is not successfully decoded after 1 ` m transmission attempts
(one transmission plus m retransmissions), it is dropped. The
probability that the message is successfully decoded is then
1`m
Psuc “ 1 ´ Pout
.
To compute Pout , quasi-static channel gains (squared envelopes) g are assumed. These gains are independent and
identically distributed exponential random variables (Rayleigh
fading) with mean 1 [8]. The interfering nodes (i.e. licensed
mobile users) are considered highly dynamic so their positions
change at every transmission attempt by the reference link [7].
In this case, the signal-to-interference ratio at the reference
link SIR0 can be statistically evaluated by considering different
realizations of Poisson point process Φ. Every time a new
packet is sent, there is a new realization of the network,
hence, the transmissions are i.i.d. The outage probability
Pout “ Pr rSIR0 ď βs for each transmission attempt is [6]:
Pout “ 1 ´ e´kλβ

,

(2)

`
˘ `
˘
where k “ πr02 Γ 1 ´ α2 Γ 1 ` α2 .
We can then compute the link throughput T in the reference
link including the possibility of m retransmissions as [6]:

iPΦ

where Wp and Ws are the transmit power employed by the
licensed (interferers) and unlicensed (reference) transmitters.
Note that the noise is neglected here, but this assumption
comes without significant qualitative differences, as discussed
in [10].

2{α

T “

˘
logp1 ` βq `
1`m
1 ´ Pout
,
1 ` m̄

(3)

where 1 ` m̄ is the average number of transmissions
needed
`
˘
1`m
to successfully transmit a message; note that 1 ´ Pout
is
the probability that a message is successfully transmitted.

III. T HROUGHPUT OPTIMIZATION
A. Constrained optimization
In this subsection, we assume a throughput optimization
problem where the application imposes a maximum acceptable
error rate as a quality requirement (i.e. how frequently a
message is dropped after the allowed retransmissions). If such
a constraint is denoted by  and assuming the throughput
equation (3), we have the following:
˘
logp1 ` βq `
1`m
ˆ 1 ´ Pout
max
1 ` m̄
pβ,mq
,
(4)
1`m
subject to Pout
ď
where the SIR threshold β ą 0 and the number of allowed
retransmissions m P N are the design variables.
Lemma 1: The throughput T in (3) is a function of the
variables m ą 0 and β ą 0, i.e. T “ f pβ, mq. The function
2
f is then concave with respect to β if BBβT2 ă 0.
Proof: As m and β are strictly positive variables and
function T is twice differentiable in terms of β, then T is
2
concave if and only if BBβT2 ă 0.
2
Lemma 2: If T is in the region where BBβT2 ă 0, then β ˚
represents the value of β that maximizes the throughput and
is computed as:
ˆ
´
¯˙ α2
1
1
˚
m`1
log 1 ´ 
β “ ´
.
(5)
kλ
Proof: We follow the derivation of [4, Prop.1]. First, we
1`m
consider the equality in the optimization constraint: Pout
“
The average number of transmissions attempts 1 ` m̄ is:
m
1`m
ÿ
1´
1 ´ Pout
n
.
(6)
«
1 ` m̄ “
Pout
«
1
1 ´ Pout
1 ´  1`m
n“0
By inserting (2) and (6) into (3), we have
´
¯
1
T “ logp1 ` βq 1 ´  m`1 .
(7)
Eq. (5) is then attained by solving the derivative equation
BT {Bβ “ 0, whose solution is β ˚ . It should be noted that
(6) that is used here is an approximation of [13, §17] which
proved to be a very good approximation for our studied m
and  range.
Proposition 1: The maximum allowed number of retransmissions m˚ that maximizes the link throughput is given by:
ˆ
¯˙
´
1
1
`
m˚ “ max log ´
log 1 ´  m`1
mPN
kλ
´ ´
¯¯ α2 ´1
1
ˆ
˙ α2
m`1
log
1
´

1
α ´
´ ´
¯¯ α2 . (8)
1
kλ
2
2 ´ kλ
log 1 ´  m`1
Proof: From (7) and (5), we find T as a function of m
considering β ˚ . The optimal throughput T ˚ in terms of both
m and β is then given by the value of m that maximizes the
throughput, which is given in (8).
Remark 1: The maximum number of retransmissions m
is a natural number that is usually small, which makes the
evaluation of (8) computationally simple.

B. Unconstrained optimization
We now turn our attention to the unconstrained optimization
of the link throughput. Differently from the previous subsection, the optimization problem does not involve a maximum
acceptable error rate and therefore no outage probability.
Hence, in this case, retransmissions become useless as far
as the SIR constraint β is unbounded. In this case, the
optimization problem is the following.
max
β

logp1 ` βqe´kλβ

2{α

.

(9)

Lemma 3: The throughput given in (9) is concave with
2
respect to β if BBβT2 ă 0. In this case, the value of β that
˚
maximizes the throughput is denoted by βun
and is computed
as the solution of the following equality:
2

αβ “ 2β α kp1 ` βq logp1 ` βq.

(10)

2

Proof: If BBβT2 ă 0, then (9) can be solved by finding the
optimal β as the solution of the equality BT
Bβ “ 0, which is a
˚
requires numerical solution.
transcendental equation so βun
Proposition 2: The optimal throughoput T ˚ achieved by
constrained and unconstrained optimization problems presented in this section coincides.
1`m
Proof: Lemma 2 assumes that Pout
“  to derive the
˚
˚
relation between m and β from (7). Then, we also have
´
¯
1
T “ logp1 ` βq 1 ´  m`1
“ logp1 ` βq p1 ´ Pout q
“ logp1 ` βqe´kλβ

2{α

,

(11)

which is the unconstrained throughput formula given in (9).
Therefore, the optimal throughput T ˚ achieved by jointly
˚
setting m˚ and β ˚ is the same as the one achieved by βun
.
Remark 2: Both solutions involve numerical computation.
However, the constrained optimization needs a numerical
search from the set of natural numbers, while the unconstrained one is obtained from a transcendental equation (whose
solution is in the set of positive real numbers). In this case,
we may infer that the constrained optimization may provide a
less complex way to solve the unconstrained optimization.
IV. N UMERICAL RESULTS
We present here the numerical results considering the following (arbitrary) setting: reference sensor-controller distance
r0 “ 1 and path-loss exponent α “ 4; the required error rate
 and the density of interferers λ are the input parameters that
their effects are analyzed.
Fig. 2 and 3 shows the behavior of the link throughput T as
a function of the SINR threshold β and the maximum number
of allowed retransmissions m for different λ and  “ 0.02
(98% of success after retransmissions) respectively. We can
see that as β increases in Fig. 2, the link throughput gets
higher for different values of λ until at some point it reaches
the trade of point after which, it starts decreasing. This is due
to the fact that although by increasing β the system will have

1.2

λ = 0.05
λ = 0.1
λ = 0.15
λ = 0.2

1.0

1.0

0.8

Throughput-T

Throughput-T

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

λ = 0.05
λ = 0.10
λ = 0.15
λ = 0.20

0

5

10

15

20

0.0

5

SINR threshold-β

20

Fig. 3: Throughput T versus the maximum number of allowed
transmissions attempts 1 ` m for α “ 4, r0 “ 1 and different
densities λ.
2.5

 = 0.001
 = 0.01
 = 0.1
unconstrained

2.0

Optimal throughput-T ∗

a more efficient transmission, it will also increases the outage
events which will lead to a decrease in the link throughput.
The same twofold effect can also be explained for Fig. 3.
While increasing m implies greater values of β which allows
for higher spectral efficiencies in each transmission attempt –
greater logp1 ` βq, it also decreases the chance of the message
being successfully decoded in a single attempt, increasing
Pout . These trade-offs are captured by the proposed constrained
optimization, whose optimal point T ˚ is found by setting m˚
and β ˚ .
For example, when λ “ 0.05, the best design setting is
m˚ “ 4, or 1 ` m˚ “ 5, and β ˚ “ 6.14. This leads to 300%
improvement compared with the optimal throughput achieved
without retransmissions (i.e. m “ 0). Likewise, setting m˚ “
4 achieves about 200% more throughput when a large number
m is allowed.
This effect is similar when different densities λ are assumed.
Note that λ reflects the number of active transmitters in the
licensed network. Consequently, the greater the λ, the higher
the interference experienced at the unlicensed link. This then
decreases the optimal throughput T ˚ , which is nevertheless
obtained with a reasonable low value; for example, m˚ “ 10
when λ “ 0.2, which evinces that the numerical search for
such optimal value is computationally cheap.
Fig. 4 and 5 show the optimal constrained and unconstrained
throughputs T ˚ as a function of λ; with unlimited and limited number of retransmissions respectively. In this case, we
consider different error rate requirements . As predicted by
Proposition 2, the optimal throughput T ˚ is independent of
 and can always achieve the unconstrained optimal value
while the number of retransmissions is not limited. On the
other hand, if the maximum number of retransmissions are
limited as in Fig. 5, the error rate constraints will affect the
optimal throughput and it can not achieve the unconstrained
T ˚ anymore. In Fig. 4, system is allowed unlimited retransmissions hence, as the  requirement gets stricter, the system
uses more retransmissions to compensate for that and reach the
unconstrained T ˚ , while in 5 since m˚ is limited and m˚ “ 5,
this compensation will not happen anymore, thus, resulting in

15

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Density of interferers-λ

Fig. 4: Optimal Throughput T ˚ versus the density of interferers λ
for both unconstrained and constrained optimizations where α “ 4,
r0 “ 1 with unlimited number of retransmissions.

unconstrained
ǫ = 0.1
ǫ = 0.01
ǫ = 0.001

2.5

Optimal throughput-T ∗

Fig. 2: Throughput T versus the SINR threshold β for α “ 4, r0 “ 1
and different densities λ.

10

Number of allowed tramsmission attempts-1 + m

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Density of interferers-λ

Fig. 5: Optimal Throughput T ˚ versus the density of interferers λ
for both unconstrained and constrained optimizations where α “ 4,
r0 “ 1 with limited number of retransmissions (m “ 5).

a lower T ˚ for the same λ. It should also be noted that the
lower the , the better the approximated (6) works. That is the

Maximum number of retransmissions-m∗

30

25

 = 0.001
 = 0.01
 = 0.1

20

15

10

5

0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Density of interferers-λ

Fig. 6: Maximum number of retransmissions m versus density λ for
α “ 4, r0 “ 1 and different error rate requirements .

reason behind the throughput curve behavior for  “ 0.1 for
a small portion of the λ range.
This result indicates the importance of using retransmissions
to regulate the spectral efficiency (through the SIR threshold)
in order to achieve the highest possible link throughput for a
given density of interferers λ. To better understand how the
retransmissions work to optimize the link throughput, we show
in Fig. 6 how the number of maximum retransmissions m˚
changes with λ for different . As expected, the number of
retransmissions that leads to the optimal throughput increase
as either the density of interferers increases or the quality
requirement  gets stricter. Comparing this figure with Fig.
4 and 5 and considering λ “ 0.1 and  “ 0.01 as an example,
we can see that the optimal throughput that the system can
reach while m˚ is limited to 5 is T ˚ “ 0.45 and 4 more
retransmissions are needed in order to reach the unconstrained
T ˚ as it happens in Fig. 4. Once the value m˚ is set, the
SIR threshold β ˚ – which leads to the spectral efficiency
logp1 ` β ˚ q – comes straight from (5). Fig. 6 can also be
considered a representative of the delay of the network if it is
expressed in terms of the number of the packets for different
network densities. Considering λ “ 0.1 for instance, while
the error rate constraint of the network is  “ 0.01, the delay
would be equal to 1`m˚ “ 10 times the packets’ transmission
time.
In this case, the pair pβ ˚ , m˚ q that leads to T ˚ constrained
by  is explicitly obtained. Such an optimal throughput (interestingly) coincides with the one obtained by the unconstrained
optimization via the numerical solution of (10), which defines
˚
˚
βun
and spectral efficiency logp1 ` βun
q. Although throughput˚
maximizing, βun usually leads to relatively high outage probabilities; for example, Pout “ 0.5 for λ “ 0.05. The proof of
Proposition 2 tells that retransmissions act to allow for higher
outage probabilities at each transmission, respecting after all
attempts the (generally strict) constraint .
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper assessed an unlicensed spectrum access scenario
for a class of wireless systems where unlicensed users employ

the uplink channel of the licensed network in a way that the
interference caused by them can be neglected. Our results
showed that even with very stringent reliability error rate requirements, it is possible to achieve the optimal unconstrained
link throughput. This can only be achieved by allowing for
a limited number of retransmissions of messages decoded in
outage. The proposed analysis derived the combination of SIR
threshold and allowed retransmissions that reaches the optimal
link throughput when the interfering nodes from the licensed
network are modeled as a Poisson point process. Although
retransmission increases the system throughput, it will also
affect the delay of the network, hence, it is important to find
a trade off between these different and competing network
requirements. We expect to extend these results by including
such trade off analysis in addition to matters related to secrecy
[12] and the specific signal under consideration (e.g. [5]) as
well.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is partially supported by Aka Project SAFE
(Grant n.303532) and Strategic Research Council/Aka BCDC
Energy (Grant n.292854).
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Al-Fuqaha et al. "Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and Applications," in IEEE Communications Surveys
and Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2347-2376, Fourthquarter 2015.
[2] I. F. Akyildiz et al. "NeXt generation/dynamic spectrum access/cognitive
radio wireless networks: A survey." Computer networks, vol. 50, no.
13, pp. 2127-2159, 2006.
[3] P. H. J. Nardelli et al. "Throughput analysis of cognitive wireless
networks with Poisson distributed nodes based on location information."
Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 33, pp. 1-15, 2015.
[4] P. H. J. Nardelli et al. "Maximizing the link throughput between smart
meters and aggregators as secondary users under power and outage
constraints." Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 41, pp. 57-68, 2016.
[5] M. C. Tomé et al. "Joint sampling-communication strategies for smartmeters to aggregator link as secondary users." 2016 IEEE International
Energy Conference (ENERGYCON), Leuven, 2016, pp. 1-6.
[6] P. H. J. Nardelli et al. "Optimal Transmission Capacity of Ad Hoc
Networks with Packet Retransmissions," in IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 2760-2766, August 2012.
[7] P. H. J. Nardelli et al. "Throughput Optimization in Wireless Networks
Under Stability and Packet Loss Constraints," in IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1883-1895, Aug. 2014.
[8] J. Wildman et al. "On the Joint Impact of Beamwidth and Orientation
Error on Throughput in Directional Wireless Poisson Networks," in
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 13, no. 12, pp.
7072-7085, Dec. 2014.
[9] M. Haenggi. Stochastic geometry for wireless networks. Cambridge
University Press, 2012.
[10] S. Weber et al. "An Overview of the Transmission Capacity of Wireless
Networks," in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 58, no. 12,
pp. 3593-3604, December 2010.
[11] F. Baccelli et al. "Interference networks with point-to-point codes," 2011
IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings, pp.
435-439, St. Petersburg, 2011.
[12] P. H. J. Nardelli et al. "Throughput maximization in multi-hop wireless
networks under a secrecy constraint." Computer Networks, vol. 109, pp.
13-20, 2016.
[13] P. H. J. Nardelli et al. Multi-hop aggregate information efficiency in
wireless ad hoc networks. In: Communications, 2009. ICC’09. IEEE
International Conference on. IEEE, 2009. p. 1-6.

