Ultra-Dense Networks: A New Look at
the Proportional Fair Scheduler
Ming Ding‡ , David López Pérez† , Amir H. Jafari∗ , Guoqiang Mao∦‡ , Zihuai Lin¶
‡ Data61,
∦ School

of Computing and Communication, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

∗ Dept.

of Electronic & Electrical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
¶ The

arXiv:1708.07961v2 [cs.NI] 26 Sep 2017

Australia, † Nokia Bell Labs, Ireland

University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract—In this paper, we theoretically study the proportional
fair (PF) scheduler in the context of ultra-dense networks (UDNs).
Analytical results are obtained for the coverage probability and
the area spectral efficiency (ASE) performance of dense small
cell networks (SCNs) with the PF scheduler employed at base
stations (BSs). The key point of our analysis is that the typical
user is no longer a random user as assumed in most studies in
the literature. Instead, a user with the maximum PF metric is
chosen by its serving BS as the typical user. By comparing the
previous results of the round-robin (RR) scheduler with our new
results of the PF scheduler, we quantify the loss of the multiuser diversity of the PF scheduler with the network densification,
which casts a new look at the role of the PF scheduler in UDNs.
Our conclusion is that the RR scheduler should be used in UDNs
to simplify the radio resource management (RRM)1 .

I. I NTRODUCTION
Network densification is envisioned to be the key solution
to meet users’ traffic demands in the 5th-generation (5G)
networks [1]. Indeed, the orthogonal deployment2 of dense
small cell networks (SCNs) within the existing macrocell
networks [2] has been the workhorse for capacity enhancement
in the 4th-generation (4G), developed by the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), and this approach to capacity
enhancement will continue in 5G with the adoption of ultradense networks (UDNs) [1, 3]. In this paper, we focus on the
analysis of such orthogonal deployment of UDNs.
Despite of its benefits, the SCN densification also opens
up new research questions. In particular, scheduling has been
conceived as an effective technique used at base stations (BSs)
to efficiently use the available spectrum and improve the
overall system throughput. In most cases, a proportional fair
(PF) scheduler [4] serves as an appealing technique that offers
a good trade-off between maximizing overall throughput and
improving fairness among user equipments (UEs) with diverse
channel conditions. However, the gains of the PF scheduler
may be limited in UDNs, mostly because the number of UEs
per active BS is considerably reduced. This gives rise to the
1 To appear in IEEE GLOBECOM2017. 1536-1276 l’ 2015 IEEE.
Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires
IEEE permission. Please find the final version in IEEE from the link:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/xxxxxxx/. Digital Object Identifier:
10.1109/xxxxxxxxx
2 The orthogonal deployment means that small cells and macrocells operate
on different frequency spectrum, i.e., Small Cell Scenario #2a [2]).

question of whether the PF scheduling is as efficient for UDNs
as it is for sparse networks, or whether it can be substituted
by other ones of lower complexity, such as a round-robin (RR)
one that semi-randomly selects UEs to serve. In this paper, we
answer this fundamental question by theoretical analyses.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no prior work
on the theoretical study of the PF scheduler in the context
of UDNs, the density of which could be as large as tens of
thousands of BSs per km2 [1]. Generally speaking, the existing
work on PF schedulers does not scale well with the network
densification. In more detail, the studies in the literature can
be classified into 3 categories: (i) analysis of a scenario with
merely one BS [4, 5], (ii) analysis of a scenario with a limited
number of BSs [6, 7], which quickly becomes computationally
infeasible for UDNs, and (iii) system-level simulations for
large-scale networks [8], which lacks analytical rigor.
Compared with the existing work, the main contributions of
this paper are:
• For the first time, we use stochastic geometry [9] to derive
the analytical results of the coverage probability and the
area spectral efficiency (ASE) performance for UDNs
with the PF schedulers used at BSs. The key point of our
analysis is that the typical user is no longer a random user
as assumed in most studies of stochastic geometry [9].
• By comparing the previous results of the RR scheduler
and our new results of the PF scheduler, we quantify the
loss of the multi-user diversity of the PF scheduler with
the network densification, which leads to the conclusion
that the RR scheduler should be used in UDNs to simplify
the radio resource management (RRM).
II. N ETWORK S CENARIO AND S YSTEM M ODEL
In this section, we present the network scenario, the wireless
system model and the PF scheduler considered in this paper.
A. Network Scenario
For a certain time-frequency resource block, we consider a
downlink (DL) cellular network with BSs deployed on a plane
according to a homogeneous Poisson point process (HPPP) Φ
with a density of λ BSs/km2 . Active UEs are also Poisson
distributed in the considered DL network with a density of ρ
UEs/km2 . Here, we only consider active UEs in the network

because non-active UEs do not trigger data transmission. As
shown in [1], a typical density of the active UEs in 5G is
around 300 UEs/km2 .

be written as
k̃
  X
FK̃ k̃ =
fK̃ (t) .

(5)

t=1

In practice, a BS will enter an idle mode if there is no UE
connected to it, which reduces the interference to neighboring
UEs as well as the energy consumption of the network. The
set of active BSs should be determined by a user association
strategy (UAS). In this paper, we assume a practical UAS
as in [10], where each UE is connected to the BS having
the maximum average received signal strength, which will be
formally presented in Subsection II-B.
Note that such BS idle mode operation is not trivial, which
even changes the capacity scaling law [11]. Since UEs are
randomly and uniformly distributed in the network, we assume
that the active BSs also follow an HPPP distribution Φ̃ [12],
the density of which is denoted by λ̃ BSs/km2 . Note that λ̃ ≤ λ
and λ̃ ≤ ρ, since one UE is served by at most one BS.

where each piece ζn (r) , n ∈ {1, 2, . . . , N } is modeled as
(
L
ζ L(r) = ALn r−αn ,
LoS Prob.: PrLn (r)
ζn(r)= nNL
, (7)
NL −αNL
ζn (r) = An r n , NLoS Prob.: 1 − PrLn (r)
•


1
1+

ρ
qλ

q  ,

(1)
•

where according to [13], q depends on the path loss model,
which will be presented in Subsection II-B.
According to [12], the per-BS coverage area size X can be
approximately characterized by a Gamma distribution and the
probability density function (PDF) of X can be expressed as
q

Following [10], we adopt a general path loss model, where
the path loss ζ (r) is a multi-piece function of r written as

ζ1 (r) , when 0 ≤ r ≤ d1




ζ2 (r) , when d1 < r ≤ d2
ζ (r) = .
,
(6)
..
..


.



ζN (r) , when r > dN −1

where

From [12, 13], λ̃ is given by

λ̃ = λ 1 − 

B. Wireless System Model

fX (x) = (qλ) xq−1

exp(−qλx)
,
Γ(q)

(2)

where Γ(·) is the Gamma function [14]. The UE number
per BS is denoted by a random variable (RV) K, and the
probability mass function (PMF) of K can be calculated as
fK (k) = Pr [K = k]
Z +∞
k
(ρx)
(a)
=
exp(−ρx)fX (x)dx
k!
0

k 
q
ρ
qλ
Γ(k + q)
(b)
, (3)
=
Γ(k + 1)Γ(q) ρ + qλ
ρ + qλ
where (a) is due to the HPPP distribution of UEs and (b) is
obtained from (2). It can be seen from (3) that K followsa
ρ
Negative Binomial distribution [14], i.e., K ∼ NB q, ρ+qλ
.
As discussed in Subsection II-A, we assume that a BS with
K = 0 is not active. Thus, we focus on the active BSs and
denote the UE number per active BS by a positive RV K̃.
Considering (3), we can conclude that K̃ follows a truncated
Negative
distribution, the PMF of which is denoted
 Binomial

by fK̃ k̃ , k̃ ∈ {1, 2, . . . , +∞} and can be written as
 
 
h
i
fK k̃
.
(4)
fK̃ k̃ = Pr K̃ = k̃ =
1 − fK (0)
Furthermore, the cumulative mass function (CMF) of K̃ can

•

ζnL (r) and ζnNL (r) , n ∈ {1, 2, . . . , N } are the n-th piece
path loss functions for the LoS transmission and the
NLoS transmission, respectively,
ALn and ANL
n are the path losses at a reference distance
r = 1 for the LoS and the NLoS cases, respectively,
αnL and αnNL are the path loss exponents for the LoS and
the NLoS cases, respectively.

Moreover, PrLn (r) is the n-th piece LoS probability function
that a transmitter and a receiver separated by a distance r has a
LoS path, which is assumed to be a monotonically decreasing
function with regard to r [15, 16].
As a special case to show our analytical results, we consider
the two-piece path loss and the exponential LoS probability
functions defined by the 3GPP [15]. Specifically, we have
L
N = 2, ζ1L (w) = ζ2L (w) = AL w−α , ζ1NL (w) = ζ2NL (w) =
NL
L
ANL w−α , Pr1 (w) = 1 − 5 exp (−R1 /w), and PrL2 (w) =
5 exp (−w/R2 ), where R1 = 156 m, R2 = 30 m, and
1
= 67.75 m [15]. For clarity, this case is referred to
d1 = lnR10
as the 3GPP Case hereafter.
As discussed in Subsection II-A, we assume that each UE
is connected to the BS having the maximum average received
signal strength, which is equivalent to the BS with the largest
ζ (r). Finally, we assume that each BS/UE is equipped with
an isotropic antenna, and that the multi-path fading between a
BS and a UE is modeled as independently identical distributed
(i.i.d.) Rayleigh fading [10]. In order to make the 3GPP
Case even more practical, we will further consider distancedependent Rician fading [16] in our simulations to show their
minor impact on our conclusions. More specifically, we adopt
the practical Rician fading defined in the 3GPP [16], where the
K factor in dB unit (the ratio between the power in the direct
path and the power in the other scattered paths) is modeled as
K[dB] = 13 − 0.03r, where r is the distance in meter.
C. The PF Scheduler
The original operation of the PF scheduler is as follows [4],

•
•

•

First, the average throughput of each UE is tracked by
an exponential moving average at the BS.
Second, each UE frequently feeds back its channel state
information (CSI) to its serving BS, so that such BS can
calculate the ratio of the instantaneous achievable rate to
the average throughput for each user, which is defined as
a PF metric for UE selection.
Finally, the UE with the maximum PF metric will be
selected for DL transmission, which is formulated as
)
(
R̃
u
,
(8)
u∗ = arg max
R̄u
u∈{1,2,...,k̃}

where u, u∗ , R̃u and R̄u denote the UE index, the
selected UE index, the instantaneous achievable rate of
UE u and the average throughput of UE u, respectively.
Note that the distribution of k̃ has been discussed in (4).
From a network performance analysis point of view, it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to analyze the original PF
scheduler given by (8). This is because that the objective of
a performance analysis is usually to derive the average user
throughput R̄u or aggregate inter-cell interference, but in this
u
, and it should be known
case it is part of the PF metric, i.e., R̃
R̄u
and plugged into the UE selection criterion of (8) before the
performance analysis of R̄u is carried out. A widely adopted
approach to tackle this dilemma is to use alternative measures
of CSI in a PF metric, instead of R̃u and R̄u [4–7].
Here, we follow the framework developed in [4], where the
authors proposed to use the ratio of the instantaneous signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) to the average SNR as a PF metric instead of
the original one. More specifically, the UE selection criterion
of the PF scheduler proposed in [4] is given by
( )
Z̃u
∗
,
(9)
u = arg max
Z̄u
u∈{1,2,...,k̃}
where Z̃u and Z̄u denote the instantaneous SNR of UE
u and the average SNR of UE u, respectively. Although
this criterion of (9) is not exactly the same as that of
(8), it captures the important characteristics of the PF
scheduler: (i) allowing preference to UEs with relatively good
instantaneous channels with respect to their average ones since
R̃u is a strictly monotonically increasing function of Z̃u , and
(ii) allocating the same portion of resource to each UE in the
long term to enforce fairness, because the chance of Z̃u ≥ Z̄u
is almost the same for all UEs. Since the accuracy and the
practicality of (9) have been well established in [4], we will
focus on studying the PF scheduler characterized by (9).
III. M AIN R ESULTS
In this section, we study the coverage probability and the
ASE performance of a typical UE located at the origin o.

designated threshold γ:
pcov (λ, γ) = Pr [SINR > γ] ,

(19)

where the typical UE’s SINR is computed by
 
P ζ (r) y k̃
SINR =
,
(20)
Iagg + PN
 
where y k̃ is the channel gain on condition of the UE
number k̃, P and PN are the BS transmission power and the
additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) power at each UE,
respectively, and Iagg is the cumulative interference given by
X
P βi gi ,
(21)
Iagg =
i: bi ∈Φ̃\bo

where bo is the BS serving the typical UE, and bi , βi and gi
are the i-th interfering BS, the path loss from bi to the typical
UE and the multi-path fading channel gain associated with
bi (exponentially distributed), respectively. Note that in (21),
only the BSs in Φ̃ \ bo inject effective interference into the
network, where Φ̃ denotes the set of the active BSs.
 
It is very important to note that the distribution of y k̃
should be derived according to (9). More specifically, based
on the variable definition in (20), we can reformulate (9) as
( P ζ(r)hu )
u∗ = arg max
u∈{1,2,...,k̃}

PN
P ζ(r)×1
PN

= arg max {hu } ,
u∈{1,2,...,k̃}

(22)

where hu is an i.i.d. RV with a unit-mean exponential distribution due to our consideration
  of Rayleigh fading mentioned in
Subsection II-B. Thus, y k̃ can be modeled as the maximum
RV of k̃ i.i.d. exponential RVs. The complementary
cumulative

distribution function (CCDF) of y k̃ is [17]
h  
i
k̃
F̄Y (k̃) (y) = Pr Y k̃ > y = 1 − (1 − exp (−y)) . (23)
h  
i
It is easy to see that Pr Y k̃ > y increases as k̃ grows,
which in turn improves the typical UE’s channel gain. Note
that for the RR scheduler, the typical UE is randomly selected
in the BS. Consequently, we have that k̃ = 1 in (23) and the
analytical results for RR have been derived in [13].
Based on the path loss model in (6) and the PF scheduler
model in (9), we present our result of pcov (λ, γ) in Theorem 1.
Digging into Theorem 1 and considering the truncated Negative Binomial distribution of the UE number
 L per active BS,

P ζn (r)y (k̃)
K̃ , we present our results on E[k̃] Pr Iagg
>
γ
+PN

  NL
P ζn (r)y (k̃)
>γ
in Theorem 2.
and E[k̃] Pr
Iagg +PN

A. The Coverage Probability

Plugging Theorem 2 into Theorem 1, yields our theoretical
results on pcov (λ, γ). From Theorems 1 and 2, we can draw
an important and intuitive conclusion in Lemma 3.

First, we investigate the coverage probability that the typical
UE’s signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) is above a

Lemma 3. The pcov (λ, γ) of the PF scheduler converges to
that of the RR scheduler as λ → +∞.

Theorem 1. Considering the path loss model in (6) and the PF scheduler model in (9), we can derive pcov (λ, γ) as
pcov (λ, γ) =

N
X


TnL + TnNL ,

(10)

n=1

R dn





L
P ζn
(r)y (k̃)
Iagg +PN



L
fR,n

TnNL



R dn



NL
P ζn
(r)y (k̃)
Iagg +PN



>γ
(r) dr,
= dn−1 E[k̃] Pr
> γ (r) dr, and d0 and
E[k̃] Pr
L
NL
are defined as 0 and +∞, respectively. Moreover, fR,n (r) and fR,n (r) (dn−1 < r ≤ dn ), are represented by
 Z r1

Z r


L
fR,n
(r) = exp −
1 − PrL (u) 2πuλdu exp − PrL (u) 2πuλdu PrLn (r) 2πrλ,
(11)

where
dN

TnL

=

dn−1

0

and

Z
NL
fR,n (r) = exp −

0


Z
r2
L
Pr (u) 2πuλdu exp −

0

r



1 − Pr (u) 2πuλdu 1 − PrLn (r) 2πrλ,
L



(12)

0



where r1 = arg ζ NL (r1 ) = ζnL (r) and r2 = arg ζ L (r2 ) = ζnNL (r) .
r1

r2

Proof: See Appendix A.

Theorem 2. Considering
Negative
 the truncated
 Binomial distribution of the UE number per active BS, K̃, characterized in
L
P ζn
(r)y (k̃)
(4), we can derive E[k̃] Pr Iagg +PN > γ , which will be used in Theorem 1 as
 
 



max



k̃ 

 K̃X
 
P ζnL (r) y k̃
X

tγ
t
k̃
1 −
f
E[k̃] Pr 
−δnL (r) LILagg
k̃ ,
> γ =
K̃
L
t


Iagg + PN
P ζn (r)
t=0

(13)

k̃=1



where K̃ max is a large enough integer that makes FK̃ K̃ max in (5) close to one with a gap of a small value  so that the
 
expectation value in (13) can be accurately evaluated over k̃, fK̃ k̃ is obtained from (4), δnL (r) is expressed by


γPN
δnL (r) = exp − L
,
(14)
P ζn (r)
and LILagg (s) is the Laplace transform of Iagg for LoS signal transmission evaluated at s, which can be further written as
!
!

Z +∞ 
Z +∞
1 − PrL (u) u
PrL (u) u
L
(15)
LIagg (s) = exp −2π λ̃
−1 du exp −2π λ̃
−1 du .
1 + (sP ζ L (u))
1 + (sP ζ NL (u))
r1
r
  NL

P ζn (r)y (k̃)
In a similar way, E[k̃] Pr
>γ
is computed by
Iagg +PN
 
 



max



k̃ 

 K̃X
 
P ζnNL (r) y k̃
X

tγ
t
k̃
1 −
f
E[k̃] Pr 
> γ =
−δnNL (r) LINL
k̃ ,
K̃
agg
NL
t


Iagg + PN
P ζn (r)
t=0

(16)

k̃=1

where

δnNL

(r) is expressed by

δnNL (r) = exp −

γPN
P ζnNL (r)


,

(17)

and LINL
(s) is the Laplace transform of Iagg for NLoS signal transmission evaluated at s, which can be further written as
agg
!
!

Z +∞
Z +∞ 
L
L
1
−
Pr
(u)
u
Pr
(u)
u
LINL
(s) = exp −2π λ̃
(18)
−1 du exp −2π λ̃
−1 du .
agg
1 + (sP ζ L (u))
1 + (sP ζ NL (u))
r2
r
Proof: See Appendix B.

Proof: See Appendix C.
Although we have obtained the closed-form expressions of
pcov (λ, γ) for the PF scheduler in Theorems 1 and 2, it is important to note that Theorem 2 is computationally intensive for
the case of sparse networks, where the maximum UE number
per active BS K̃ max could
 large, leading
 to complex

 be very
tγ
tγ
NL
L
,t ∈
computations for LIagg P ζ L (r) and LIagg P ζ NL
n
n (r)
n
o
max
0, 1, . . . , K̃
in (15) and (18), respectively. For example,
when the UE density is ρ = 300 UEs/km2 and the BS density
2
is λ= 10 BSs/km
, K̃ max should be as large as 102 to make

max
FK̃ K̃
sufficiently close to one with a gap smaller than
 = 0.001. As a result, we need to calculate the integrals in
(15) and (18) at least 102 times for every possible value of
r. The good news is that Theorem 2 is very efficient for 5G
UDNs, where K̃ max is expected to be less than 10 [1]. In
the next subsection, we derive alternative and more efficient
expressions for sparse networks.

Fig. 1. The coverage probability pcov (λ, γ) vs. λ for the 3GPP Case with
Rayleigh fading (ρ = 300 UEs/km2 , γ = 0 dB).

B. A Low-Complexity Upper-Bound of pcov (λ, γ)

  L
P ζn (r)y (k̃)
We present upper bounds of E[k̃] Pr Iagg +PN > γ
  NL

P ζn (r)y (k̃)
and E[k̃] Pr
>γ
in Theorem 4.
Iagg +PN
The proposed upper bounds in Theorem 4 require to calculate the integrals in (15) and (18) only once for every possible
value of r, which makes the analysis of sparse networks very
efficient. Consequently, plugging Theorem 4 into Theorem 1,
yields our theoretical results on an upper bound of pcov (λ, γ),
which is particularly useful for sparse networks.

A. The Coverage Probability Performance of the 3GPP Case

C. The Area Spectral Efficiency
We also investigate the area spectral efficiency (ASE) performance in bps/Hz/km2 , which is defined as [10]
Z +∞
AASE (λ, γ0 ) = λ̃
log2 (1 + γ) fΓ (λ, γ) dγ,
(26)
γ0

where γ0 is the minimum working SINR in a practical SCN,
and fΓ (λ, γ) is the PDF of the SINR γ observed at the typical
UE for a particular value of λ. Based on the definition of
pcov (λ, γ) in (19) and the partial integration theorem [14],
(26) can be reformulated as
Z +∞ cov
λ̃
p (λ, γ)
dγ
AASE (λ, γ0 ) =
ln 2 γ0
1+γ
+λ̃ log2 (1 + γ0 ) pcov (λ, γ0 ) .

Fig. 2. The ratio of the simulated pcov (λ, γ) of PF to that of RR for the
3GPP Case with Rayleigh fading (ρ = 300 UEs/km2 , γ = 0 dB).

In Fig. 1, we plot the results of pcov (λ, γ) with the PF
scheduler for the 3GPP Case when ρ = 300 UEs/km2 and
γ = 0 dB. Note that our analytical results on the exact
performance are obtained from Theorems 1 and 2. In contrast,
our analytical results on the upper-bound performance are
obtained from Theorems 1 and 4. As a benchmark, we also
provide simulation results, and display the analytical results
of the RR scheduler reported in [13]. Moreover, we show the
ratio of the simulated pcov (λ, γ) of the PF scheduler to that
of the RR scheduler in Fig. 2.
From these two figures, we can observe that:
•

(27)

IV. S IMULATION AND D ISCUSSION
In this section, we investigate network performance and
use numerical results to validate the accuracy of our analysis.
According to Tables A.1-3, A.1-4 and A.1-7 of [15], we adopt
the following parameters for the 3GPP Case: αL = 2.09,
αNL = 3.75, AL = 10−10.38 , ANL = 10−14.54 , P = 24
dBm, PN = −95 dBm (including a noise figure of 9 dB at
each UE). Besides, the UE density ρ is set to 300 UEs/km2 ,
which leads to q = 4.05 in (1) and (2) [13].

•

As can be seen from Fig. 1, our analytical results well
match the simulation results, which validates the accuracy
of Theorems 1 and 2. However, as discussed in Subsection III-A, the evaluation of our analytical results is
only efficient for dense and ultra-dense networks. Thus, in
Fig. 1, we are only able to show the results of pcov (λ, γ)
for λ ≥ 100 BSs/km2 . When λ < 100 BSs/km2 , the
proposed upper-bound results in Theorems 1 and 4 successfully capture the qualitative performance trend of the
PF scheduler, with a maximum error of 0.04 in terms of
pcov (λ, γ) for sparse networks.
As predicted in Lemma 3, although the PF scheduler
shows a better performance than the RR one for all





L
P ζn
(r)y (k̃)
Iagg +PN







NL
P ζn
(r)y (k̃)
Iagg +PN



Theorem 4. E[k̃] Pr
>γ
and E[k̃] Pr
>γ
can be respectively upper bounded by
 
 

max (
k̃ )



 K̃X
 
P ζnL (r) y k̃
γ
L
L
f
E[k̃] Pr 
> γ ≤
1 − 1 − δn (r) LIagg
K̃ k̃ ,


Iagg + PN
P ζnL (r)

(24)

k̃=1

and






E[k̃] Pr 


 
P ζnNL (r) y k̃
Iagg + PN


max (
k̃ )


 K̃X
 
γ
NL
NL

>γ
≤
1 − 1 − δn (r) LIagg
f
K̃ k̃ .

P ζnNL (r)

(25)

k̃=1

Proof: See Appendix D.

•

BS densities, such performance gain diminishes as the
network evolves into an UDN due to the loss of multi-user
diversity. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the performance
gain of the PF scheduler continuously decreases from
around 175 % (ratio=2.75) when λ = 1 BSs/km2 toward
zero (ratio=1) in UDNs, e.g., λ = 104 BSs/km2 .
The detailed explanation of the performance behavior in
Fig. 1 is provided as follows:


– When λ ∈ 100 , 101 BSs/km2 , the network is noiselimited, and thus the coverage probabilities of both
RR and PF increase with the BS density λ as the
network is lightened
up

 with more BSs.
– When λ ∈ 101 , 102 BSs/km2 , pcov (λ, γ) of the
PF scheduler shows an interesting flat trail. This is
because (i) the signal power is enhanced by LoS
transmissions, as shown by the pcov (λ, γ) of the
RR scheduler in that BS density region; while (ii)
the multi-user diversity decreases in that BS density
region as exhibited in Fig. 2; and (iii) the above two
factors roughly
 cancel
 each other out.
– When λ ∈ 102 , 103 BSs/km2 , the coverage probabilities of both RR and PF decrease with λ, as
the network is pushed into the interference-limited
region, and this performance degradation is due to
the transition of a large number of interfering paths
from NLoS to LoS, which accelerates the growth of
the aggregate inter-cell interference [10].
– When λ > 103 BSs/km2 , the coverage probabilities
of both RR and PF continuously increase [13]. Such
performance behavior can be attributed to the BS idle
mode operations, i.e., (i) the signal power continues
increasing with the network densification, and (ii) the
interference power is controlled because not all BSs
are turned on and emit interference.

B. The Performance Impact of Rician Fading
In this subsection, we investigate the performance for the
3GPP Case with distance-dependent Rician fading, which
has been introduced in Subsection II-B. Due to its complex
modeling, we conduct simulations to investigate this enhanced
3GPP Case, and the results are plotted in Fig. 3.
All the conclusions in Subsections IV-A are qualitatively
valid for Fig. 3, which shows the usefulness of our analysis and

Fig. 3. The coverage probability pcov (λ, γ) vs. λ for the 3GPP Case with
distance-dependent Rician fading (ρ = 300 UEs/km2 , γ = 0 dB).

Fig. 4. The ASE AASE (λ, γ0 ) vs. λ for the 3GPP Case with Rayleigh
fading (ρ = 300 UEs/km2 , γ0 = 0 dB).

a less urgency to consider Rician fading in this performance
analysis. Note that comparing Fig. 3 with Fig. 1, we can see
that Rician fading closes the performance gap between PF and
RR more quickly than Rayleigh fading, due to its less variance
in channel fluctuation for the PF scheduler to exploit.
C. The ASE Performance of the 3GPP Case
Finally, we investigate the ASE performance, which is
calculated from the results of pcov (λ, γ) using (26). Since
the analytical results of pcov (λ, γ) obtained from Theorems 1
and 2 have been validated in Fig. 1, we only plot the analytical
results of AASE (λ, γ0 ) for the PF and RR schedulers in Fig. 4.
Note that we only investigate dense and ultra-dense SCNs with

λ ≥ 100 BSs/km2 in Fig. 4 because they are the focus of 5G
and Theorem 2 is computationally efficient to evaluate them.
As can be seen from this figure, the ASE performance of
the PF scheduler quickly converges to that of the RR scheduler
in UDNs, e.g., when λ = 103 BSs/km2 , the ASE of the PF
scheduler is around 590.1 bps/Hz/km2 , which is merely 4.52 %
higher than that of the RR scheduler around 564.6 bps/Hz/km2 .
Such gain becomes practically zero as λ further increases.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we studied the network performance of the PF
scheduler. Analytical results that are computationally efficient
have been derived for dense and ultra-dense SCNs. For sparse
networks, easy-to-compute analytical results of an upperbound performance have been obtained to achieve a balance
between accuracy and efficiency. Considering the negligible
gain of the more complex channel-dependent PF scheduling
in UDNs, it is recommended to adopt simpler scheduling
mechanisms such as the RR scheduler to simplify the RRM,
and thus reduce network complexity for UDNs. As our future
work, a non-full-buffer traffic model [18, 19] will be studied.
A PPENDIX A: P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
Due to the page limit, we only provide the proof sketch
of Theorem 1 as follows. In (10), TnL and TnNL are the
components of the coverage probability for the case when
the signal comes from the n-th piece LoS path and for the
case when the signal comes from the n-th piece NLoS path,
respectively. The calculation of TnL is based on (11), in which
L
fR,n
(r) characterizes the geometrical density function of the
typical UE with no other LoS BS and no NLoS BS providing a
better link to the typical UE than its serving
the
  BSL (a BS with 
P ζn (r)y (k̃)
n-th piece LoS path). Besides, E[k̃] Pr Iagg +PN > γ
gives the expected coverage probability over all possible values
of k̃ on condition of r. The logic of the calculation of TnNL is
similar to that of TnL .
A PPENDIX B: P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2
Due to the page limit, here we only provides the key of the
proof for Theorem 2. The derivation of (13) is as follows,
  L

P ζn (r)y (k̃)
E[k̃] Pr Iagg +PN > γ
   

γ (Iagg + PN )
= E[k̃] Pr y k̃ >
P ζnL (r)



γ (Iagg + PN )
(a)
= E[k̃,Iagg ] F̄Y (k̃)
P ζnL (r)


max
K̃
k̃  


X
X

(b)
t
k̃
=
E[Iagg ] 1−
−δnL (r) exp (−sIagg ) fK̃ (k̃),(28)
t


k̃=1

t=0

where the step (a) of (28) comes from (23), and in the step (b)
of (28) s = P ζtγ
and E[Iagg ] {exp (−sIagg )} = LILagg (s)
L
n (r)
should be further plugged into (28) to obtain (13). The
calculation of LILagg (s) can be referred to [13]. The derivation
of (16) is very similar to (28), which is omitted for brevity.

A PPENDIX C: P ROOF OF L EMMA 3
The key of the proof for Lemma 3 lies in (13) and (16) of
Theorem 2. When λ → +∞, we have that K̃ max → 1 and
fK̃ (1) = 1. Hence, Theorem 2 will degenerate to the results
for the RR scheduler addressed in [13].
A PPENDIX D: P ROOF OF T HEOREM 4
The key of the proof for Theorem 4 lies in using Jensen’s
inequality as follows [14]
n
o
k̃
k̃
E[Iagg ] 1−(1−exp (−x)) ≤1− 1−E[Iagg ]{exp (−x)} . (29)
R EFERENCES
[1] D. López-Pérez, M. Ding, H. Claussen, and A. Jafari, “Towards 1
Gbps/UE in cellular systems: Understanding ultra-dense small cell
deployments,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 4,
pp. 2078–2101, Jun. 2015.
[2] 3GPP, “TR 36.872: Small cell enhancements for E-UTRA and EUTRAN - Physical layer aspects,” Dec. 2013.
[3] X. Ge, S. Tu, G. Mao, C. X. Wang, and T. Han, “5G ultra-dense cellular
networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 72–79,
Feb. 2016.
[4] J. G. Choi and S. Bahk, “Cell-throughput analysis of the proportional
fair scheduler in the single-cell environment,” IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 766–778, Mar. 2007.
[5] E. Liu and K. K. Leung, “Expected throughput of the proportional
fair scheduling over rayleigh fading channels,” IEEE Communications
Letters, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 515–517, Jun. 2010.
[6] J. Wu, N. B. Mehta, A. F. Molisch, and J. Zhang, “Unified spectral
efficiency analysis of cellular systems with channel-aware schedulers,”
IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 3463–3474,
Dec. 2011.
[7] F. Liu, J. Riihijärvi, and M. Petrova, “Robust data rate estimation with
stochastic sinr modeling in multi-interference ofdma networks,” 2015
12th Annual IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and Networking (SECON), pp. 211–219, Jun. 2015.
[8] A. H. Jafari, D. López-Pérez, M. Ding, and J. Zhang, “Study on
scheduling techniques for ultra dense small cell networks,” Vehicular
Technology Conference (VTC Fall), 2015 IEEE 82nd, pp. 1–6, Sep. 2015.
[9] M. Haenggi, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks. Cambridge
University Press, 2012.
[10] M. Ding, P. Wang, D. López-Pérez, G. Mao, and Z. Lin, “Performance
impact of LoS and NLoS transmissions in dense cellular networks,”
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 3, pp.
2365–2380, Mar. 2016.
[11] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, and G. Mao, “A new capacity scaling law in
ultra-dense networks,” arXiv:1704.00399 [cs.NI], Apr. 2017. [Online].
Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00399
[12] S. Lee and K. Huang, “Coverage and economy of cellular networks with
many base stations,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 16, no. 7, pp.
1038–1040, Jul. 2012.
[13] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, G. Mao, and Z. Lin, “Study on the idle mode
capability with LoS and NLoS transmissions,” IEEE Globecom 2016,
pp. 1–6, Dec. 2016.
[14] I. Gradshteyn and I. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products
(7th Ed.). Academic Press, 2007.
[15] 3GPP, “TR 36.828: Further enhancements to LTE Time Division Duplex
for Downlink-Uplink interference management and traffic adaptation,”
Jun. 2012.
[16] Spatial Channel Model AHG, “Subsection 3.5.3, Spatial Channel Model
Text Description V6.0,” Apr. 2003.
[17] H. A. David and H. N. Nagaraja, Order Statistics (3rd Edition). John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.
[18] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, R. Xue, A. Vasilakos, and W. Chen, “On
dynamic Time-Division-Duplex transmissions for small-cell networks,”
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 8933–
8951, Nov. 2016.
[19] Y. Zhong, T. Q. S. Quek, and X. Ge, “Heterogeneous cellular networks
with spatio-temporal traffic: Delay analysis and scheduling,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1373–
1386, Jun. 2017.

