1

Full-Duplex Heterogeneous Networks with Decoupled
User Association: Rate Analysis and Traffic Scheduling

arXiv:1710.08467v2 [cs.IT] 29 Jan 2018

Chun-Hung Liu and Heng-Ming Hu

Abstract
Full-duplex (FD) transmission in a point-to-point (P2P) link, wherein bidirectional traffic flows
simultaneously share the same spectrum, has the capability of doubling the link rate by completely
removing self-interferences. However, the rate gain of FD transmission in an interference-limited network
is not as clear as a P2P link due to the interferences induced by complex FD and half-duplex (HD)
transmission behaviors in the network. To thoroughly investigate the achievable link rates of users and base
stations (BSs) in a heterogeneous network (HetNet) with decoupled user association, a general approach
is proposed to model a HetNet in which all BSs and users can perform HD or FD transmission depending
on their traffic patterns. We first characterize the decoupled rate-optimal user association scheme and use
it to define the downlink and uplink rates in the HetNet. The tight lower bounds on the link rates of
the FD users and BSs are found in a neat form that characterizes general channel fading, user and BS
intensities and imperfect self-interference cancellation. These bounds outline the rate regions of the FD
users that inspire proposing the opportunistic FD scheduling algorithms that maximize the sum rate of
each bidirectional traffic and stabilize each of the queues in the HetNet.

Index Terms
Full duplex, heterogeneous network, user association, rate analysis, scheduling, stochastic geometry.

I. I NTRODUCTION
As more and more smart handsets and mobile devices are widely adopted, a tremendous data
traffic demand in the next generation (5G) cellular networks is surely foreseen. How to carry such a
huge traffic demand with a limited spectrum resource becomes a very thorny problem that needs to
be dealt with immediately and carefully. Full-duplex (FD) transmission, wherein a transceiver can
C.-H. Liu is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Michigan, MI 48128, USA. H.-M. Hu
is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan. Part
of this paper will be presented in IEEE International Conference on Communications, May 2018 [1]. The contact author is Dr.
Liu (e-mail: chunhunl@umich.edu).

2

simultaneously transmit and receive information over the same spectrum, seems to be an effective
tonic to alleviate the spectrum crunch crisis in cellular networks if its performance hurdles due
to intrinsic self-interference and co-channel interference can be cleverly overcome [2]–[4]. To
successfully apply FD transmission in a 5G cellular network, one of the most important issues in
FD that needs to be overcome is how to largely suppress self-interference as well as co-channel
interference so that the considerable rate gain offered by FD can be exploited as much as possible.
A heterogeneous cellular network (HetNet) that can offer a remarkable network capacity may
further boost its capacity by using FD transmission. To delve whether or not FD transmission
essentially benefits the rate in a HetNet, in this paper we aim at thoroughly investigating the
downlink and uplink rate performances of an FD HetNet in which each base station (BS) and
its serving user can perform FD transmission whenever there exists bidirectional traffic between
them. We consider decoupled user association in the HetNet that allows users associate with
different BSs in downlink and uplink since it induces the flexibility in user association that may
improve users’ link performance [5]. Also, to make our rate analysis more realistic, imperfect selfinterference cancellation and co-channel interference with void cell modeling are both considered
while modeling interferences [6] [7].
A. Prior Related Work and Motivations
Prior works on the rate analysis in FD cellular networks are fairly minimal and their analytical
approaches are built on a fairly simple cellular network model. For example, reference [8] focused
on how to do cooperative communication in order to achieve full spatial diversity, reference [9]
studied the deterministic spectrum efficiency in a single-cell FD network, reference [10] studied
how to select a suitable antenna set for maximizing the average transmission rate, reference [11]
looked into the problem of maximizing average link rates by managing interference through user
association, scheduling, power control and spectrum allocation and reference [12] studied how
to optimize the transmit power of users by simply considering a multi-pair two-way FD relay
network with a large-scale antenna array. In reference [13], a fundamental trade-off problem of
using either FD mode or HD mode in a relay link was investigated in a single relay network and
an opportunistic switching scheme between FD and HD modes was proposed. These works were
merely developed in a single-tier FD cellular network with a fixed number of BSs or a single
BS/relay so that how their analytical results are affected by multi-tier interferences and network
heterogeneity cannot be clearly perceived.

3

By comparing with the aforementioned previous works, there are indeed some prior recent works
that consider a more general FD cellular network model (typically see [14]–[19]). In reference
[14], for instance, the network throughput was studied in a HetNet consisting of multi-tier HD and
FD access points, but the average link rates were not studied and they are assumed as a constant
to characterize the network throughput, which may not be an accurate and proper approach to
characterizing the network throughput in that the average link rates that are dominated by the
interferences in an FD network are hardly a constant. Reference [15] studied a joint uplink and
downlink scheduling problem in a single-tier multi-cell network and it aimed to maximize the
network throughput by optimally doing user scheduling and power allocation in a distributed
fashion. These works do not consider how different decoupled/coupled user association schemes
and FD traffic scheduling schemes influence their rate analysis even though their network models
characterize some generality and complexity of FD HetNets.
The decoupled user association problem has recently attracted some attentions and been studied
in a few recent works. Reference [20] considered a decoupled uplink-downlink biased cell association to analyze the rate coverage in a HetNet with load balancing and power control. Reference
[21] studied how to improve the coverage probability in a two-tier HetNet with multi-antenna
BSs and decoupled user association. In reference [22], the decoupled user association problem
was formulated as a matching game in a two-tier FD cellular network with some performance
constraints and it was applied to solve the rate maximization problem. Reference [23] considered
a multi-tier in-band FD network with decoupled user association and studied an optimization
problem that aims at maximizing the mean rate utility. These prior works do not clarify if using
FD transmission all the time in the network really benefits the total network throughput.
B. Main Contributions
Although FD transmission is principally able to bring considerable rate gain for a P2P link,
its fundamental link rate limits are not completely studied yet in a HetNet with decoupled user
association. In this paper, our main goal is to provide a clear and good picture on when and how to
use FD transmission in a HetNet with decoupled user association to benefit the link rate of users.
Our first main contribution is to propose an FD HetNet model with decoupled user association
and an interference model involving the impacts from imperfect self-interference cancellation and
co-channel interference with void cell modeling. Using this model to perform our link rate analysis
can lead to more general analytical outcomes close to the authentic fundamental limits if it is
compared with the FD network models in the literature. In this proposed FD HetNet model, we

4

propose a decoupled generalized user association (DGUA) scheme and use it to characterize the
FD signal-to-interference power ratio (SIR) model. Then we derive the decoupled rate-optimal
user association (DROA) scheme and show that it is able to maximize the downlink and uplink
rates of a user.
Our second main contribution is to provide a novel and generalized analytical approach to
characterizing the downlink and uplink rates. With the aid of the integral identity of the Shannon
transformation found in our previous work [24], we successfully derive the tight lower bounds
on the downlink and uplink rates of an FD link between a user and its associated BSs when
the GUA scheme is adopted in the HetNet. The salient characteristic of the derived bounds is
their generality in that they are derived without assuming any specific channel gain models,
user association schemes, and FD bidirectional traffic patterns between users and their associated
BSs. Therefore, we can use the derived analytical results to quickly evaluate the link rates for
any specific channel models, user association schemes and FD traffic patterns. In addition to
the generality of the derived FD link rates, they also indicate an important fact that using FD
transmission all the time in a HetNet may not benefit the sum of the downlink and uplink rates
of users. As a result, we use the derived tight bounds to characterize the rate regions of different
downlink and uplink traffic patterns and show that properly and opportunistically adopting HD
and FD transmissions can achieve the largest rate region and maximize the sum rate of a user.
According to the observations drawn from the rate regions, we propose two FD opportunistic
scheduling algorithms for downlink and uplink and show that all downlink and uplink queues in the
HetNet can be stabilized by these two scheduling algorithms. This is our third main contribution.
Furthermore, we provide some numerical results to validate the correctness and accuracy of our
analytical findings and demonstrate the found rate regions and their achievability through our
proposed two scheduling algorithms.
II. F ULL -D UPLEX N ETWORK M ODEL AND P RELIMINARIES
Consider an interference-limited heterogeneous cellular network (HetNet) on R2 in which all
users form an independent Poisson point process (PPP) U of intensity µ given by
U , {Uj ∈ R2 : j ∈ N+ },

(1)

where Uj denotes user j and its location. Each user can perform either FD or HD transmission
mode – it performs the FD mode if it wants to simultaneously exchange information with its

5

associated BS; otherwise it performs the HD mode to merely receive or transmit data1 . This
HetNet is comprised of M different tiers of base stations (BSs) and the BSs in each tier are of the
same type and performance. The first tier consists of macrocell BSs, whereas the rest of M − 1
tiers consist of small cell BSs, e.g., picocell, femtocell BSs, etc. Specifically, the BSs in the mth
tier form an independent homogeneous PPP Xm of intensity λm given by
Xm , {Xm,i ∈ R2 : i ∈ N+ }, m ∈ M , {1, 2, . . . , M },

(2)

where Xm,i denotes BS i in the mth tier and its location. Every BS can also perform the FD
mode if there exists bidirectional traffic between it and its users. We assume that FD users/BSs
use the same resource blocks to receive and transmit their data at the same time. Each resource
block of a BS is only allocated to one of the users associating with the BS. Namely, no multiple
users associating with the same BS can simultaneously share the same resource blocks.
Without loss of generality, consider a typical user U0 located at the origin and our following
location-dependent expressions and analyses will be based on the location of the typical user.
Suppose all users adopt the following generalized user association (GUA) scheme to associate
with their (downlink/uplink) BS2 :
X∗ , arg Ψ∗ (kX∗ k) = arg

sup

Ψm,i (kXm,i k),

(3)

m,i:Xm,i ∈X

where X∗ denotes the BS associated by typical user U0 , X ,

SM

m=1

Xm , kYi − Yj k denotes the

Euclidean distance between nodes Yi and Yj for i 6= j, Ψm,i : R++ → R+ is called the user
association function of BS Xm,i , Ψ∗ (·) ∈ {Ψm,i : m ∈ M, i ∈ N+ } is the user association
function of BS X∗ , and Ψ∗ (kX∗ k) , supm,i:Xm,i ∈X Ψm,i (kXm,i k). All Ψm,i ’s are assumed to be
a monotonic and bijective decreasing function. Furthermore, if they are random, they are i.i.d.
for the same subscript m and are independent for different subscripts m and i. In the following
analysis, we will use the following power-law-based function as the user association function
Ψm,i (·) for BS Xm,i :
Ψm,i (x) =
1

ψm,i
,
xα

(4)

Throughout this paper, the users/BSs that perform the FD mode are called “FD users/BSs” and the other users/BSs who perform

the HD mode are called the “HD users/BSs”.
2

In order to simplify the notations in this paper, our following location-dependent expressions and analyses will be based on

the location of typical user U0 since the Slinvyak theorem shows that the statistical properties of a homogeneous PPP evaluated
at any particular point are the same as those evaluated at other locations in the network [25]. Also, we will study the scenario in
which users can decouple their downlink and uplink BSs, i.e., the downlink BS and uplink BS could be different for the users.
This decoupled user association can be achieved by adopting different user association functions for downlink and uplink.

6

TABLE I
NOTATION OF MAIN VARIABLES, SYMBOLS AND FUNCTIONS

Symbol

Meaning

Symbol
c

Meaning

Uj

User j and its location

δ (n)

The complement of the Dirac delta function δ(n)

µ

User intensity

FZ (x) (fZ (x))

CDF (PDF) of Random Variable (RV) Z

Q

Transmit power of users

LZ (·)

Laplace transform operator of RV Z

Xm,i

BS i in the mth tier and its location

ϑm

Tier-m user association probability

λm

Tier- m BS intensity

Lm

Tier-m cell load

ψm,i

Tier- m BS i association bias

ρm

Tier-m non-void probability

kYi − Yj k

Distance between nodes Yi and Yj

0 (∗ )

Self-interference suppression factor of user (BS)

α>2

Path loss exponent

dl (ul)

Superscript for downlink (uplink)

The BS associated by typical user U0

γ0dl

The SIR of typical user U0
Full-duplex SIR of BS X∗

X∗
Pm

Transmit power of a tier-m BS

γ∗ul

Hm,i

Channel gain from BS Xm,i to user U0

ul
dl
)
(IX
IX

Interference from all non-void BSs

H̆m,i

Channel gain from BS Xm,i to BS X∗

IUdl (IUul )

FD interference from all scheduled FD users

Gj

Channel gain from user Uj to user U0

ul
dl
Cν,F
D (Cν,F D )

Downlink (uplink) rate of an FD user

Ğj

Channel gain from user Uj to BS X∗

a'b

b is a tight lower bound on a

E

Exponential RV with unit mean

Γ(n, x)

Gamma RV with shape parameter n and rate x

where ψm,i > 0 is the tier-m (random) bias and α > 2. This GUA scheme can cover several user
association schemes commonly used in the literature [6], [7], [26]. For example, if Ψm,i (kXm,i k) =
kXm,i k−α that only characterizes the pathloss between BS Xm,i and typical user U0 , then users
will associate with their nearest BS and the GUA scheme with this user association function
is essentially the nearest BS association (NBA) scheme. If Ψm,i (kXm,i k) = Pm kXm,i k−α where
Pm is the transmit power of a tier-m BS is designed to make users associate with a BS that
provides them with the maximum mean received power, then the GUA scheme is called the
MMPA scheme. Different user association schemes induce different statistical properties of the
signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) at receivers. We will first introduce the Laplace transform of an
“incomplete” Poisson shot-noise process that can be applied to model and analyze the interference
in the sequel of rate analysis. Afterwards, some important statistical properties related to the GUA
scheme with Ψm,i (x) in (4) are introduced and they are the foundations of analyzing the SIRrelated performance metrics in the HetNet, such as coverage and link rate. In addition, Table I
lists the notations of main variables, symbols ans functions used in this paper.

7

A. The Laplace Transform of Incomplete Poisson Shot-Noise Processes
Consider a homogeneous PPP Y of intensity λY and it can be written as Y , {Yi ∈ R2 : i ∈ N}.
The nth-incomplete Poisson shot-noise process of Y is defined as
X

In ,
Wn+i ξ kYn+i k2 , n ∈ N,

(5)

i:Yi ∈Y

where Yn+i denotes the (n + i)-th nearest point in Y to the origin, Wn+i is a random variable
(RV) associated with Yi , all Wn+i ’s are i.i.d., ξ : R++ → R+ is a real-valued bijective function
and its inverse is denoted by ξ −1 (·). The Laplace transform of a non-negative RV Z is defined as


LZ (s) , E e−sZ , s > 0,
and the Laplace transform of In is shown in the following lemma.
Lemma 1. If ξ(·) is a non-increasing and separable function3 and E[ξ −1 (Z)] < ∞ for any
nonnegative RV Z, the Laplace transform of the nth-incomplete Poisson shot-noise process defined
in (5) can be explicitly expressed as
LIn (s) = LΞδc (n) (E,kYn k2 ,sW ) (πλY ) ,

(6)

where E ∼ exp(1) is an exponential RV with unit mean and variance, kYn k2 ∼ Γ(n, πλY ) is
a Gamma RV with shape parameter n ∈ N+ and rate parameter πλY (i.e., the pdf of kYn k2 is
fkYn k2 (y) =

(πλY )n y n−1 e−πλY y
)
(n−1)!

, and function Ξδc (n) (x, y, z) is defined as

Z 1
h
 i
−1 x
c
Ξδc (n) (x, y, z) , E ξ
Lz (ξ(yv))dv − 1
+ δ (n)y
z
0

(7)

in which δ c (n) , 1 − δ(n) is called the complement of the Dirac delta function δ(n).
Proof: See Appendix A.
The result in Lemma 1 is very general and it can be largely simplified in some special cases
of ξ(·) and n. For instance, when n = 0, we have a “complete” Poisson shot-noise process and
(6) in this case reduces to




E
−1
LI0 (s) = Ξ0 (E, 0, sW ) = exp −πλY E ξ
,
sW

(8)

and the pdf of I0 can be obtained by finding the inverse Laplace transform of (8). A typical
example that the pdf of I0 can be found in closed-form is the case of LI0 (s) with ξ(x) = x−2 .
3

In this paper, a function f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) is said to be separable if f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) =
Q
−1
is also separable, i.e., f −1 (x1 , . . . , xn ) = n
(xi ).
i=1 f

Qn

i=1

f (xi ) and its inverse function

8

h√ i √ 
s and its inverse Laplace transform
For this case, we have LI0 (s) = exp −π λY E W


3
2

(i.e., the pdf of I0 ) can be found as
h√ i
!
√
πλY E W
π 3 λ2Y (E[ W ])2
√
fI0 (x) =
.
exp −
4x
2 x3

(9)

For other cases of n ≥ 1, the explicit expression of LIn in (6) can be applied to evaluate the
transmission performances of a user in different contexts such as user association, interference
cancellation and BS coordination [27] [28], etc. We will need (6) to facilitate the rate analyses in
Section ??.
B. Statistical Properties for Generalized User Association
In this subsection, we would like to introduce some of the statistical properties related to the
GUA scheme in (3). First, the distribution of the maximum user association function in (3), i.e.,
the cumulative density function (CDF) of Ψ∗ (kX∗ k) in (3), can be found by using Theorem 1 in
our previous work [26] and its explicit results are summarized in the following lemma.
Lemma 2 (Revised from Theorems 1 and 2 in [26]). Suppose all users adopt the GUA scheme
in (3) with the user association function in (4) to associate their (downlink or uplink) BS. The
CDF of Ψ∗ (kX∗ k) can be shown as
2
−α

FΨ∗ (kX∗ k) (x) = exp −πx

M
X

h

2
α

λm E ψm

i

!
(10)

m=1

and the probability that a user associates with a tier-m BS is given by
h 2i
λm E ψmα
h 2 i,
ϑm = P
M
α
k=1 λk E ψk

(11)

which is called tier-m association probability.
The CDF in (10) essentially indicates that it can be equivalently found by assuming there is a
h 2i
PM
PPP of intensity m=1 λm E ψmα and all BSs in this PPP use the same user association function
Ψm,i (x) = x−α , which is an unbiased power-law function of x. In other words, the distance
1

between the origin and the nearest point in this PPP has the same distribution as (Ψ∗ (kX∗ k))− α beh
i

h 2 i
P
1
cause P (Ψ∗ (kX∗ k))− α ≥ x = exp −πx2 M
λ
E
ψmα
is the complement CDF (CCDF)
m=1 m
h 2i
P
of the distance from the origin to the nearest point in the PPP of intensity M
λ
E
ψmα . Also,
m
m=1
the tier-m association probability can be used to characterize the average cell load of a tier-m BS

9

Small cell
interference

Macro BS
interference

Self interference

Self interference Macro BS
interference

Downlink signal

Desired signal

BS
User interference

Half duplex
user

BS 1

Small cell
interference

Desired signal

Full duplex
user
User interference

Full duplex
user

(a)

Uplink signal

(b)

BS 2

Fig. 1. (a) An illustration of the HD and FD transmission scenarios for users and their tagged BS. The BS and its serving user
perform the FD mode while they have bidirectional traffic and otherwise they perform the HD mode. Note that the HD and FD
users suffer different interferences. (b) An illustration of the decoupled user association scenario in which the FD user associates
with the different downlink and uplink BSs.

that is the average user number carried by a tier-m BS. Namely, the tier-m cell load based on
Lemma 1 in [26], denoted by Lm , can be written as
h 2i
µE ψmα
µ
h 2 i × ϑm =
Lm = P
ϑm ,
M
λm
α
λ
E
ψ
k
k
k=1

(12)

where ϑm /λm can be interpreted as the average area covered by the cell of a tier-m BS in the
HetNet. Also, if the GUA scheme is adopted, by using Lemma 1 in [26] the tier-m non-void
probability that a tier-m BS is associated by at least one user, denoted by ρm , can be found as


−ζm
−ζm
Lm
µϑm
=1− 1+
ρm = 1 −
1+
,
(13)
ζm λm
ζm
{z
}
|
Void Probability of a tier-m BS

h

2
α

where ζm , 27 E ψm

i

h 2i
−
E ψm α , i.e., 1 − ρm is the tier-m void probability that a tier-m BS is

not associated by any users. Obviously, ρm is small (or 1 − ρm is not small) whenever the user
intensity is not large relative to the total intensity of all the BSs. A smaller ρm indicates that the
HetNet has lesser interference since the void BSs do not generate any interference and many prior
works on the interference modeling in a HetNet overlook this important issue. Later, we will see
that the results in (10)-(13) can be applied to explicitly characterize the FD link rates.

10

C. Full-Duplex SIR Model for Decoupled GUA
For the full-duplex HetNet considered in this paper, we will study the decoupled user association
scenario in which users adopt different uplink and downlink user association functions in (3) for
associating with a uplink BS as well as a downlink BS, that is the decoupled GUA (DGUA)
scheme shown in the following4 :


X dl = arg sup
m,i:Xm,i ∈X
∗
X∗ =

X ul = arg supm,i:X ∈X
∗
m,i

dl
ψm,i
,
kXm,i kα

for downlink

ul
ψm,i
,
kXm,i kα

for uplink

,

(14)

ul
dl
(·))
(·) (ψm,i
where X∗dl (X∗ul ) is the downlink (uplink) BS associated by typical user U0 and ψm,i

is the downlink (uplink) user association bias. An illustration of the downlink-uplink decoupled
transmission scenario is shown in Fig. 1 for an FD user and an HD user in a two-tier HetNet
where case (a) indicates the scenario of coupled user association and case (b) shows the scenario of
decoupled user association. Due to full-duplex, the FD user would receive different interferences
from other BSs and FD users in the HetNet in addition to its own self-interference.
Since an FD user suffers from different interferences in the network as shown in Fig. 1, we need
to specify an appropriate full-duplex SIR model for the following rate analysis. Let Dj ∈ {0, 1}
be a Bernoulli RV that is unity if there exists bidirectional traffic between user j and its tagged
BS, and zero otherwise. Assume the uplink traffic patterns of all users are independent and all
BSs independently make their traffic scheduling decision so that the scheduled FD users form a
thinning PPP that is a subset of set U. The SIR of typical user U0 can be written as
γ0dl =

H∗ P∗ kX∗dl k−α
,
I0 + 0 QD0

(15)

where H∗ ∈ R++ is the fading channel gain of BS X∗dl , P∗ ∈ {P1 , P2 , . . . , PM } is the transmit
power of BS X∗dl , Pm is the transmit power of the tier-m BSs, Q is the transmit power of users,
0 ∈ [0, 1] denotes the self-interference suppression factor of users (0 = 0 for canceling the selfinterference completely; otherwise 0 6= 0.), 0 Q denotes the residual fraction of self-interference
Q, and I0 is the interference given by
X

I0 , IXdl + IUdl =

dl
Vm,i

m,i:Xm,i ∈X \X∗

|

4

{z
dl
IX

X QDj Gj
Pm Hm,i
+
,
kXm,i kα j:U ∈U kUj kα
j
{z
}
} |

(16)

dl
IU

Throughout this paper, the variables/symbols with superscript “dl” indicate that they are in the downlink context, whereas

dl
the variables/symbols with superscript “ul” mean that they are in the uplink context. For example, here ψm,i
denotes the user
dl
ul
ul
association bias of downlink BS Xm,i
whereas ψm,i
represents the user association bias of uplink BS Xm,i
.

11

where IXdl denotes the interference from all non-void BSs, IUdl is the FD interference from all
dl
∈ {0, 1} is a Bernoulli RV that is zero when BS Xm,i is void in
scheduled FD users in set U, Vm,i

the downlink and one otherwise, Hm,i denotes the (fading and/or shadowing) channel gain from
BS Xm,i to typical user U0 (All Hm,i ’s are independent for all m ∈ M and i ∈ N+ and they are
i.i.d. for the same subscript m.), and Gj denotes the fading channel gain from Uj to U0 (All Gj ’s
are i.i.d. for all j ∈ N+ ).
When BS X∗ needs to serve FD users and operate in the FD mode, we assume that its downlink
and uplink channels are reciprocal. Thus, the full-duplex SIR of BS X∗ is written as
γ∗ul =

QH∗ kX∗ul k−α
,
(I∗ + ∗ P∗ )

(17)

where ∗ ∈ [0, 1] is the self-interference suppression factor of BS X∗ul , ∗ P∗ denotes the residual
self-interference of BS X∗ul , I∗ denotes the interference received by BS X∗ul and it is given by
X

I∗ , IXul + IUul =

m,i:Xm,i ∈X \X∗ul

|

X
Pm H̆m,i
QDj Ğj
,
+
ul
α
ul − U kα
kX∗ − Xm,i k
kX
j
∗
j:Uj ∈U
{z
}
{z
} |

ul
Vm,i

ul
IX

(18)

ul
IU

where IXul denotes the interference from all non-void BSs, IUul is the FD interference from all
ul
scheduled FD users, Vm,i
∈ {0, 1} is a Bernoulli RV that is zero if BS Xm,i is void and one

otherwise, H̆m,i that has the same distribution as Hm,i for all m ∈ M and i ∈ N+ denotes the
channel gain from Xm,i to X∗ and Ğj that has the same distribution as Gj for all j ∈ N+ is the
channel gain from Ui to X∗ . The full-duplex SIR models above for downlink and uplink can be
used to characterize the rate-optimal user association scheme that is introduced in the following
subsection.
D. Decoupled Rate-Optimal User Association
ul
Consider the DGUA scheme in (14) and we designate its Ψdl
m,i (·) and Ψm,i (·) as




Ψdl (kXm,i k) = log 1 + γ dl (kXm,i k) , for downlink
m,i
m,i
Ψm,i (kXm,i k) =
,



Ψul (kXm,i k) = log 1 + γ dl (kXm,i k) , for uplink
m,i
m,i

(19)

dl
where γm,i
(kXm,i k) is the downlink SIR (BS Xm,i is the transmitter and typical user U0 is the
ul
receiver) and γm,i
(kXm,i k) is the uplink SIR (BS Xm,i is the receiver and typical user U0 is the

transmitter). The DGUA scheme with the decoupled user association function in (19) is called
the decoupled “rate-optimal” association (DROA) scheme since it selects the BS that can make

12

users achieve the maximum downlink and uplink rates among all BSs. The DROA scheme can
be simplified as shown in the following lemma.
Lemma 3. If the DGUA scheme in (14) uses the following decoupled user association function


Ψdl = Pm Hm,iα , for downlink
m,i
kXm,i k
,
(20)
Ψm,i (kXm,i k) =

Ψul = H̆m,i α , for uplink
m,i
kXm,i k
then it is the same as the DROA scheme defined in (19).
Proof: See Appendix B.
Lemma 3 gives us an important insight into how an FD user should associate with its downlink
and uplink BSs in order to maximize its FD link rate; that is, for the downlink an FD user should
select the BS that provides the maximum received signal power to it, whereas for the uplink the
FD user should associate with a BS that has the maximum channel gain from the FD user to it.
Although the DROA scheme can achieve the maximum downlink and uplink rates, respectively,
it may not be easily implemented in practice since it needs to instantaneously catch up the fading
variations of all channels between a user and all BSs. In practice, users are more likely to get the
means of the fading channel gains so that Ψm,i (kXm,i k) in (20) is modified as


Ψdl = Pm E[Hmα] , for downlink
m,i
kXm,i k
,
Ψm,i (kXm,i k) =

Ψul = E[H̆m ]α , for uplink
m,i
kXm,i k

(21)

which is thus called the modified DROA (MDROA) scheme. Obviously, the downlink and uplink
rates achieved by MDROA are inferior to those achieved by DROA since MDROA does not exploit
the channel fading diversity among all BSs. In sum, Lemma 3 reveals two important facts: (i) In
general, an FD user in a multi-tier HetNet should associate with different downlink and uplink BSs
in order to improve their bidirectional rates. (ii) Without using the ROA scheme in (20), an FD
user only can achieve suboptimal bidirectional rates. In other words, using other user association
schemes, e.g., the NBA scheme which is the most popular scheme used in the literature, cannot
achieve the rate optimality of a HetNet with different transmit powers and channel fading statistics
in different tiers. In the following section, we will study how much link rate can be achieved by
the DGUA, DROA and other schemes.
III. R ATE A NALYSIS FOR THE DGUA S CHEME
In this section, we will first study the link rate achieved by the DGUA scheme in (14). Our
primary goal here is to generally characterize the downlink and uplink rates of a user so that

13

we can know how different downlink and uplink user association schemes, channel models and
imperfect self-interference cancellation influence the rate performance in an FD HetNet, which
gives us some insight into how to boost the overall network throughput. Next, we will derive and
analyze the downlink and uplink link rates while the DROA scheme is adopted. These derived
rate results not only shed light on how much link rate can be fundamentally attained by an FD
user, but also indicate how users and BSs should schedule their uplink and downlink traffic in
order to maximize their bidirectional rates.
A. Analysis of the Downlink and Uplink rates with DGUA
In this subsection, we study the (achievable) downlink and uplink rates of an FD user while
considering the entire spectrum resource of a BS is given to one user at a time and the DGUA
scheme in (14) is adopted. The downlink rate of an FD user is defined as


dl
dl
Cν,F
, (nats/Hz),
D , E log 1 + γ0

(22)

whereas the uplink rate of an FD user is defined as


ul
ul
Cν,F
D , E log(1 + γ∗ ) ,

(23)

(nats/Hz).

The explicit tight lower bounds on C0dl and C∗ul are shown in the following proposition.
Proposition 1. If all FD users adopt the DROA scheme in (19) to associate their downlink and
uplink BSs, the downlink rate in (22) is tightly lower-bounded by


Z ∞Z ∞
M
X
1 − LHm /ψm
dl (s) dyds
dl
dl
n
o,
ϑm
Cν,F D '
α
s0 Q
+
dl (s) + 1]
e
0
0
2
y
s
exp
+
y[
Ξ
m=1
m
edl
πP λ

(24)

m

where a ' b means that b is a tight lower bound on a,

ϑdl
m

,

h
i
2
dl ) α
λm E (ψm
h
i
PM
2
dl α
k=1 λk E (ψk )

as defined in (11)

e dl
is the probability that a user associates with a tier-m BS in the downlink, Ξ
m (s) is defined as
!
"



 PM

 α2 #
M
ul
X
λ
ρ
sP
H
2
sQG
k
k
k
k
dl
k=1
e dl (s) ,
Ξ
ϑdl
+ νΓ 1 −
E
, (25)
m
k ρk Ξ1 E, 1,
dl
dl
e
α
P
P
ψ
m
m
λ
k
k=1
R∞
edl , PM λk E[(ψ dl ) α2 ],
in which Ξ1 (·) is defined in (7), Gamma function Γ(x) , 0 tx−1 e−t dt, λ
k
k=1
E ∼ exp(1) and ν , P[Dj = 1] is called the FD traffic pattern parameter in that it represents
how much chance of having FD transmissions between a user and its tagged BS.
For the uplink rate in (23), its tight lower bound can be characterized as


Z ∞Z ∞
M
X
1 − LHm /ψm
ul (s) dyds
ul
ul
n
o,
Cν,F D '
ϑm
s∗ Pm α
+
ul (s) + 1]
e
0
0
2
s
exp
y
+
y[
Ξ
m=1
eul
πQλ

(26)

14

e ul (s) is defined as
where Ξ
"
 α2 #

 (X
M
2
2
P
H
k
k
ul
ul
ul
e (s) , Γ 1 −
+ν
Ξ
sα
ϑk ρk E
α
Qψkul
k=1
with

ϑul
m

,

h
i
2
ul ) α
λm E (ψm
h
i
PM
2
ul α
k=1 λk E (ψk )

PM

ul
k=1 λk ρk
eul
λ

!

h

E G

2
α

)
i

(27)

i
h
eul , PM λk E (ψ ul ) α2 .
and λ
k
m=1

Proof: See Appendix C.
Even though the tight bounds on the downlink and uplink rates shown in Proposition 1 are
somewhat complex, they are very general and suited for any fading channel models, user association schemes and imperfect self-interference cancellation. Most importantly, they characterize the
downlink and uplink void BSs that do not generate interferences so that they reveal how different
cell loads induced by different user association schemes affect the link rate. To the best of our
knowledge, (24) and (26) are the most general and accurate expressions with moderate complexity
and their lower bounds are exactly achieved as the user intensity goes to infinity, i.e., considering
e dl
the “full load” case, C dl and C ul reduce to their lower bounds in (24) and (26) with Ξ
m (s)
ν,F D

ν,F D

e ul (s) given by
and Ξ


 "
 α2 #

νλ
2
sQG
sP
H
k
k
e dl
+
Γ 1−
,
E
Ξ
ϑdl
m (s) =
k Ξ1 E, 1,
edl
α
Pm
Pm ψkdl
λ
k=1
"
)

 (X
 α2 #
M
h 2i
2
2
νλ
P
H
k k
e ul (s) = Γ 1 −
+
Ξ
sα
ϑul
E Gα
,
kE
ul
eul
α
Qψ
λ
k
k=1
PM
where λ , k=1 λk .
M
X

(28)

(29)

For some special cases, (24) and (26) can be largely simplified, as discussed in the following:
1) No Self-Interference: Suppose an FD user and its serving BS both can completely cancel
dl
ul
their self-interferences. Thus, in this situation we have 0 = ∗ = 0 so that Cν,F
D and Cν,F D

reduce to
dl
Cν,F
D

'

M
X
m=1

ϑdl
m

Z

∞

0+




Z ∞
M
X
1 − LHm /ψm
1 − LHm /ψm
ul (s)
dl (s)
ul
ul
h
i ds and Cν,F D '
h
i ds, (30)
ϑm
+
ul (s) + 1
e dl (s) + 1
e
0
Ξ
s Ξ
s
m=1
m

and they have a much simpler form with a single integral.
2) Using DROA and No Self-Interference: In this case, using the DROA scheme in (20) makes
(30) further reduce to
dl
Cν,F
D

Z

∞

'
0+

(1 − e−s )
ul
h
i ds and Cν,F
D '
dl
e
s Ξ (sPm ) + 1
m

Z

∞

0+

(1 − e−s )
h
i ds
e ul (s) + 1
s Ξ

(31)

15

e ul
e dl
in which Ξ
m (sPm ) and Ξ (s) reduce to
!

 PM
h
i
ul
2
λ
ρ
2
k
k
k=1
α
= Ξ1 (E, 1, s)
+ νΓ 1 −
E (sQG) ,
edl
α
λ
k=1
!
)
PM
 (X

  α2
M
h 2i
ul
2
λ
ρ
2
P
k
k=1 k k
e ul (s) = Γ 1 −
ρul
sα
E Gα
,
Ξ
ϑul
k +ν
k
eul
α
Q
λ
k=1

e dl (sPm )
Ξ
m

M
X

dl
ϑdl
k ρk

(32)

(33)

respectively. Note that the results in (31) represent the maximum achievable downlink and uplink
rates because Lemma 3 has shown that DROA is able to achieve the maximum downlink and uplink
rates at the same time. In other words, any decoupled and coupled user association schemes cannot
outperform the DROA scheme in terms of the sum of the downlink and uplink rates. However,
the uplink and downlink maximum rates may not be easily achievable since the user association
process in general may not be done within the channel coherence time, as pointed out before.
Instead of using DROA, we can adopt the MDROA scheme to achieve the link rates that would
be just slightly smaller than those achieved by DROA.
3) Rayleigh Fading Channels, Using DROA and No Self-Interference: In this case, all channel
gains are i.i.d. exponential RVs with unit mean and variance. As such, we still have (31), but its
e dl
e ul
Ξ
m (s) and Ξ (s) reduce to
!
"

 Z 1
# X
2
M
α
−α
s
2
s
2
dl
e dl (sPm ) =
+Γ 1+
e− Pm v dv − 1
ϑdl
Ξ
k ρk
m
sinc(2/α)
α
0
k=1
!
2
PM
ul
ν (sQ) α
k=1 λk ρk
+
,
(34)
edl
sinc(2/α)
λ
#)
(M
"  2
2
X
α
α
s
P
k
e ul (s) =
+ν
,
(35)
Ξ
λk ρul
k
λsinc(2/α) k=1
Q
dl
ul
where sinc(x) , sin(πx)/πx. Thus, we get very neat and tight lower bounds on Cν,F
D and Cν,F D .

In addition to the great feature of generality in the tight bounds in (24) and (26), there are two
e dl (s) in (25) and Ξ
e ul (s) in (27). First,
important implications that can be learned by inspecting Ξ
m

we learn that using large user association biases helps to suppress the self-interference and the
h
h
2i
2i
edl = PM λk E ψ dl α and λ
eul = PM λk E ψ ul α larger
FD interferences because making λ
k=1

k

k=1

k

dl
ul
by increasing ψkdl ’s and ψkul ’s reduces the denominators of Cν,F
D and Cν,F D . Second, offloading

more traffic (or using larger user association biases) to the tiers with a higher intensity helps
to efficiently suppress the self-interference and the FD interferences, whereas deploying more
BSs without using appropriate user association biases may not improve the link rates. In the
following subsection, some numerical results are provided to validate the derived tight lower

16

TABLE II
N ETWORK PARAMETERS FOR SIMULATION

Parameter \ BS Type (Tier #)

Macrocell BS (1)

Small cell BS (2)

Transmit Power Pm (W)

40

1

1

(see figures)

2

Intensity λm (BS/km )
Pathloss Exponent

4
∼ exp(1)

Hm,i , Gj , Hm,i , Gj
2

User Intensity µ (Users/km )

500

Transmit Power of Users Q (mW)

100

Self-Interference Suppression Factor ∗

10−5

Self-Interference Suppression Factor 0

10−8

ul
dl
bounds on Cν,F
D and Cν,F D and how they are affected by BS intensities, FD/HD transmission

and imperfect self-interference cancellation.
B. Numerical Results and Discussions
In the following simulation results, we consider a two-tier HetNet. For FD transmission, the
−α
and
MDROA scheme are adopted for decoupled user association, i.e., we have Ψdl
m,i (x) = Pm x
−α
. All the network parameters used for simulation are shown in Table I. We first
Ψul
m,i (x) = Qx

present the numerical results of the downlink and uplink rates in Fig. 2 in order to demonstrate
ul
dl
whether or not the lower bounds on Cν,F
D and Cν,F D in Proposition 1 are really very tight

and accurate. Indeed, all simulated results in Fig. 2 are slightly lower than their corresponding
analytical upper bound results so that our previous analyses on the link rates are fairly correct and
accurate. As shown in Fig. 2, without a doubt the highest downlink and uplink rates are achieved
by using HD transmission because there is no self-interference and FD interference at the receiver
side. Also, we observe that self-interference needs to be suppressed as much as possible and
otherwise it seriously undermines the SIR quality at the receiver side.
To evaluate how decoupled user association and FD transmission jointly influence the total rate
of an FD user, let us define the sum rate of an FD user as
dl
ul
Cν,F D , Cν,F
D + Cν,F D ,

(36)

which is exactly the sum rate of an FD link in the HetNet. Note that the achievable downlink and
dl
ul
uplink rates of an FD user become C1,F
D and C1,F D respectively provided all users in the HetNet

17

2.3

0.14

2.25

0.12

2.2
0.1
2.15
2.1

0.08

2.05

0.06

2
0.04
1.95
0.02
1.9
1.85

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

(a)

70

80

90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

(b)

Fig. 2. Simulation results of the achievable downlink and uplink rates: (a) Downlink rate, (b) Uplink rate. Note that ν = 0
corresponds to the case that all users are HD whereas ν = 1 corresponds to the case that all users are FD.

are FD (i.e., ν = 1). The simulation results of the sum rate Cν,F D for ν = 1 are shown in Fig. 3
where there are two user association schemes simulated – One is MDROA that is the decoupled
user association scheme in (21) and the other is coupled MROA that is the “modified” ROA
scheme that has the same user association function for downlink and uplink and use the mean of
the channel gains of a tier as the association bias of the tier. Obviously, we can see that MDROA
makes users achieve a much higher sum rate than coupled MROA in the both cases of perfect
and imperfect self-interference cancellation. In addition, note that MDROA has an increasing rate
gain much higher than coupled MROA as more and more BSs are deployed and this demonstrates
that MDROA exploits the BS diversity induced by decoupled user association.
IV. R ATE R EGIONS AND O PPORTUNISTIC FD S CHEDULING
In Section III-B, we have numerically validated the correctness and accuracy of the tight lower
dl
ul
bounds on link rates Cν,F
D and Cν,F D found in Section III-A. In this section, our focus is

on thoroughly exploiting the fundamental interplays between these two link rates. We will first
characterize the achievable rate regions of the HD and FD users that can indicate how to optimally
adopt the FD and HD modes in order to help users maintain high rate in different uplink and
downlink traffic patterns. Then we will study how to scheduling bidirectional traffic in order to
maximize the sum rate of a user.

18

The Case of Perfect Self-Interference Cancellation

The Case of Imperfect Self-Interference Cancellation

2.1

2.1

2.05

2.05

2

2

1.95

1.95

1.9

1.9

1.85

1.85

1.8

1.8

1.75

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

(a)

80

90

1.75

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

(b)

Fig. 3. Simulation results of the sum of the downlink and uplink rates with the MDROA and coupled MROA scheme: (a) The
case of perfect self-interference cancellation (b) The case of imperfect self-interference cancellation.

A. Analysis of Achievable Rate Regions
To start with the analysis of the achievable rate regions of users, first consider the scenario in
which FD transmission is not allowed in the HetNet so that the downlink rate of an HD user is
dl
characterized by Cν,F
D in (30) with ν = 0 = 0, which is


Z ∞
M
X
1 − LHm /ψm
dl (s)
dl
dl
dl

hP

i ds
ϑm
CHD , Cν,F D ν=0 =0 '
M
sPk Hk
dl dl
+
0
s
+1
m=1
k=1 ϑk ρk Ξ1 Z, 1, Pm ψ dl

(37)

k

and it is the maximum achievable downlink rate for all HD users. Similarly, in the uplink case,
the maximum achievable uplink rate for all users in the HD mode, can be found as


Z ∞
M
X
1
−
L
ul (s)
H
/ψ
m
ul
ul
m


 ds. (38)
, Cν,F
CHD
ϑul
D ν=∗ =0 '
m
 α2 

P
+
2
M
0
P
H
2
ul
ul
k
k
m=1
s Γ 1 − α s α k=1 ϑk ρk E
+1
Qψ ul
k

According to the above definitions of the link rates, we can characterize the achievable rate
regions of the FD and HD users. By referring to Cν,F D defined in (36), we define the rate region
RF D of an FD user for ν = 1 as follows:

ul
dl
dl
RF D , (Rul , Rdl ) ∈ R2+ : Rul ≤ C1,F
D , R ≤ C1,F D .

(39)

Namely, this region is the rate region of an FD user when all users in the HetNet are FD. Whereas
the rate region RHD of an HD user can be defined as

ul
dl
RHD , (Rul , Rdl ) ∈ R2+ : Rul ≤ θCHD
, Rdl ≤ (1 − θ)CHD
, θ ∈ [0, 1] ,

(40)

19

Rdl

Rdl

dl
(0, CH
D)

dl
(0, CH
D)

dl
(0, C1,F
D)

a

e

ul

dl
(0, C1,F
D)

e

ul
dl
f (C1,F
D , C1,F D )

(No Self-Interference)

b
(Large SelfInterference)

0

dl

f (C1,F D , C1,F D )

c

g

g

ul
(CH
D , 0)

ul
(CH
D , 0)

ul
(C1,F
D , 0)

Rul

0

(a)

ul
(C1,F
D,

0)

Rul

(b)

Fig. 4. The rate regions of an FD user and an HD user where the horizontal axis denotes the uplink rate and the vertical
ul
dl
, 0), and RF D is the rectangle
) and (CHD
axis represents the downlink rate: (a) RHD is the triangle with vertices 0, (0, CHD
ul
dl
ul
dl
with vertices 0, (0, C1,F
D ), f and (C1,F D , 0). (b) The quadrilateral with vertices 0, (0, CHD ), f and (CHD , 0), denoted by
ul
dl
, 0) and Red Dash Line
), Line f-(CHD
Rinf , is the convex hull of RHD and RF D . The region enclosed by Line f-(0, CHD
ul
dl
, 0), denoted by Rsup , is the maximum achievable rate region.
)-(CHD
(0, CHD

where θ is the time-sharing parameter for the HD transmission between downlink and uplink. The
rate regions, RF D and RHD , can be schematically demonstrated in Fig. 4 where the horizontal
axis denotes the uplink rate whereas the vertical axis represents the downlink rate. As shown in
dl
ul
Fig. 4, Region RF D is essentially the rectangle with vertices 0, (0, C1,F
D ), f and (C1,F D , 0) for the

case of no self-interferences since every point in this rectangle is achievable by FD transmission
dl
ul
and perfect self-interference cancellation. The triangle with vertices 0, (0, CHD
) and (CHD
, 0) is
dl
ul
region RHD because the points on Line (0, CHD
)-(CHD
, 0) can be achieved by altering the timedl
dl
ul
ul
sharing parameter θ between 0 and 1. Note that we have C1,F
D < CHD and C1,F D < CHD due to

the FD interferences. When the self-interferences cannot be canceled and fairly large, region RF D
would shrink to the much smaller rectangle with vertices 0, a, b and c, which demonstrates that
using FD does not outperform HD in terms of link rates at the presence of large self-interferences.
As can be seen in Fig. 4 (a), we realize that RHD is not enclosed by RF D , i.e., RHD * RF D ,
which essentially clarifies that using FD does not always achieve a larger rate region than using
dl
dl
HD. Considering the triangular region with vertices (0, C1,F
D ), e, and (0, CHD ), for instance,

any points in this region cannot be achieved by using FD and its sum rate could be higher than
dl
ul
C1,F D = C1,F
D + C1,HD . On the contrary, using HD cannot achieve any points in the triangle with

vertices e, f and g. A larger achievable rate region that encloses RHD and RF D indeed exists, as

20

stated in the following proposition.
dl
Proposition 2. According to Fig. 4 (b), the convex region enclosed by Line 0-(0, CHD
), Red Dash
dl
ul
ul
Line (0, CHD
)-f-(CHD
, 0) and Line (CHD
, 0)-0, denoted by Rsup , is the maximum achievable rate

region of a user in the HetNet with decoupled user association.
Proof: See Appendix D.
The rate regions in Fig. 4 and Proposition 2 reveal some crucial implications worth addressing
as follows:
•

Whenever large self-interference exists at either a user or a BS or both, we should avoid
using the FD mode because in this situation using the FD transmission may not improve or
even reduce the link rates, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a).

•

The uplink and downlink rate pair at point f is the case of ν = 1, and for this case all users
in the HetNet are FD. When ν reduces and approaches to zero, point f will move towards to
ul
dl
dl
ul
dl
, 0), point (0, C1,F
)-(CHD
Line (0, CHD
D ) will move up to point (0, CHD ) and point (C1,F D , 0)
ul
, 0). Namely, RF D will gradually become RHD as ν decreases
will move right to point (CHD

from unity to zero. Accordingly, the bidirectional traffic pattern characterized by ν between
a user and its tagged BS intrinsically dominates the rate region so that properly controlling
the bidirectional traffic helps us improve the sum rate of a user.
•

In order to achieve the largest rate region Rsup , it is necessary to do time-sharing between
ul
dl
, 0), i.e., exclusively using
) and time-sharing between points f and (CHD
points f and (0, CHD

FD or HD cannot achieve the maximum sum rate and it is necessary to schedule the downlink
and uplink traffic by adopting the FD and HD modes appropriately and alternatively.
To sum up, using FD all the time in the HetNet does not always achieve higher rate than using
HD so that we need to schedule the bidirectional traffic between downlink and uplink by using
the FD and HD modes properly in order to maximize the sum rate of the bidirectional traffic.
Some numerical results will be given in Section IV-C to illustrate this conclusion.
B. Opportunistic FD Scheduling Algorithms and Their Stability
In this subsection, we would like to propose traffic scheduling algorithms to achieve the largest
rate region Rsup . Consider a BS and its serving user both have a buffer of infinite size storing
their packages. According to Fig. 4 (b), we propose the following opportunistic FD scheduling
algorithms for achieving the points in Rsup :

21

Algorithm 1 (Downlink Opportunistic FD Scheduling). Consider that downlink traffic is more
than uplink traffic: (i) if both uplink and downlink queues are not empty, use the FD mode for
bidirectional transmission; (ii) if only the uplink queue is empty, use the HD mode for downlink
transmission; (iii) no transmission is scheduled if only the downlink queue is empty. Such a
dl
scheduling algorithm achieves the rate point on the Red Dash Line between points f and (0, CHD
).

Algorithm 2 (Uplink Opportunistic FD Scheduling). Consider that uplink traffic is more than
downlink traffic: (i) if both uplink and downlink queues are not empty, use the FD mode for
bidirectional transmission; (ii) if only the downlink queue is empty, use the HD mode for uplink
transmission; (iii) no transmission is scheduled if only the uplink queue is empty. Such a scheduling
ul
algorithm achieves the rate point on the Red Dash Line between points f and (CHD
, 0).

Note that the condition of achieving the maximum of sum rate Cν,F D on the Red Dash Line is
given by
ul
ul
dCν,F
dCν,F
dCν,F D
D /dν
D
=0⇒
=
dl
dl
dν
dCν,F
/dν
dC
D
ν,F D

= −1,

(41)

ν=ν∗

where ν∗ is the optimal value (traffic pattern) of satisfying this condition. Therefore, the above
two scheduling algorithms are rate-optimal while they are performed with traffic pattern ν = ν∗ .
For any Poisson packet arrival processes with a (bit-arrival) rate pair within Rsup , the salient
feature of the scheduling algorithms proposed above is that they do not require any arrival rate
information of the downlink and uplink queues to achieve the stability of these two queues, as
stated in the following proposition.
Proposition 3. Suppose all packets in the HetNet have the same size of ` and they arrive their
own buffers according to a Poisson process. If packets arrive at a BS with rate η dl and packets
arrive at a user with rate η ul , Algorithms 1 and 2 stabilize the uplink and downlink queues as
long as the (bit-arrival) rate pair (η ul `, η dl `) is within Rsup .
Proof: See Appendix E.
Based on Proposition 3, we can ensure that Algorithms 1 and 2 are able to maximize the sum of
the downlink and uplink rates as well as stabilize the downlink and uplink queues.
C. Numerical Results
To illustrate that Scheduling Algorithms 1 and 2 indeed improve the sum rate of a user, some
of the numerical results with implementing Scheduling Algorithms 1 and 2 are shown in Fig.

22

Uplink Traffic Dominated

Downlink Traffic Dominated
2.3

2.5
Scheduling Algorithm 1 with

Scheduling Algorithm 2 with

= 0.25

=1

2.2
2

Scheduling Algorithm 2 with

2.1

2

Scheduling Algorithm 1 with

=1

= 0.75

1.5

1.9
1

1.8

1.7
0.5
1.6

1.5

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

(b)

(a)

Fig. 5. Simulation results of the sum rate of a user: (a) The case of the HetNet with dominated downlink traffic, (b) The case of
the HetNet with dominated uplink traffic

5 by using the same simulation settings and network parameters in Section III-B. In Fig. 5 (a),
we consider the circumstance that there is much more downlink traffic than uplink traffic in the
HetNet. For the pure HD case, 75% of the total transmission time is used for downlink traffic
and 25% of the total transmission time are occupied by uplink traffic and thus the sum rate is
ul
dl
. For the downlink opportunistic FD scheduling, we consider ν as the time+ 0.25CHD
0.75CHD

sharing parameter, i.e., we have ν fraction of the total transmission time used for FD transmission
and (1 − ν) fraction of the total transmission time used for HD downlink transmission so that
dl
+ νCν,F D . As can be observed in Fig. 5 (a), using Scheduling
the the sum rate is (1 − ν)CHD

Algorithm 1 with ν = 0.25 attains the highest rate among all sum rates, which indicates that
Scheduling Algorithm 1 indeed achieves the largest rate region Rsup as shown in Fig. 4 (b). The
simulation result for the circumstance that the uplink traffic largely dominates the downlink traffic
is shown in Fig. 5 (b) and we also can see the similar phenomenon that the sum rate achieved
by Scheduling Algorithm 2 is superior to the sum rates achieved by purely using HD and FD.
Finally, the simulation results in Fig. 5 reveal a key point; that is, we can optimize ν and use it
to perform Scheduling Algorithm 1 or 2 so as to achieve the maximum rate in Rsup .
V. C ONCLUSIONS
Full-duplex transmission is a promising transmission technique that could double the rate for
a P2P link. However, the rate performance of FD is very unclear in a large-scale network where

23

there are more interferences induced by FD transmission if compared with HD transmission. To
comprehensively study the link rates of the users in a large-scale cellular network, we propose a
HetNet model in which users/BSs can be HD or FD depending whether they have bidirectional
traffic at the same time. To characterize the downlink and uplink rates of a user, we propose the
DGUA scheme that helps us characterize the DROA scheme as well as the full-duplex SIR model.
dl
ul
The general tight lower bounds on Cν,F
D and Cν,F D are found and they delineate the rate regions

of a user in the HD and FD contexts. These rate regions essentially manifest that scheduling the
uplink and downlink traffic by properly using the FD and HD modes can maximize the sum rate
of a user. As a result, the opportunistic FD scheduling algorithms are proposed and they are shown
to achieve the largest rate region with queuing stability.
A PPENDIX
P ROOFS OF L EMMAS AND P ROPOSITIONS
A. Proof of Lemma 1
Since Yi is the ith nearest point in Y to the origin, we know kYi k2 is the sum of i i.i.d.
exponential RVs with probability density function (pdf) fY1 (y) = πλY e−πλY y . Then LIn (s) can
be found as "follows
LIn (s) = E exp −s

!#
X

Wn+i ξ kYn+i k


2

"
= E exp −s

i:Yi ∈Y
2

2

!#
X


Wn+i ξ kYn k2 + kYi k2

i:Yi ∈Y
2

2

because kYn+i k = kYn k + kYi k and note that kYn k and kYi k2 are independent [7], [29]. By
conditioning on kYn k2 and using the probability generation functional (PGFL) of a homogeneous
PPP [25], we can get
"
!
#
i
R∞ h
2
X

−πλ
E 1−e−sW ξ(kYn k +r) rdr
E exp −s
Wn+i ξ kYn k2 + kYi k2
kYn k2 = e Y 0
i:Yi ∈Y

and letting E ∼ exp(1) be an exponential RV with unit mean and variance yields the following




h
i


E
2
2
2
−1
≥ kYn k + r = E 1 − e−sW ξ(kYn k +r) .
P Z ≤ sW ξ(kYn k + r) = P ξ
sW
Thus, letting u , kYn k2 + r and considering n 6= 0 yield





 
Z ∞
E
−1
LIn (s) = EkYn k2 exp −πλY
P ξ
≥ u du
sW
kYn k2
"
(

 Z kYn k2 



 !)#

E
E
= EkYn k2 exp −πλY E ξ −1
−
1 − P ξ −1
≤ u du
sW
sW
0
"
(
!)#



Z kYn k2
E
−1
2
= EkYn k2 exp −πλY E ξ
− kYn k +
LW (sξ(u))du
sW
0

24


Z 1




 
E
2
2
−1
LsW (ξ(vkYn k ))dv − 1
+ kYn k
= EkYn k2 exp −πλY E ξ
sW
0
Z ∞
exp [−πλY Ξ1 (E, y, sW )] fkYn k2 (y)dy.
=
0


Whereas for n = 0, we can get LI0 (s) = exp −πλY Ξ0

E
,0
W



. Therefore, the result in (6) is

acquired by the fact that kYn k2 is a sum of n i.i.d. exponential RVs with mean 1/πλY and it is
essentially a Gamma RV with shape parameter n and rate parameter πλY .
B. Proof of Lemma 3
dl
(kXm,i k) can be written as
First of all, consider the downlink case. The SIR γm,i
 0
−1
I0 kXm,i kα
Pm Hm,i kXm,i k−α
dl
γm,i (kXm,i k) = 0
=
−1
,
I0 − Pm Hm,i kXm,i k−α
Pm Hm,i

where I00 denotes the total signal power received by the typical user and this follows that
X∗dl = arg

sup

(a)

{log (1 + γm,i [kXm,i k])} = arg

m,i:Xm,i ∈X

(
= arg

sup
m,i:Xm,i ∈X

sup

{γm,i (kXm,i k)}

m,i:Xm,i ∈X

−1 )


Pm Hm,i
I00 kXm,i kα
(b)
−1
= arg sup
,
Pm Hm,i
kXm,i kα
m,i:Xm,i ∈X

where (a) follows from the fact that log(1+x) and x give rise to the same association result and (b)
is due to the fact that random variable I00 is the same for different BSs and does not affect the user
association result and thus I00 can be removed. Hence, using Ψm,i (kXm,i k) = Pm Hm,i kXm,i k−α
can make the typical user associate with a BS that provides the maximum downlink rate to it.
ul
Now consider the uplink case. The SIR γm,i
(kXm,i k) can be expressed as
!−1
−α
α
0
Q
H̆kX
k
I
kX
k
m,i
m,i
∗
ul
γm,i
(kXm,i k) =
=
−1
.
0
−α
I∗ − QH̆kXm,i k
QH̆m,i

According to (19), the BS that provides the maximum uplink rate to the typical user is written as
(
)
0
α

I∗ kXm,i k
ul
X∗ul = arg sup log 1 + γm,i
(kXm,i k) = arg
inf
m,i:X
∈X
m,i
m,i:Xm,i ∈X
QH̆m,i
)
(
(
)
QH̆m,i
H̆m,i
(c)
= arg sup
= arg sup
,
0
α
I∗ kXm,i k
kXm,i kα
m,i:Xm,i ∈X
m,i:Xm,i ∈X
where (c) follows from that fact that Q/I∗0 is i.i.d. at different BSs and removing it does not affect
the result of user association based on the Slivnyak theorem [25] and Theorem 1 in [7]. Thus,
−α
letting Ψul
makes users associate with the uplink BS that is able to
m,i (kXm,i k) = H̆m,i kXm,i k

provide the maximum uplink rate to it. Therefore, the GUA scheme with Ψm,i (·) given in (20) is
exactly the DROA scheme in (19).

25

C. Proof of Proposition 1
Before proceeding the proof, we first need to introduce the integral identity of the Shannon
transformation in Theorem 1 in our previous work [28] as follows: For a non-negative RV Z, its
Shannon transform is defined as SZ (h) , E[log(1 + hZ)] with parameter h > 0 and it has an
integral identity given by
Z

∞

SZ (h) =
0

[1 − Lh (s)]
LZ −1 (s)ds
s

(42)

if h is a RV independent from Z and its Laplace transform exists. Using this integral identity and
dl
γ0dl defined in (15), we can rewrite Cν,F
D as
 
 X
Z ∞ 


M
m
γ0dl H∗
1
−s Hdl
dl
dl
ψ
Cν,F D = E log 1 +
=
ϑm E
1 − e m L Hm (s)ds .
dl γ dl
H∗
s
ψm
0
0
m=1

The Laplace transform of

Hm
dl γ
ψm
0

can be explicitly written and further simplified as shown in the

following:



−s(I0 + 0 Q)
L Hm (s) =E exp
dl kX dl k−α
dl γ
Pm ψm
ψm
0
∗



dl
α
X
e∗ k
skX
(a)

=E exp −
Pm

e dl
k,i∈Xe\X
m

=E






exp −

s
Pm

X
k,i∈Xe\X∗dl

dl
Pk Vk,i
Hk,i
dl
ek,i kα
ψk,i
kX


+ IUdl + 0 Q

!

dl α
e
skX∗ k dl

·
exp
−
(I
+

Q)
,
0
U
dl
ek,i k2 /kX
e dl k2 ) α2

Pm
ψk,i
(kX
∗


dl
Pk Vk,i
Hk,i

1
dl − α
em,i ∈ R2 : X
em,i = (ψm,i
where (a) follows by letting X , Xm in which Xem , {X
) Xm,i } and
em based on the conservation property in Theorem 1
set Xem is a homogeneous PPP of intensity λ
edl
edl = PM λ
e
in [7]. Thus, set Xe is also a homogeneous PPP of intensity λ
m=1 m since all Xm ’s are
e∗dl is the nearest point in set Xe to the typical user. In addition, although
independent. Note that X

dl
all Vk,i
’s are not completely independent based on the results in [6] [7], the correlations among

them are fairly weak in general.
According to Lemma 1, we can have the following result:


!− α2 


dl
2
X Pk Vk,i Hk,i kX
ek,i k
s


E exp −
= LI1
dl
e∗dl k2


Pm
ψk,i
kX
dl
e
k,i∈Xe\X
∗

e dl kα
skX
∗
Pm

where LI1 (·) is given by
LI1

e dl kα
skX
∗
Pm

!
=

M
Y
k=1

L




dl
e dl α
e dl k2 , sPk Vk Hk kX∗ k
Ξ1 Z,kX
∗

Pm ψ dl
k

ek
πλ



!
,

26

and Ξ1 (·, ·, ·) for letting ξ(x) = x−α/2 and ξ −1 (x) = x−2/α is given by
!


 "
 α2 #
dl
dl α
dl
e
H
k
sP
V
H
k
X
2
sP
V
k
k k
e dl k2
e dl k2
e dl k2 , k k k ∗
=Γ 1−
E kX
+ kX
Ξ1 Z, kX
∗
∗
∗
dl
dl
α
Pm ψk
P m ψk
Z 1 

 
 α2 #

 (b)
 "
sPk Vkdl Hk
2
sP
H
k
k
e dl 2
E exp − dl
dv − 1 ' ρdl
E
k kX∗ k Γ 1 −
α/2
α
ψ
P
v
Pm ψkdl
m
0
k



Z 1

sP
H
(c) dl
k
k
−α
dl
2
e∗ k Ξ1 E, 1,
L sPk Hk v 2 dv − 1 = ρk kX
+
,
dl
P
ψ
Pm ψ dl
m
0
k
k
dl
where (b) follows from the fact that the correlations among all Vk,i
’s are fairly weak and assuming

they are independent just slightly increases the interference from all BSs, and (c) follows from
the result in Lemma 1 for n = 1. Thus, we have
!
"

!#
M
X
e∗dl kα
sP
H
skX
k
k
dl
dl
dl
2
e ρ Ξ1 E, 1,
e∗ k
λ
= EkXe∗dl k2 exp −πkX
.
LI1
k k
Pm
Pm ψkdl
k=1
e dl k2 = y, using Lemma 1 and letting I0 = I dl yields
Moreover, for a given kX
∗
U
(
! "



 α2 #)
 α
M
X
s α dl
sQDG
sy 2
E exp − y 2 IU
= LI0
= exp −π
ρul
E
y
k λk
Pm
Pm
Pm E
k=1
(
! 
 )
M
X
sQG
= exp −πν
ρul
Ξ0 E, 0,
y .
k λk
P
m
k=1

(43)

(44)

Therefore, using (43) and (44) we can have

Z ∞
h
i
s0 Q α
dl e dl
e
2
L Hm (s) =
exp −
y − πy λ Ξm (s) + 1 fkXe∗dl k2 (y)dy,
dl γ
Pm
ψm
0
0
dl
which leads to the lower bound on Cν,F
D given in (24).

For the uplink rate, it can be rewritten as
ul
Cν,F
D



= E log(1 +

γ∗ul )



=

M
X

ϑul
mE

m=1

Z

∞

0

By following the similar derivation processes above, L

1
s



m
−s Hul
ψ
1−e m L

Hm
ul γ ul
ψm
∗

Hm
ul γ ul
ψm
∗


(s) .

(s) is tightly lower-bounded by




sI∗ kX∗ul kα
∗ Pm
ul α
L Hm (s) = E exp −
· exp −s
kX∗ k
ul
ul
ul γ ul
Qψm
Qψm
ψm
∗
 α
Z ∞
Z ∞
Pm α
∗ Pm α
sy 2
e ul
2
−s ∗Q
y2
'
L I∗
e
fkXe∗ul k2 (y)dy =
e−πyΞm (s) e−s Q y fkXe∗ul k2 (y)dy,
Q
0
0
 α


2
eul Ξ
e ul (s) . Therefore, we finally have
in which LI∗ syQ = exp −πy λ
m


ul
Cν,F
D



'

M
X
m=1

ϑul
m

Z
0

∞

1
s



∗ Pm α
eul e ul
2
1 − L Hm (s) e−s Q y −πyλ Ξm (s) fkXe∗ul k2 (y)dy,
ul
ψm

eul ). This completes the proof.
which is exactly the result in (26) by considering kX∗ul k2 ∼ exp(π λ

27

D. Proof of Proposition 2
ul
dl
As shown in Fig. 4 (b), regions RHD and RF D are enclosed by Rinf , Rul
inf ∪ Rinf where Rinf

and Rdl
inf are defined by
ul
dl
2
dl
dl
ul
ul
ul
Rul
inf , {(R , R ) ∈ R : R ≤ νC1,F D , R ≤ νC1,F D + (1 − ν)CHD },

(45)

ul
ul
dl
ul
dl
2
dl
dl
Rdl
inf , {(R , R ) ∈ R : R ≤ νC1,F D + (1 − ν)CHD , R ≤ νC1,F D }.

(46)

dl
ul
dl
Namely, Rul
inf is the quadrilateral with vertices 0, (0, CHD ), f and (C1,F D , 0) and Rinf is the
dl
dl
ul
ul
quadrilateral with vertices 0, (0, C1,F
D ), f and (CHD , 0). Note Rinf ∩Rinf = RF D that is achievable
dl
by using the FD model all the time in the HetNet. All points on Line (0, CHD
)-f can be achieved

by changing time-sharing parameter ν (i.e. doing time-sharing) between 0 and 1. Thus, all points
ul
in Rdl
inf are achievable. By similar reasoning, all points on Line f-(CHD , 0) can also be achieved by

doing time-sharing so that the entire region of Rul
inf is achievable. In addition, the four inequalities
dl
in Rul
inf and Rinf imply the following:
ul
ul
Rul − C1,F
Rul − C1,F
Rdl
Rdl
D
D
≤
(1
−
ν),
≤
ν
⇒
+
≤1
ul
ul
dl
ul
ul
dl
CHD
− C1,F
C1,F
CHD
− C1,F
C1,F
D
D
D
D
dl
dl
Rdl − C1,F
Rdl − C1,F
Rul
Rul
D
D
≤
(1
−
ν),
≤
ν
⇒
+
≤ 1.
dl
dl
ul
dl
dl
ul
CHD
− C1,F
C1,F
CHD
− C1,F
C1,F
D
D
D
D
dl
These two inequality constraints correspond to regions Rul
inf and Rinf , respectively. Accordingly,

Rinf is the achievable convex hull of RF D and RHD .
dl
dl
Next, we want to show that the region enclosed by Line 0-(0, CHD
), Red Dash Line (0, CHD
)ul
ul
(CHD
, 0) and Line 0-(CHD
, 0), denoted by Rsup , is also achievable. Note that all points below
dl
Red Dash Line (0, CHD
)-f satisfy the following constraint
ul
Rul − Cν,F
Rdl
D
+
≤ 1,
ul
ul
dl
CHD
− Cν,F
Cν,F
D
D
ul
dl
where Cν,F
D and Cν,F D contain the time-sharing variable ν. According to (24) and (26), it is easy

to show that
dl
dCν,F
D
dν

= 0 and
ν=0

dl
d2 Cν,F
D
dν 2

< 0.
ν∈(0,1]

dl
dl
This manifests that Red Dash Line (0, CHD
)-f is concave and above Line (0, CHD
)-f. Similarly, we
dl
ul
also can show that Red Dash Line (0, CHD
)-f is concave and above Line f-(0, CHD
). Therefore,

region Rsup encloses region Rinf and it is the maximum achievable rate region of a user in an
FD HetNet.

28

E. Proof of Proposition 3
Due to the limited space, here we only show the stability of Algorithm 1 since the method of
showing the stability of Algorithm 2 is similar. Consider the time right after the nth transmission
dl
ul
dl
(n)
(n)]T denote the queue length vector of the downlink queue qm
(n) qm
and let Qm (n) , [qm
ul
(n) for a tier-m BS. Note that the number of packets arriving at the tier-m
and the uplink queue qm

BS during a transmission time slot ∆t is a Poisson process with parameter η dl ∆t whereas the
number of packets arriving at the user associated with the tier-m BS during a transmission time
slot ∆t is a Poisson process with parameter η ul ∆t. Also, Qm (n) forms a non-reducible Markov
chain for all m ∈ M. Without loss of generality, we assume all packets have the same size of
` = 1 in the following analysis.
To show the stability of Qm (n), we define the following Lyapunov function:
 dl 2
 ul 2
dl
ul
dl
ul
(n)qm
(n),
Vm (n) , vm
qm (n) + vm
qm (n) + 2qm
dl
where vm
,

dl
Cν,F
D
dl
CHD −Cν,F D

ul
and vm
,

ul
Cν,F
D
ul
ul
CHD −Cν,F
D

(47)

. Then we need to consider the following three

cases:
ul
dl
(n) > 0): For this
(n) > 0 and qm
1) The downlink and uplink queues both are not empty (qm

case, the FD mode is adopted by the tier-m and its user so that both queues are scheduled to
ul
ul
ul
dl
dl
(n) −
(n + 1) = qm
(n) and qm
(n) − 1 + ∆qm
(n + 1) = qm
be transmitted. Thus, we have qm
ul
dl
ul
(n) are Poisson random variables with parameters
(n) and ∆qm
(n) where ∆qm
1 + ∆qm
ul
ul
dl
η dl /Cν,F
D and η /Cν,F D , respectively. Hence, we further have

  dl

dl
CHD
Rul
R
dl
dl
E [Vm (n + 1)|Qm (n)] =Vm (n) + 2 dl
− 1 + dl qm
v
(n)
dl
Cν,F D m CHD
CHD
  ul


ul
CHD
Rdl
R
ul
ul
− 1 + ul qm
+ 2 ul
v
(n) + C1 ,
ul
Cν,F D m CHD
CHD

(48)

dl
dl
ul
ul
where C1 is a constant consisting of Rul , Rdl , CHD
, Cν,F
D , Cν,F D and CHD .
dl
ul
2) The uplink queue is empty and the downlink queue is not empty (qm
(n) > 0 and qm
(n) = 0):

For this case, the tier-m BS just needs to use HD to transmit its packet since there is no
dl
dl
dl
ul
uplink traffic and thus we have qm
(n + 1) = qm
(n) − 1 + ∆qm
(n) and qm
(n) = 0. This

follows that
  dl


dl
CHD
R
Rul
dl
dl
E [Vm (n + 1)|Qm (n)] = Vm (n) + 2 dl
v
− 1 + dl qm
(n) + C2 ,
dl
Cν,F D m CHD
CHD
dl
dl
ul
ul
where C2 is a constant consisting of Rul , Rdl , CHD
, Cν,F
D , Cν,F D and CHD .

(49)

29

dl
ul
(n) = 0):
(n) > 0 and qm
3) The downlink queue is empty and the uplink queue is not empty (qm

For this case, we certainly have
E [Vm (n + 1)|Qm (n)] = Vm (n) + C3 ,

(50)

dl
dl
ul
ul
where C3 is a constant consisting of CHD
, Cν,F
D , Cν,F D and CHD . Note that we know

 ul

 dl
Rul
R
Rdl
R
ul
dl
−
1
+
<
0
and
v
−
1
+
<0
vm
m
dl
dl
ul
ul
CHD
CHD
CHD
CHD

because all rate pairs (Rul , Rdl ) satisfying these two inequalities are below the Red Dash
ul
dl
Line between points (CHD
, 0) and (0, CHD
) on Fig. 4 (b). Therefore, we can conclude
ul
dl
(n) are large. According to the
(n) and qm
E[Vm (n + 1)|Qm (n)] < Vm (n) − 1 whenever qm

Foster-Lyapunov criterion [30], Qm (n) is stable for all m ∈ M.
R EFERENCES
[1] C.-H. Liu and H.-M. Hu, “Throughput region and scheduling for full-duplex HetNets with decoupled user association,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun., May 2018.
[2] C.-L. I, C. Rowell, S. Han, Z. Xu, G. Li, and Z. Pan, “Toward green and soft: A 5G perspective,” IEEE Commun. Mag.,
vol. 52, pp. 66–73, Feb. 2014.
[3] D. Kim, H. Lee, and D. Hong, “A survey of in-band full-duplex transmission: From the perspective of PHY and MAC
layers,” IEEE Communication Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2017–2046, Fourth Quarter 2015.
[4] S. Goyal, P. Liu, S. S. Panwar, R. A. Difazio, R. Yang, and E. Bala, “Full duplex cellular systems: Will doubling interference
prevent doubling capacity?” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 121–127, May 2015.
[5] F. Boccardi, J. Andrews, H. Elshaer, M. Dohler, S. Parkvall, P. Popovski, and S. Singh, “Why to decouple the uplink and
downlink in cellular networks and how to do it,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 110–117, May 2016.
[6] C.-H. Liu and L.-C. Wang, “Random cell association and void probability in poisson-distributed cellular networks,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun., Jun. 2015, pp. 2816–2821.
[7] ——, “Optimal cell load and throughput in green small cell networks with generalized cell association,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1058–1072, May 2016.
[8] J.-S. Han, J.-S. Baek, S. Jeon, and J.-S. Seo, “Cooperative networks with amplify-and-forward multiple-full-duplex relays,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2137–2149, Sep. 2014.
[9] P. P. Dan Nguyen, Le-Nam Tran and M. Latva-aho, “On the spectral efficiency of full-duplex small cell wireless systems,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 4896–4910, Sep. 2014.
[10] D. G. Wilson-Nunn, A. Chaaban, A. Sezgin, and M.-S. Alouini, “Antenna selection for full-duplex MIMO two-way
communication systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1373–1376, Jun. 2017.
[11] I. T. tandrianantenaina, H. Dahrouj, H. Elsawy, and M.-S. Alouini, “Interference management in full-duplex cellular networks
with partial spectrum overlap,” IEEE Acess, vol. 5, pp. 7567–7583, Mar. 2017.
[12] P. Xing, J. Liu, C. Zhai, X. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Multipair two-way full-duplex relaying with massive array and power
allocation,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 8926–8939, Oct. 2017.
[13] T. Riihonen, S. Werner, and R. Wichman, “Hybrid full-duplex/half-duplex relaying with transmit power adaptation,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 3074–3085, Sep. 2011.

30

[14] J. Lee and T. Q. S. Quek, “Hybrid full-/half-duplex system analysis in heterogeneous wireless networks,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 2883–2895, May 2015.
[15] S. G. P. Liu and S. S. Panwar, “User selection and power allocation in full-duplex multicell networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 2408–2422, Mar. 2017.
[16] Y. Sun, D. W. K. Ng, Z. Ding, and R. Schober, “Optimal joint power and subcarrier allocation for full-duplex multicarrier
non-orthogonal multiple access systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1077–1091, Mar. 2017.
[17] S. Dang, J. P. Coon, and G. Chen, “Resource allocation for full-duplex relay-assisted device-to-device multicarrier systems,”
IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 166–169, Apr. 2017.
[18] X. Qin, H. Zeng, X. Yuan, B. Jalaian, Y. T. Hou, W. Lou, and S. F. Midkiff, “Impact of full duplex scheduling on end-to-end
throughput in multi-hop wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 158–170, Jan. 2017.
[19] Y. Li, P. Fan, A. Leukhin, and L. Liu, “On the spectral and energy efficiency of full-duplex small-cell wireless systems with
massive MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 2339–2353, Mar. 2017.
[20] S. Singh, X. Zhang, and J. G. Andrews, “Joint rate and sinr coverage analysis for decoupled uplink-downlink biased cell
associations in HetNets,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5360–5373, Oct. 2015.
[21] M. Bacha, Y. Wu, and B. Clerckx, “Downlink and uplink decoupling in two-tier heterogeneous networks with multiantenna
base stations,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2760–2775, May 2017.
[22] S. Sekander, H. Tabassum, and E. Hossain, “Decoupled uplink-downlink user association in multi-tier full-duplex cellular
networks: A two-sided matching game,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 2778–2791, Oct 2017.
[23] A. H. Sakr and E. Hossain, “On user association in multi-tier full-duplex cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65,
no. 9, pp. 4080–4095, Sep. 2017.
[24] C.-H. Liu and H.-C. Tsai, “Traffic management for heterogeneous networks with opportunistic unlicensed spectrum sharing,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 5715–5731, Sep. 2017.
[25] S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke, Stochastic Geometry and Its Applications, 3rd ed.

New York: John

Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2013.
[26] C.-H. Liu and K. L. Fong, “Fundamentals of green coverage and energy efficiency in heterogeneous cellular networks,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 3271–3287, Dec. 2016.
[27] P. Xia, C.-H. Liu, and J. G. Andrews, “Downlink coordinated multi-point with overhead modeling in heterogeneous cellular
networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 4025–4037, Jun. 2013.
[28] C.-H. Liu and H.-C. Tsai, “On the limits of coexisting coverage and capacity in multi-RAT heterogeneous networks,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 3086–3101, May 2017.
[29] M. Haenggi, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks, 1st ed.

Cambridge University Press, 2012.

[30] S. P. Meyn and R. L. Tweedie, Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability.

New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993.

