1

Impact of Correlation between Interferers on
Coverage Probability and rate in Cellular

arXiv:1707.08802v1 [cs.IT] 27 Jul 2017

Systems
Suman Kumar

Sheetal Kalyani

Dept. of Electrical Engineering
IIT Madras, Chennai 600036, India

{ee10d040,skalyani}@ee.iitm.ac.in

Abstract
When the user channel experiences Nakagami-m fading, the coverage probability expressions are
theoretically compared for the following cases: (i). The N interferers are independent η-µ random
variables (RVs). (ii). The N interferers are correlated η-µ RVs. It is analytically shown that the coverage
probability in the presence of correlated interferers is greater than or equal to the coverage probability
in the presence of independent interferers when the shape parameter of the channel between the user
and its base station (BS) is not greater than one. Further, rate is compared for the following cases: (i).
The user channel experiences η-µ RV and the N interferers are independent η-µ RVs. (ii). The N
interferers are correlated η-µ RVs. It is analytically shown that the rate in the presence of correlated
interferers is greater than or equal to the rate in the presence of independent interferers. Simulation
results are provided and these match with the obtained theoretical results. The utility of our results are
also discussed.

Index Terms
Majorization theory, Stochastic ordering, Gamma random variables, Correlation, Coverage probability, rate.

2

I. I NTRODUCTION
Typically, in practical scenarios correlation exists among the interferers, as evidenced by
experimental results reported in [1]–[6]. For example, in cellular networks when two base stations
(BSs) from adjacent sectors act as interferers, the interferers are correlated and it is mandated that
while performing system level simulation, this correlation be explicitly introduced in the system
[7]. We refer the reader to [8] for a structured synthesis of the existing literature on correlation
among large scale fading. Considering the impact of correlation in the large scale shadowing
component and the small scale multipath component is also an essential step towards modeling
the channel. The decorrelation distance in multipath components is lower when compared to
shadowing components since shadowing is related to terrain configuration and/or large obstacles
between transmitter and receiver [9]. Having said this, there is a need to analyse the performance
of cellular system in the presence of correlation among interferers.
Coverage probability1 and rate are important metric for performance evaluation of cellular
systems. Coverage probability in the presence of interferers has been derived in [10]–[15] and
references there in, and rate in the presence of interferers has been studied in [13]–[15] and
references therein for the case of η-µ fading. Moreover, the correlation among interferers is
assumed in [15]. Fractional frequency reuse and soft frequency reuse have been compared in
the presence of correlation among interferers [16]. The impact of correlation among interferers
on symbol error rate performance has been analysed in [17]. However, to the best of our
knowledge, no prior work in open literature has analytically compared the coverage probability
and rate for generalized fading when interferers are independent with the coverage probability
and rate when interferers are correlated. In this paper, we compare coverage probability and rate
using majorization theory and stochastic ordering theory, respectively. Majorization theory is an
important theory for comparison of two vectors in terms of the dispersion of their components.
It has been extensively used in various problems in information theory [18]–[23]. In particular,
using the results of majorization theory, a new analysis on Tunstall algorithm is provided in [22]
and the bounds of the average length of the Huffman source code in the presence of limited
knowledge of the source symbol probability distribution is provided in [20]. Our analysis of
1

It is a probability that a user can achieve a target Signal-to-Interference-plus-noise-Ratio (SINR) T , and outage probability

is the complement of coverage probability.

3

comparison of coverage probability shows further evidence of the relevance of majorization
theory. Stochastic ordering theory is used extensively for comparison of random variables (RVs).
Recently, it has been used in comparing various metrics in wireless communication [24]–[27].
Our analysis of comparison of rate shows another evidence of the relevance of stochastic order
theory in wireless communication.
In this work, we compare the coverage probability when user experience Nakagami-m fading
and interferers experience η-µ fading. In other words, we compare the coverage probability when
the interferers are independent with the coverage probability when the interferers are positively
correlated2 using majorization theory. It is analytically shown that the coverage probability in
presence of correlated interferers is higher than the coverage probability when the interferers
are independent, when the user channel’s shape parameter is lesser than or equal to one. We
also show that when the user channel’s shape parameter is greater than one, one cannot say
whether coverage probability is higher or lower for the correlated case when compared to the
independent case, and in some cases coverage probability is higher while in other cases it is
lower.
We then analytically compare the rate when the interferers are independent with the rate when
the interferers are correlated using stochastic ordering theory. It is shown that the rate in the
presence of positively correlated interferers is higher than the rate in the presence of independent
interferers when both user channel and interferers experience η-µ fading. Our results show that
correlation among interferers is beneficial for the desired user. We briefly discuss how the desired
user can exploit this correlation among the interferers to improve its rate. Multi-user multiple
input multiple output (MU-MIMO) system is also considered and it is shown that the impact of
correlation is significant on MU-MIMO system. We have also carried out extensive simulations
for both the independent interferers case and the correlated interferers case and some of these
results are reported in the Simulation section. In all the cases, the simulation results match with
our theoretical results.
2

If cov(Xi , Xj ) ≥ 0 then Xi and Xj are positively correlated RVs, where cov(Xi , Xj ) denotes the covariance between Xi

and Xj [28].

4

II. S YSTEM

MODEL

We consider a homogeneous macrocell network with hexagonal structure with radius R as
shown in Fig. 1. The Signal-to-Interference-Ratio (SIR) of a user located at r meters from the
BS is given by

gr −α
S
P gr −α
P
=
SIR = η(r) = P
−α
−α =
I
P hi di
hi di
i∈ψ

(1)

i∈ψ

where ψ denotes the set of interfering BSs and N = |φ| denotes the cardinality of the set φ. The
transmit power of a BS is denoted by P . A standard path loss model r −α is considered, where

α ≥ 2 is the path loss exponent. The distance between user to tagged BS (own BS) and the ith
interfering BS is denoted by r and di , respectively. The user channel’s power and the channel
power between ith interfering BS and user are η-µ power RVs. The probability density function
(pdf) fgη−µ (x) of the η-µ power RV g is given by [32, Eq. (26)],
√
1
1
2 πµµ+ 2 hµ xµ− 2 −2µhx
e
Iµ− 1 (2µHx)
fgη,µ (x) =
1
2
Γ(µ)H µ− 2

(2)

where µ is shape parameter. Parameters H and h are given by
H=

2 + η −1 + η
η −1 − η
, and h =
.
4
4

(3)

where 0 < η < ∞ is the power ratio of the in-phase and quadrature component of the fading
signal in each multipath cluster. The parameters of pdf of hi are ηi and µi corresponding to η-µ
power RV. The gamma RV is a special case of η-µ power RV with η = 1 and µ =

m
2

and the

pdf fg (x) of the gamma RV g is given by
fg (x) = mm e−mx
where m and

1
m

xm−1
Γ(m)

(4)

are the shape parameter and scale parameter, respectively, and Γ(.) denotes the

gamma function. When one assumes that there is correlation among interferers then hi and hj
are correlated ∀ i and j.
The coverage probability expression when signal of interest (SoI) experience Nakagami-m
fading and interferers experience independent η-µ fading with equal µ, i.e., µi = µc ∀i is given
by [15]
2N

Γ(2Nµc + m) 1 Y
Cp,η (r) =
Γ (2Nµc + 1) Γ(m) i=1



1
T r αmλi + 1

µc

×

5

9
10
11

8
2

12

7
2R 1

3
0
4
13

18
6

5
14

17
16

15

Fig. 1: Macrocell network with hexagonal tessellation having inter cell site distance 2R

(2N )
FD



1
1
,··· , α
1 − m, µc , · · · , µc ; 2Nµc + 1; α
T r λ1 m + 1
T r λ2N m + 1
where λ2i−1

d−α
d−α
i
i
=
.
−1 and λ2i =
µc (1 + ηi )
µc (1 + ηi )



(5)
(6)

(N )

Here FD [a, b1 , · · · , bN ; c; x1 , · · · , xN ] is the Lauricella’s function of the fourth kind [33].
The coverage probability expression when SoI experience Nakagami-m fading and interferers
experience correlated η-µ fading with equal µ, i.e., µi = µc ∀i is given by [15]
µc
2N 
Γ(2Nµc + m) 1 Y
1
Ĉp,η (r) =
×
Γ (2Nµc + 1) Γ(m) i=1 T r αmλ̂i + 1


1
1
(2N )
,··· ,
1 − m, µc , · · · , µc ; 2Nµc + 1;
FD
T r α λ̂1 m + 1
T r α λ̂2N m + 1

(7)

Here λ̂i s are the eigenvalues of Aη = Dη Cη . Dη is the diagonal matrix with entries λi given in
(6) and Cη is the s.p.d. 2N × 2N matrix as given by

√
1
0
ρ13

 0
1
0

Cη = 
 ···
···
···

√
ρ2N 2 · · ·
0

0

...
...
..
.
···

here ρij = 0, when i + j = 2n + 1, where n is an integer.

√




ρ22N 

,
··· 

1

(8)

Now, we want to compare (5) with (7). However both involve N- fold infinite series making
any comparison fairly difficult. In order to elegantly compare these two expressions we make
use of Majorization theory.

6

III. P RELIMINARIES : M AJORIZATION

AND

S TOCHASTIC O RDERING T HEORY

In this section, we recall the basic notions of majorization and stochastic ordering theory, which
are applicable to our context. Note that the majorization theory is used to compare deterministic
vectors, whereas stochastic order is applicable on RVs [24]. We refer the reader to [29] and [30]
as excellent references for the majorization theory and stochastic order theory, respectively.
A. Majorization theory
Definition 1. Let A and B be m × n matrices with entries in C. The Hadamard product of
A and B is defined by [A ◦ B]ij = [A]ij [B]ij for all 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Definition 2. Let vector a = [a1 , · · · an ] and vector b = [b1 , · · · bn ] with a1 ≤, · · · , ≤ an and
b1 ≤, · · · , ≤ bn then vector b is majorized by vector a, denoted by a ≻ b, if and only if
k
X
i=1

bi ≥

k
X
i=1

ai , k = 1, · · · , n − 1, and

n
X
i=1

bi =

n
X

ai .

(9)

i=1

We will briefly state few well known results from majorization theory which we use in our
analysis.
Theorem 1. Let A and B be positive semidefinite matrices of size n. Let λ1 , · · · , λn be the
eigenvalues of A ◦ B and let λ̂1 , · · · , λ̂n be the eigenvalues of AB. Then
n
n
Y
Y
λ̂i , k = 1, 2, · · · , n
λi ≥
i=k

(10)

i=k

Proposition 1. If function φ is symmetric and convex, then φ is Schur-convex function. Consequently, x ≻ y implies φ(x) ≥ φ(y).
Proof: For the details of this proof please refer to [29, P. 97, C.2.].
Theorem 2. If φi is Schur-convex, i = 1, · · · k, and φi (x) ≥ 0 for all i and x, then
ψ(x) =

k
Y

φi (x)

i=1

is Schur-convex.

Proof: For the details of this proof please refer to [29, P. 97, B.1.d.].

(11)

7

B. Stochastic order theory
In this subsection, our focus will be on convex order.
Definition 3. If X and Y are two RVs such that
E[φ(X)] ≤ E[φ(Y )]

(12)

for all convex function φ : R → R, provided the expectation exist, then X is said to be smaller
than Y in the convex order, denoted by X ≤cx Y .
Note that if (12) holds then Y is more variable than X [30]. We now briefly state the theorems
in convex order theory that is relevant to this work.
Theorem 3. Let X1 , X2 , · · · , XN be exchangeable RVs. Let a = (a1 , a2 , · · · , aN ) and b =
(b1 , b2 , · · · , bN ) be two vectors of constants. If a ≺ b, then
N
X
i=1

ai Xi ≤cx

N
X

bi Xi .

(13)

i=1

Proof: The details of the proof is given in [30, Theorem 3.A.35].
Theorem 4. If X ≤cx Y and f (.) is convex, then E[f (X)] ≤ E[f (Y )].
Proof: The details of the proof is given in [31, Theorem 7.6.2].
IV. C OMPARISON

OF

C OVERAGE P ROBABILITY

In this section, we first compare the coverage probability in the independent case and correlated
case, and analytically quantify the impact of correlation when both SoI and interferers experience
Nakagami-m fading. Then we analyse the impact of correlation on coverage probability for
the scenario where SoI experiences Nakagami-m fading and interferers experience η-µ fading.
The coverage probability expression when SoI experiences Nakagami-m fading and interferers
experience independent Nakagami-m fading is given by [15]
N
P
mi
Γ( mi + m)
N 
1
1 Y
i=1

×
Cp (r) =  N
P
Γ(m) i=1 T r α mλi + 1
Γ
mi + 1
i=1

8

(N )
FD

"

1 − m, m1 , · · · , mN ;

N
X
i=1

1
1
,··· , α
mi + 1; α
T r mλ1 + 1
T r mλN + 1

#

where λi =

d−α
i
mi
(14)

Here mi is the shape parameter of the ith interferer. Note that the coverage probability expression
for the correlated case is derived in [15] when the interferers shape parameter are all equal, i.e.,
mi = mc ∀i. The coverage probability expression when SoI experiences Nakagami-m fading and
interferers experience correlated Nakagami-m fading is given by [15]
mc
N 
Γ(Nmc + m) 1 Y
1
Ĉp (r) =
×
Γ (Nmc + 1) Γ(m) i=1 T r α mλ̂i + 1


1
1
(N )
,··· ,
FD 1 − m, mc , · · · , mc ; Nmc + 1;
T r α mλ̂1 + 1
T r α mλ̂N + 1

(15)

here λ̂i s are the eigenvalues of the matrix A = DC, where D is the diagonal matrix with entries
(s.p.d.) N × N matrix defined by

√
√
ρ12 ...
ρ1N

√
1
...
ρ2N 

,
..
.
··· 
···

··· ···
1

(16)

cov(hi , hj )
, 0 ≤ ρij ≤ 1, i, j = 1, 2, · · · , N.
var(hi )var(hj )

(17)

λi and C is the symmetric positive definite

1
 √
 ρ
21

C=
 ···

√
ρN 1

where ρij denotes the correlation coefficient between hi and hj , and is given by,
ρij = ρji = p

cov(hi , hj ) denotes the covariance between hi and hj . C is the s.p.d. N × N matrix given in
(16). Since A = DC, it is given by




A=



√
√
λ1
λ1 ρ12 · · · λ1 ρ1N
√
√
λ2
· · · λ2 ρ2N
λ2 ρ21
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
√
λN ρN 1
···
···
λN






.



(18)

Note that the coverage probability expression for the correlated case is derived when the
interferers shape parameter are all equal and hence for a fair comparison we consider equal shape
parameter for the independent case also, i.e., mi = mc ∀i. Therefore, the coverage probability
when interferers are independent and mi = mc ∀i is given by
mc
N 
1
Γ(Nmc + m) 1 Y
×
Cp (r) =
Γ (Nmc + 1) Γ(m) i=1 T r α mλi + 1

9

(N )
FD


1 − m, mc , · · · , mc ; Nmc + 1;

1
1
,··· , α
α
T r λ1 m + 1
T r λN m + 1



(19)

Our goal is to compare the coverage probability in the presence of independent interferers, i.e.,
Cp (r) given in (19) and the coverage probability in the presence of correlated interferers, i.e.,
Ĉp (r) given in (15). We first start with the special case when user channel’s fading is Rayleigh
fading (i.e, m = 1) and interferers experience Nakagami-m fading. When m = 1, the coverage
probability given in (19) reduces to
mc


N 
Y
1
1
1
(N )
FD 0, mc , · · · , mc ; Nmc + 1; α
Cp (r) =
,··· , α
T r α λi + 1
T r λ1 + 1
T r λN + 1
i=1
(20)
(N )

A series expression for FD (.) involving N-fold infinite sums is given by
(N )
FD [a, b1 , · · ·

∞
X
xiNN
(a)i1 +···+iN (b1 )i1 · · · (bN )iN xi11
···
,
, bN ; c; x1 , · · · , xN ] =
(c)i1 +···+iN
i1 !
iN !
i ···i =0
1

(21)

N

max{|x1 |, · · · |xN |} < 1,
where, (a)n denotes the Pochhammer symbol which is defined as (a)n =

Γ(a+n)
.
Γ(a)

With the help of

series expression and using the fact that (0)0 = 1 and (0)k = 0 ∀ k ≥ 1, the coverage probability
given in (20) can be reduced to
Cp (r) =

N 
Y

1
α
T r λi + 1

N 
Y

1

i=1

mc

(22)

Similarly, the coverage probability in correlated case when SoI experiences Rayleigh fading
Ĉp (r) is given by
Ĉp (r) =

i=1

T r α λ̂i + 1

mc

(23)

We now state and prove the following theorem for the case where the SoI experiences Rayleigh
fading and interferers experience Nakagami-m fading and then generalize it to the case where
user also experiences Nakagami-m fading.
Theorem 5. The coverage probability in correlated case is higher than that of the independent
case, when user’s channel undergoes Rayleigh fading, i.e.,
mc
mc Y
N 
N 
Y
1
1
≥
1 + kλi
1
+
k
λ̂
i
i=1
i=1

(24)

10

where λ̂i s are the eigenvalues of matrix A and λi s are the diagonal elements of matrix A given
in (18), and k = T r α is a non negative constant.
Proof: Firstly, we show that λ̂ ≻ λ where λ̂ = [λ̂1 , · · · , λ̂n ] and λ = [λ1 , · · · , λn ]. Note

that the Hadamard product of D and C, i.e., D ◦ C is defined as3


λ1 0 · · · 0


 0 λ ··· 0 
2


D◦C= .
.
.
.
.
 ..
..
..
.. 


0 · · · · · · λN

(25)

Observe that D ◦ C is a diagonal matrix, the eigenvalues of the D ◦ C are λi s. Since the
eigenvalues of matrix A = DC are λ̂i s and D and C are the positive semi-definite matrices,
hence from Theorem 1 (given in Section II),
N
Y
i=k

λi ≥

N
Y
i=k

λ̂i , k = 1, 2, · · · , N

(26)

Note that λ̂i s are the eigenvalues and λi s are the diagonal elements of a symmetric matrix
A = DC, Hence
N
X

λi =

i=1

N
X

λ̂i

(27)

i=1

If conditions given
in (26) and (27)are satisfied then λ̂ ≻ λ [29] . Now if it can be shown that
mc 
mc
N 
N 
Q
Q
1
1
and
is a Schur-convex function then by a simple application
1+kλi
1+k λ̂i
i=1
i=1
mc
mc
N 
N 
Q
Q
1
1
≥
. To prove
of Proposition 1 (given in Section II) it is evident that
1+kλi
1+k λ̂i
i=1
i=1
mc
N 
Q
1
that
is a Schur convex function we need to show that it is a symmetric and convex
1+kxi
i=1

function [29].

It is apparent that the function

N 
Q

i=1

1
1+kxi

mc

is a symmetric function due to the fact that any

two of its arguments can be interchanged without changing the value of the function. So we
a
N 
Q
1
now need to show that the function f (x1 , · · · , xn ) =
is a convex function where
1+kxi
i=1
a
1
is
xi ≥ 0, a > 0. Using the Theorem 2, it is apparent that if the function f (x) = 1+kx
a
N 
Q
1
convex function then f (x1 , · · · , xn ) =
would be convex function. Note that f (x) =
1+kxi
i=1

3

Definition of Hadamard product is given in Definition 1

11

a
1
1+kx

is convex function when x ≥ 0 and a > 0 due to the fact that double differentiation
a
a+2
1
1
is always non negative, i.e., f ′′ (x) = a(a + 1)k 2 kx+1
≥ 0. Thus,
of f (x) = 1+kx


N
a
Q
1
f (x1 , · · · , xn ) =
is a convex function.
1+kxi
i=1
mc
N 
Q
1
is a convex function and a symmetric function therefore, it is a SchurSince
1+kxi
i=1
mc
N 
Q
1
convex function. We have shown that λ̂ ≻ λ and
is a Schur-convex function.
1+kxi
i=1
mc
mc
N 
N 
Q
Q
1
1
Therefore, from Proposition 1,
≥
.
1+kλi
1+k λ̂
i=1

i

i=1

Thus, the coverage probability in the presence of correlation among the interferers is greater

than or equal to the coverage probability in the independent case, when user channel undergoes
Rayleigh fading and the interferers shape parameter mi = mc ∀i. The same result was shown for
the case of both Rayleigh user channel and Rayleigh interferers in [16] using Vieta formula. By
exploiting the mathematical tool of Majorization we are able to provide a much simpler proof.
Next, we compare the coverage probability for general case, i.e., when m is arbitrary.
Theorem 6. The coverage probability in the presence of the correlated interferers is greater than
or equal to the coverage probability in presence of independent interferers, when user channel’s
shape parameter is less than or equal to 1, i.e., m ≤ 1. When m > 1, coverage probability in
the presence of independent is not always lesser than the coverage probability in the presence
of correlated interferers.
Proof: Please see Appendix.
Summarizing, the coverage probability in the presence of correlated interferers is greater than
or equal to the coverage probability in presence of independent interferers, when user channel’s
shape parameter is less than or equal to 1, i.e., m ≤ 1. When m > 1, one can not say whether
coverage probability is better in correlated interferer case or independent interferer case. Note
that when m ≤ 1, usually the interferers mi is also smaller than 1. However, the given proof
holds for both mi > 1 and mi < 1.
A. η-µ fading
In this subsection, we analyse the impact of correlation on coverage probability for the scenario
where SoI experiences Nakagami-m fading and interferers experience η-µ fading. Recently, the

12

η-µ fading distribution with two shape parameters η and µ has been proposed to model a
general non-line-of-sight propagation scenario [32]. It includes Nakagami-q (Hoyt), one sided
Gaussian, Rayleigh and Nakagami-m as special cases. The coverage probability expression when
SoI experience Nakagami-m fading and interferers experience independent η-µ fading with equal
µ, i.e., µi = µc ∀i is given in (5). The coverage probability expression when SoI experience
Nakagami-m fading and interferers experience correlated η-µ fading with equal µ, i.e., µi = µc ∀i
is given in (7). Note that the functional form of the coverage probability expressions given
in (5) and (7) are similar to the case when both SoI and interferers experience Nakagami-m
fading. Hence, the same analysis holds and the coverage probability in the presence of correlated
interferers is higher than the coverage probability in the presence of independent interferers when
the user’s channel shape parameter is less than or equal to 1, and interfering channel experience
η-µ fading. However, one can not conclude anything when the user’s channel shape parameter
is higher than 1.
V. C OMPARISON

OF RATE

In this section, we analyse the impact of correlation on the rate for the scenario when both
SoI and interferers experience η-µ fading with arbitrary parameters. In other words, we compare
the rate when interferers are independent with the rate when the interferers are correlated using
stochastic ordering theory.
The rate of a user at a distance r when interferers are independent is R = E[ln(1 + SI )], where
S is the desired user channel power. For correlated case, the average rate of a user at a distance
r is R̂ = E[ln(1 + S )]. Here I and Iˆ are the sum of independent and correlated interferers,
Iˆ

respectively. Using iterated expectation one can rewrite the rate as




  
  
S
S
S=s .
S = s , and R̂ = ES EIˆ ln 1 +
R = ES EI ln 1 +
I
Iˆ
Since the expectation operator preserves inequalities, therefore if we can show that
 



 

S
S
EIˆ ln 1 +
S = s ≥ EI ln 1 +
S=s ,
I
Iˆ

(28)

then this implies R̂ ≥ R.
The sum of interference power in the independent case can be written as
I=

N
X
i=1

hi d−α
i

(29)

13

where hi is η-µ power RV. It has been shown in [34] that the η-µ power RV can be represented
as the sum of two gamma RVs with suitable parameters. In other words, if hi is η-µ power RV
then,

hi = xi + yi where xi ∼ G µc ,

1
2µc (1 + ηi−1 )





1
and yi ∼ G µc ,
2µc (1 + ηi )



(30)

Now, the sum of interference power when interference experience η-µ RV can be written as
I=

N
X

hi d−α
i

i=1

=

2N
X
i=1

λi Gi with Gi ∼ G(µc , 1), λ2i−1 =

d−α
d−α
i
i
and
λ
=
.
2i
µc (1 + ηi )
µc (1 + ηi−1 )
(31)

Similarly, for correlated case,
Iˆ =

N
X
i=1

ĥi =

2N
X

λ̂i Gi

(32)

i=1

Recall that these ĥi are correlated, and λ̂i s are the eigenvalues of the matrix Aη = D η C η . In
other words one can obtain a correlated sum of gamma variates by multiplying independent and
identical distributed (i.i.d.) gamma variates with weight λ̂i s. Now, we use Theorem 3 (given in
Section III) to show that R̂ is always greater than equal to R. Note that a sequence of RVs
D

X1 , · · · XN is said to be exchangeable if for all N and π ∈ S(N) it holds that X1 · · · XN =
D

Xπ(1) · · · Xπ(N ) where S(N) is the group of permutations of {1, · · · N} and = denotes equality
in distribution [35]. Furthermore, if Xi s are identically distributed, they are exchangeable [30,
P. 129]. Hence Gi s are exchangeable since they are identically distributed. It has already been
shown that λ̂ ≻ λ in Section IV. Hence by a direct application of Theorem 3 (given in Section
ˆ
III), one obtains, I ≤cx I.

Note that ln(1 + xk ) is a convex function when k ≥ 0 and x ≥ 0 due to the fact that double
k +1
∂ ln( x
)
∂
k
∂x
differentiation of ln(1 + x ) is always non negative, i.e.,
= xk(k+2x)
2 (k+x)2 ≥ 0. Note that S
∂x
and I are non negative RVs, hence by a direct application of Theorem 4 (given in Section III),
one obtains



 

 
S
S
S = s ≥ EI ln 1 +
S=s
EIˆ ln 1 +
I
Iˆ

(33)

Since expectation preserve inequalities therefore, ES [EI [ln(1 + SI )]] ≤ ES [EIˆ[ln(1 + SIˆ )]]. In
other words, positive correlation among the interferers increases the rate.
Summarizing, the rate in the presence of the positive correlated interferers is greater than
or equal to the rate in the presence of independent interferers, when SoI and interferers both

14

experience η-µ fading. Now we briefly discuss the utility of our results in the presence of log
normal shadowing.
A. Log Normal Shadowing
Although all the analysis so far (comparison of the coverage probability and rate) considered
only small scale fading and path loss, the analysis can be further extended to take into account
shadowing effects. In general, the large scale fading, i.e, log normal shadowing is modeled by
zero-mean log-normal distribution which is given by,


ln2 (x)
1
exp − σdB 2 , x > 0,
fX (x) = p
σdB 2
2( 8.686 )
x 2π( 8.686
)

where σdB is the shadow standard deviation represented in dB. Typically the value of σdB varies
from 3 dB to 10 dB [7], [36]. It is shown in [37] that the pdf of the composite fading channel
(fading and shadowing) can be expressed using the generalized-K (Gamma-Gamma) model. Also
in [38], it has been shown that the generalized-K pdf can be well approximated by Gamma pdf
G(β, γ) using the moment matching method, with β and γ are given by
β=

m
1
=
σdB 2
σdB 2
(m + 1) exp(( 8.686
) )−m
+ 1) exp(( 8.686 ) ) − 1
 σdB 2 
 σdB 2 
)
(
3( 8.686 )
1+m
− exp 8.686
and γ =
exp
m
2
2

(34)

( m1

(35)

Thus, SIR ηl of a user can now given by
P kr −α
P
ηl (r) =
P li d−α
i

(36)

i∈φ

where k ∼ G(β, γ) and li ∼ G(βi , γi ). Here

mi
(1 + mi )
βi =
and γi =
exp
σdB 2
(mi + 1) exp(( 8.686 ) ) − mi
mi



σdB 2
)
3( 8.686
2



− exp



σdB 2
)
( 8.686
2



(37)

Further, the correlation coefficient between two identically distributed generalized-K RVs is
derived in [39, Lemma 1], and it is in terms of correlation coefficient of the RVs corresponding
to the short term fading component (ρi,j ) and the correlation coefficient of the RVs corresponding
to the shadowing component(ρsi,j ). The resultant correlation coefficient (ρli,j ) is then given by
ρ

ρli,j

i,j
+ ρsi,j mi + ρi,j ρsi,j
σdB 2
) )−1)
(exp( 8.686
=
mi + exp( σdB1 )2 )−1 + 1
)
( 8.686

(38)

15

Note that after approximation, the SIR expression in the presence of log normal shadowing is
similar to the SIR expression given in (1), where only small scale fading is present. Hence now
the coverage probability and rate for the independent case and correlated case can be compared
using the methods outlined in Section IV and Section V. In other words, it can be shown that
the coverage probability in the presence of correlated interferers is greater than or equal to the
coverage probability in presence of independent interferers, when user’s shape parameter is less
than or equal to 1, i.e., β ≤ 1, in the presence of shadow fading. Also, the rate in the presence
of positive correlated interferers is always greater than or equal to the rate in the presence of
independent interferers, in the presence of shadow fading.
B. Physical interpretation of the impact of correlated Interferers
We know that the Nakagami-m distribution considers a signal composed of n number of
clusters of multipath waves. Within each cluster, the phases of scattered waves are random and
have similar delay times. The delay-time spreads of different clusters are relatively large. More
importantly, the non-integer Nakagami parameter m is the real extension of integer n. One of
the primary reason of parameter m being real extension of n is the non zero correlation among
the clusters of multipath components [32]. In other words, if there exist correlation among the
clusters, the shape parameter of Nakagami-m fading decreases.
Now, in order to find the physical interpretation of the impact of correlated interferers, we
consider a cellular system where the interferes are equidistant and also the shape parameters are
identical for every interference. When all the interferers are independent, the shape parameter
of the total interference to be mN where the shape parameter of each interfere is m and the
total number of interference is N (since the sum of Gamma RV is Gamma RV). However, when
there exists correlation among the interferers, i.e., there exists correlation among the clusters of
different interferers, the shape parameter of the total interference decreases as observed in [32].
For example, if the interferers are completely correlated, the shape parameter of total interference
is only m, whereas it was mN, when the interferers were independent. The smaller the shape
parameter more faster is the power attenuation of interferers. Hence, the rate increases when
there exists correlation among interferers.
In the next section, we will show simulation results and discuss how those match with the
theoretical results.

16

VI. N UMERICAL A NALYSIS

AND

A PPLICATION

In this section, we study the impact of correlation among interferers on the coverage probability
and rate using simulations and numerical analysis. For simulations, we have considered the classic
19 cell system associated with a hexagonal structure as shown in Fig. 1. For a user we generate
the channel fading power corresponding to its own channel as well as that corresponding to
the 18 interferers and then compute the SIR per user. For correlation scenario, we generate
correlated channel fading power corresponding to the 18 interferers and then compute SIR per
user. Furthermore, based on the SIR, we find coverage probability and rate. Fig. 2 depicts the
impact of correlation among the interferers on the coverage probability for different values of
shape parameter. Note that only small scale fading is considered in Fig. 2. The correlation
among the interferers is defined by the correlation matrix in (16) with ρpq = ρ|p−q| where
p, q = 1, · · · , N [40]. From Fig. 2, it can be observed that for m = 0.5 and m = 1, coverage
probability in presence of correlation is higher than that of independent scenario (which match
our analytical result). For example, at m = 0.5, coverage probability increases from 0.16 in the
independent case to 0.20 in the correlated case and at m = 1, coverage probability increases
from 0.148 to 0.216 when user is at normalized distance 0.7 from the BS. Whereas m = 3, one
cannot say that coverage probability in presence of correlation is higher or lower than that of
independent scenario. In other words, the coverage probability of independent interferers is higher
than the coverage probability of correlated interferers when user is close to the BS. However, the
coverage probability of independent interferers is significantly lower than the coverage probability
of correlated interferers when the user is far from the BS.
Fig. 3 shows the impact of correlation among the interferers on the coverage probability for
different values of correlation coefficient. Here both small scale fading, i.e., η-µ fading and
large scale fading, i.e., log normal shadowing are considered. The correlation among small scale
fading is denoted by ρs and the correlation among the large scale fading is denoted by ρl . It can
be seen that as correlation coefficient increases the coverage probability with increases for the
correlated interferers case.
A. How the User can Exploit Correlation among Interferers
We will now briefly discuss how the user in a cellular network can exploit knowledge of
positive correlation among its interferers. We compare the coverage probability in the presence of

17

1

ρs = 0.81, m = 3
ρs = 0, m = 3
ρ = 0.81, m = 1
ρs = 0, m = 1
ρs = 0.81, m = 0.5
ρs = 0, m = 0.5

0.9

Coverage Probability

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized distance from the BS

Fig. 2: Coverage probability plot for different value of user’s shape parameter, i.e., m. Here
mc = 1, α = 2.5, T = 3dB

correlated interferers for single input single output (SISO) network with the coverage probability
in the presence of independent interferers for single input multiple output (SIMO) network to
show that the impact of correlation is significant. For the SIMO network, it is assumed that
each user is equipped with 2 antennas and both antennas at the user are used for reception
since downlink is considered. A linear minimum mean-square-error (LMMSE) receiver [41] is
considered. In order to calculate rate with a LMMSE receiver, it is assumed that the closest
interferer can be completely cancelled at the SIMO receiver. Fig. 4 plots the SISO rate in the
presence of independent and correlated interferers case and the rate in the presence of independent
interferers for a SIMO network. It can be seen that for ρs = 0.6, ρl = 0.6, the SISO rate for
the correlated case4 is slightly higher than the SIMO rate for independent case. However, for
ρs = 0.7, ρl = 0.9, SISO rate with correlated interferers is significantly higher than the SIMO
rate with independent interferers. In other words, correlation among the interferers seems to be
4

The correlation among the interferers is defined by the correlation matrix in (16) with ρpq = ρ|p−q| where p, q = 1, · · · , N

18

1
ρs
ρs
ρs
ρs

0.9

Coverage Probability

0.8

= 0.8, ρl = 0.95
= 0.7, ρl = 0.9
= 0.6, ρl = 0.6
= 0, ρl = 0

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized distance from the BS

Fig. 3: Coverage probability plot for different value of correlation coefficients. Here m =
1, σdB = 10dB, µc = 1, ηi = 2, α = 2.5, T = 3dB

as good as having one additional antenna at the receiver capable of cancelling the dominant
interferer. Obviously, if one had correlated interferers in the SIMO system that would again lead
to improved coverage probability and rate and may be compared to a SIMO system with higher
number of antennas. In all three cases, it is apparent that if the correlation among the interferers
is exploited, it leads to performance results for a SISO system which are comparable to the
performance of a 1 × 2 SIMO system with independent interferers.
We have now consider a MU-MIMO system and show that the impact of correlation on MUMIMO is significant. It is assumed that each user and BS are equipped with 2 receive antennas
and 2 transmit antennas, respectively. It is also assume that both transmit antennas at the BS
are utilized to transmit 2 independent data streams to its own 2 users. A LMMSE receiver is
considered and assume that user can cancel the closest interferer. Hence, in this MU-MIMO
system, the user will experience no intra-tier interference coming from the serving BS. Fig. 5
plots the MU-MIMO rate in the presence of independent and correlated interferers case. It can be
seen that there is significant gain in rate for correlated case. For example, at normalized distance

19

7

ρs
ρs
ρs
ρs

6

= 0.7, ρl = 0.9
= 0.6, ρl = 0.6
= 0, ρl = 0, SIMO
= 0, ρl = 0, SISO

Rate (nats/Hz)

5
4
3
2
1
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized distance from the BS

Fig. 4: rate plot for different value of correlation coefficients. Here m = 1, σdB = 10dB, mi =
1, α = 2.5

0.6 from the BS, rate increases from 1.24 nats/Hz in the independent case to 2.55 nats/Hz in
the correlated case when ρs = 0.8 and ρl = 0.95 and 1.985 nats/Hz in the correlated case when
ρs = 0.6 and ρl = 0.6. The reason for significant gain in rate is due to the fact that interferers
becomes double for 2 × 2 MU-MIMO system.
We would also likely to briefly point out that the impact of correlation among the interferers
is like that of introducing interference alignment in a system. Interference alignment actually
aligns interference using appropriate precoding so as reduce the number of interferers one needs
to cancel. Here the physical nature of the wireless channel and the presence of co-located
interferers also “aligns” the interferer partially. This is the reason one can get a gain equivalent
to 1 × 2 system in a 1 × 1 system with correlated interferers provided the user knows about the
correlation.
Summarizing, our work is able to analytically shows the impact of correlated interferers on
coverage probability and rate. This can be used by the network and user to decide whether

20

ρs
ρs
ρs
ρs

12

Rate (nats/Hz)

10

= 0.8, ρl = 0.95
= 0.7, ρl = 0.9
= 0.6, ρl = 0.6
= 0, ρl = 0

8

6

4

2

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Normalized distance from the BS

Fig. 5: rate of MU-MIMO for different value of correlation coefficients. Here m = 1, σdB =
10dB, mi = 1, α = 2.5

one wants to use the antennas at the receiver for diversity gain or interference cancellation
depending on the information available about interferers correlation. Note that interferers from
adjacent sector of a BS will definitely be correlated [1]–[6]. We believe that this correlation
should be exploited, since the analysis shows that knowledge of correlation will lead to higher
coverage probability and rate.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
In this work, the coverage probability have been compared analytically for following two
cases: (a) User channel experiences Nakagami-m fading and interferers experience η-µ fading.
(b) Interferers being correlated where the correlation is specified by a correlation matrix. We
have shown that the coverage probability in correlated interferer case is higher than that of the
independent case, when the user channel’s shape parameter is lesser than or equal to one, and the
interferers have Nakagami-m fading with arbitrary parameters. Further, rate have been compared
when both user channel and interferers experience η-µ fading. It has been shown that positive

21

correlation among the interferers always increases the rate. We have also taken into account
the large scale fading component in our analysis. The impact of correlation seems even more
pronounced in the presence of shadow fading. Moreover, MU-MIMO system is considered and
it has been shown that the impact of correlation among interferers is significant on MU-MIMO.
Our results indicate that if the user is aware of the interferers correlation matrix then it can
exploit it since the correlated interferers behave like partially aligned interferers. This means
that if the user is aware of the correlation then one may be able to obtain a rate equivalent
to a 1 × 2 system in a 1 × 1 system depending on the correlation matrix structure. Extensive
simulations were performed and these match with the theoretical results.
A PPENDIX
P ROOF

OF

T HEOREM 6

The coverage probability expressions for the scenario when interferers are independent and the
scenario when interferers are correlated are given as follows (given in (19) and (15), respectively).


1
1
(N )
(39)
,··· , α
Cp (r) = KFD 1 − m, mc , · · · , mc ; Nmc + 1; α
T r λ1 m + 1
T r λN m + 1


1
1
(N )
,··· ,
(40)
Ĉp (r) = K̂FD 1 − m, mc , · · · , mc ; Nmc + 1;
T r α mλ̂1 + 1
T r αmλ̂N + 1
mc
mc
N 
N 
Q
Q
mc +m) 1
Γ(N mc +m) 1
1
1
where K = Γ(N
and
K̂
=
. From
Γ(N mc +1) Γ(m)
T r α mλi +1
Γ(N mc +1) Γ(m)
T r α mλ̂ +1
i=1

i

i=1

Theorem 5 it is clear that K̂ > K . Now, we need to compare the Lauricella’s function of the

fourth kind of (39) and (40). Here, for comparison we use the series expression for FD (.). We
expand the series expression for the Lauricella’s function of the fourth kind in the following
form:
(N )
FD [a, b, · · ·

, b; c; x1 , · · · , xN ] =1 + K1,1
+ K3,2

N
X

xi + K2,1

i=1

N
X

N
X

(a)1 (b)1
2 (b)2
, K2,1 = (a)
,
(c)1 1!
(c)2 2!
(a)3 (b)1 (b)1 (b)1
and so on.
(c)3 1!1!1!

K3,3 =

K2,2 =

+ K2,2

x2i xj + K3,3
(a)2 (b)1 (b)1
,
(c)2 1!1!

X

xi xj + K3,1

1≤i<j≤N

i=1

i,j=1,s.t.i6=j

where K1,1 =

x2i

X

1≤i<j<k≤N

K3,1 =

K3,2 =

x3i

i=1

xi xj xk + · · ·

(a)3 (b)3
,
(c)3 3!

N
X

(41)

(a)3 (b)2 (b)1
,
(c)3 2!1!

22

Hence the coverage probability for independent case given in (39) can be written as


2
3
N 
N 
N 
P
P
P
1
1
1
Cp (r) = K 1 + K1,1
+
K
+
K
+
2,1
3,1
T r α mλi +1
T r α mλi +1
T r α mλi +1
i=1

P

K2,2

1≤i<j≤N



1
T r α mλi +1

K3,3

i=1



P

1≤i<j<k≤N

1
T r α mλj +1





1
T r α mλi +1

i=1

N
P

+ K3,2

i,j=1,s.t.i6=j



1
T r α mλj +1





1
T r α mλi +1

1
T r α mλk +1



2 

+···

1
T r α mλj +1





+
(42)

Similarly, for the correlated case the coverage probability given in (40) can be written as


2
3
N 
N 
N 
P
P
P
1
1
1
Ĉp (r) = K̂ 1 + K1,1
+
K
+
K
+
2,1
3,1
T r α mλ̂ +1
T r α mλ̂ +1
T r α mλ̂ +1
i

i=1

K2,2

P

1≤i<j≤N



1
T r α mλ̂i +1

K3,3

P



1≤i<j<k≤N



1
T r α mλ̂i +1

+ K3,2



N
P

i,j=1,s.t.i6=j
1
T r α mλ̂j +1

(1−m)1 (mc )1
2 (mc )2
, K2,1 = (1−m)
, K2,2
(N mc +1)1 1!
(N mc +1)2 2!
(1−m)3 (mc )2 (mc )1
3 (mc )1 (mc )1 (mc )1
, K3,3 = (1−m)
(N mc +1)3 2!1!
(N mc +1)3 1!1!1!

Here K1,1 =
K3,2 =

1
T r α mλ̂j +1



i

i=1



=

i

i=1



1
T r α mλ̂i +1

1
T r α mλ̂k +1



2 

+···

(1−m)2 (mc )1 (mc )1
,
(N mc +1)2 1!1!

1
T r α mλ̂j +1



K3,1 =



+
(43)

(1−m)3 (mc )3
,
(N mc +1)3 3!

and so on. Note that here Ki,j are the

same for both Cp (r) and Ĉp (r). Now, we want to show that each summation term in the series
expression is a Schur-convex function.
Each summation term in the series expression is symmetrical due to the fact that any two of its
argument can be interchanged without changing the value of the function. We have already shown
a
N 
Q
1
that
is a convex function ∀xi ≥ 0 and ∀a > 0. Now, the terms in the summation
1+kxi
i=1
ai
M 
Q
1
where M ≤ N. Using Theorem 2 (given in
terms in (42) and (43) are of the form
1+kxi
i=1

Section II), one can show that each term of each summation term is a convex function. Using
the fact that convexity is preserved under summation one can show that each summation term is

a convex function. Thus, each summation term in series expression is a Schur-convex function.
Now we consider following two cases.
Case I when m < 1: Since m < 1, so 1−m > 0 and hence all the constant Ki,j > 0 ∀ i, j. Each
summation term in series expression of coverage probability for correlated case is greater than
or equal to the corresponding summation term in the series expression of coverage probability
for independent case. Thus, if user channel’s shape parameter m < 1 then coverage probability
of correlated case is greater than or equal to the coverage probability for independent case.

23

Case II when m > 1: Since m > 1, then 1 − m < 0 and hence Ki,j < 0 ∀i ∈ 2|Z| + 1 and ∀j
where set Z denote the integer number, due to the fact that (a)N < 0 if a < 0 and N ∈ 2|Z| + 1.
Whereas, Ki,j > 0 ∀i ∈ 2|Z| and ∀j due of the fact that (a)N > 0 if a < 0 and N ∈ 2|Z|. Thus,
if m > 1, we cannot state whether the coverage probability of one case is greater than or lower
than the other case.
R EFERENCES
[1] V. Graziano, “Propagation Correlations at 900 MHz,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp.
182–189, 1978.
[2] H. Arnold, D. Cox, and R. Murray, “Macroscopic diversity performance measured in the 800-MHz portable radio
communications environment,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 277–281, Feb 1988.
[3] G. Hess and S. Gilbert, “Shadowing variability in an urban land mobile environment at 900 MHz,” Electronics Letters,
vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 646–648, May 1990.
[4] M. Gudmundson, “Correlation model for shadow fading in mobile radio systems,” Electronics Letters, vol. 27, no. 23, pp.
2145–2146, Nov 1991.
[5] R. Stevens and I. Dilworth, “Mobile radio shadowing loss variability and co-channel signal correlation at 452 MHz,”
Electronics Letters, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 16–17, Jan 1996.
[6] E. Perahia, D. Cox, and S. Ho, “Shadow Fading Cross Correlation Between Basestations,” in IEEE VTS 53rd Vehicular
Technology Conference, 2001. VTC 2001 Spring., vol. 1, 2001, pp. 313–317 vol.1.
[7] 3GPP, “Further Advancements for E-UTRA Physical Layer Aspects (release 9),” 3GPP TR 36.814 V9.0.0 (2010-03), 2010.
[8] S. Szyszkowicz, H. Yanikomeroglu, and J. Thompson, “On the Feasibility of Wireless Shadowing Correlation Models,”
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4222–4236, 2010.
[9] F. Graziosi and F. Santucci, “A General Correlation Model for Shadow Fading in Mobile Radio Systems,” IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 102–104, 2002.
[10] D. Morales-Jimenez, J. Paris, and A. Lozano, “Outage Probability Analysis for MRC in η-µ Fading Channels with CoChannel Interference,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 674–677, May 2012.
[11] J. F. Paris, “Outage Probability in η-µ/η-µ and κ-µ/η-µ Interference-Limited Scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 335–343, 2013.
[12] N. Ermolova and O. Tirkkonen, “Outage Probability Analysis in Generalized Fading Channels with Co-Channel Interference
and Background Noise: η-µ/η-µ, η-µ/κ-µ, and κ-µ/η-µ; Scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 291–297, January 2014.
[13] K. P. Peppas, “Dual-Hop Relaying Communications with Cochannel Interference Over η-µ Fading Channels,” IEEE Trans.
on Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 4110–4116, Oct 2013.
[14] S. Kumar, G. Chandrasekaran, and S. Kalyani, “Analysis of outage probability and capacity for κ - µ/η - µ faded channel,”
IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 211–214, Feb 2015.
[15] S. Kumar and S. Kalyani, “Coverage probability and rate for κ−µ/η −µ fading channels in interference-limited scenarios,”
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 6082–6096, Nov 2015.
[16] ——, “Impact of correlated interferers on coverage and rate of ffr and sfr schemes,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 434–440, Jan 2016.

24

[17] S. Menon and S. Kalyani, “SER for Optimal Combining in the Presence of Multiple Correlated Co-Channel Interferers,”
IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 2033–2036, Nov 2015.
[18] J. Abrahams and M. J. Lipman, “Relative uniformity of sources and the comparison of optimal code costs,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory,, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1695–1697, Sep 1993.
[19] F. Cicalese and U. Vaccaro, “Supermodularity and subadditivity properties of the entropy on the majorization lattice,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 933–938, Apr 2002.
[20] ——, “Bounding the average length of optimal source codes via majorization theory,” IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 633–637, April 2004.
[21] H. Witsenhausen, “Some aspects of convexity useful in information theory,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 265–271, May 1980.
[22] F. Cicalese, L. Gargano, and U. Vaccaro, “A note on approximation of uniform distributions from variable-to-fixed length
codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 3772–3777, Aug 2006.
[23] T. Samarasinghe, H. Inaltekin, and J. Evans, “Optimal selective feedback policies for opportunistic beamforming,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 2897–2913, May 2013.
[24] C. Tepedelenlioglu, A. Rajan, and Y. Zhang, “Applications of stochastic ordering to wireless communications,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 4249–4257, December 2011.
[25] A. Rajan and C. Tepedelenlioglu, “A representation for the symbol error rate using completely monotone functions,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 3922–3931, June 2013.
[26] ——, “Stochastic ordering of fading channels through the shannon transform,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1619–1628, April 2015.
[27] B. Dulek, “Comments on ”a representation for the symbol error rate using completely monotone functions”,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 1367–1370, Feb 2014.
[28] V. A. Aalo, “Performance of Maximal-Ratio Diversity Systems in a Correlated Nakagami-Fading Environment,” IEEE
Transactions on Communications, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 2360–2369, Aug 1995.
[29] A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. Arnold, Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications.
[30] M. Shaked and J. Shanthikumar, Stochastic Orders, ser. Springer Series in Statistics.

Springer, 2011.

Physica-Verlag, 2007. [Online].

Available: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=rPiToBK2rwwC
[31] R. Kaas, M. Goovaerts, J. Dhaene, and M. Denuit, Modern Actuarial Risk Theory.

Springer, 2001, vol. 328.

[32] M. Yacoub, “The κ-µ Distribution and the η-µ Distribution,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 49, no. 1,
pp. 68–81, Feb 2007.
[33] H. Exton, Multiple Hypergeometric Functions and Applications, ser. Ellis Horwood series in mathematics and its
applications.

Ellis Horwood, 1976.

[34] K. Peppas, F. Lazarakis, A. Alexandridis, and K. Dangakis, “Error Performance of Digital Modulation Schemes with
MRC Diversity Reception Over η-µ Fading Channels,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 4974–4980,
October 2009.
[35] S.L. Lauritzen, “Exchangeable Rasch Matrices,” Rendiconti di Maternatica, Serie VII, 28, Roma, 83-95., 2008.
[36] “Coordinated Multipoint Opreation for LTE Physical Layer Aspects (release 11) ,” 3GPP TR 36.819 V11.0.0 (2011-09),
2011.
[37] D. Lewinski, “Nonstationary Probabilistic Target and Clutter Scattering Models,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation,, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 490–498, 1983.

25

[38] S. Al-Ahmadi and H. Yanikomeroglu, “On the Approximation of the Generalized K Distribution by a Gamma Distribution
for Modeling Composite Fading Channels,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 706–713,
2010.
[39] ——, “On the Statistics of the Sum of Correlated Generalized-K RVs,” in 2010 IEEE International Conference on
Communications (ICC), 2010, pp. 1–5.
[40] J. Reig, “Performance of Maximal Ratio Combiners Over Correlated Nakagami-m Fading Channels with Arbitrary Fading
Parameters,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1441–1444, 2008.
[41] D. Tse and P. Viswanath, Fundamentals of wireless communication.

Cambridge university press, 2005.

