1

Analysis of Statistical QoS in Half Duplex and Full
Duplex Dense Heterogeneous Cellular Networks

arXiv:1708.06215v1 [cs.IT] 25 Jul 2017

Alireza Sadeghi, Student Member, IEEE, Michele Luvisotto, Student Member, IEEE, Farshad Lahouti, Senior
Member, IEEE, Michele Zorzi Fellow, IEEE,

Abstract—Statistical QoS provisioning as an important performance metric in analyzing next generation mobile cellular
network, aka 5G, is investigated. In this context, by quantifying
the performance in terms of the effective capacity, we introduce
a lower bound for the system performance that facilitates an
efficient analysis. Based on the proposed lower bound, which
is mainly built on a per resource block analysis, we build a
basic mathematical framework to analyze effective capacity in
an ultra dense heterogeneous cellular network. We use our
proposed scalable approach to give insights about the possible
enhancements of the statistical QoS experienced by the end users
if heterogeneous cellular networks migrate from a conventional
half duplex to an imperfect full duplex mode of operation.
Numerical results and analysis are provided, where the network
is modeled as a Matérn point process. The results demonstrate the
accuracy and computational efficiency of the proposed scheme,
especially in large scale wireless systems. Moreover, the minimum
level of self interference cancellation for the full duplex system to
start outperforming its half duplex counterpart is investigated.
Index Terms—Full Duplex, Heterogeneous Cellular Network,
Statistical QoS, 5G.

I. I NTRODUCTION
HE ever increasing demand for mobile data traffic continues with the advent of smart phones, tablets, mobile
routers, and cellular M2M devices. This is accompanied by
user behavioral changes from web browsing towards video
streaming, social networking, and online gaming with distinct quality of service (QoS) requirements [2]. To handle
this evolution, researchers are examining different enabling
technologies for 5G, including mmWave communications for
wider bandwidth, extreme densification of the network via low
power base stations, large-scale antenna systems (known as
massive MIMO), and wireless full duplex communications [3],
[4].
The new cellular architecture known as Heterogeneous Cellular Networks (HCNs) refers to a scenario in which a macro
cell is overlaid by heterogeneous low–power base stations
(BSs). Such low power BSs have small coverage areas and
are characterized by their own transmit power and named

T

A. Sadeghi is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department,
University of Minnesota, 200 Union Street SE, 4-174 Keller Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0170. E-mail: sadeg012@umn.edu
M. Luvisotto and M. Zorzi are with the Department of Information
Engineering, University of Padova, Via Gradenigo 6/B, 35131 Padova, Italy.
E-mail: luvisott, zorzi@dei.unipd.it
F. Lahouti is with the Electrical Engineering Department, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E California Blvd, MC 136-93, Pasadena, CA
91125. E-mail: lahouti@caltech.edu
Part of this work has appeared on the Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE
International Conference of Communications (ICC) [1].

accordingly as micro, pico and femto cells. They are used
to increase the capacity of the network while eliminating
coverage holes [5]. In terms of modeling and analyzing HCNs,
stochastic geometry has been vastly used in recent years [6].
For instance Poisson point processes (PPPs) have provided
tractable, simple, and accurate expressions for coverage probabilities and mean transmission rates [6], [7], [8]. However,
in a real cellular network, the adoption of a simple PPP to
model the location of the BSs does not capture an important
characteristic of a real network deployment. Spectrum access
policies, network planning, and the MAC layer impose constraints on the minimum distance between any two BSs or UEs
in the network that are operating in the same resource blocks
(RBs) [6]. According to these considerations, a repulsive point
process with a minimum distance such as the Matérn hard core
point process (HCPP), despite its higher complexity, represents
a better candidate to model a HCN compared to a simple
PPP [6], [9].
The Full Duplex (FD) radio technology can enhance spectrum efficiency by enabling simultaneous transmission and reception in the same frequency band at the same time. This new
emerging technology has the potential to double the physical
layer capacity [4] and enhance the performance even more,
when higher layer protocols are redesigned accordingly [10].
Due to the hurdles of canceling self–interference (SI) in
FD devices via active and passive suppression mechanisms,
FD operations are more reliable in low power wireless nodes.
For instance in [11] and [12] the authors have implemented
a FD WiFi radio operating in an unlicensed frequency band
with 20 dBm transmit power while the same trend is followed
in other works like [13], where the maximum transmit power
is 15 dBm. All these implementations suggest FD technology
as a reasonable candidate to be employed in the low power
BSs deployed within HCNs. Moreover, the increased spectral
efficiency of the FD systems, combined with that of HCNs,
provides another serious motivation in attempting to analyze
a completely FD HCN.
From another perspective, next generation mobile networks
(5G) will aim not only to increase the network capacity but
also to enhance several other performance metrics, including
lower latency, seamless connectivity, and increased mobility
[3]. These requirements can be generally regarded as improvements in the QoS experienced by the network entities.
According to a forecast by Ericsson, approximately 55 percent
of all the mobile data traffic in 2020 will account for mobile
video traffic while another 15 percent will account for social
networking [2]. These multimedia services require a bounded

2

delay. The delay requirements of time sensitive services in
5G will greatly vary from milliseconds to a second [14].
Consequently, the analysis of statistical QoS in HCNs will
become extremely important in the near future.
The objective of this paper is to analyze and compare
FD and HD HCNs in provisioning statistical QoS guarantees
to the users in the network. In this regard, we model the
HCN as a Matérn HCPP, and statistically assess the QoS in
terms of Effective Capacity (EC) or the maximum throughput
under a delay constraint [15]. We provide insights on possible
improvements in the QoS experience of end users if the
current architecture migrates from conventional HD to FD. We
propose a lower bound for the EC which greatly reduces the
complexity of the analysis, while tightly approximating the
system performance, especially in very large scale systems.
The presented analysis is validated with simulation results.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. A brief review
of FD, statistical QoS provisioning, and stochastic geometry
is provided in Section II. The system model is described in
Section III. Section IV presents the proposed lower bound
for the system performance and the corresponding theoretical
analysis, whose results are validated through simulations in
Section V. Some discussion on user distributions in the network, coverage areas of the small cells, and channel models
is provided in Section VI. Finally, Section VII concludes the
paper.
II. P RELIMINARIES
A. In-band Full Duplex Wireless Communications
In–band full–duplex (IBFD) devices are capable of transmitting and receiving data in the same frequency band at the same
time. In traditional wireless terminals, the self interference
(SI) power is much larger than that of the received intended
signal, making any reception infeasible while a transmission
is ongoing. To overcome this issue, FD terminals are equipped
with active and passive cancellation mechanisms to suppress
their own SI in the received signal [4]. However, in practice,
because of the many imperfections in transceiver characteristics and operations, namely phase noise, nonlinearities, I/Q
imbalances, receiver quantization noise and constraints on the
accuracy of the SI channel estimation, full cancellation of
the SI signal is not possible. Therefore, some residual self–
interference (RSI) always remains after all cancellation steps,
and results in a degraded system performance [4], [11], [12],
[13].
The RSI signal represents the main obstacle for a perfect
FD communication and, similar to noise, is essentially uncorrelated with the original transmitted signal. Among different
methods to model RSI, we consider RSI as a zero mean complex Gaussian random variable whose variance is a function
of the transmitted power [16], [17]. We have
RSI ∼ CN (0, ηP κ )

(1)

where P is the transmit power, and η and κ, 0 ≤ η, κ ≤ 1,
are respectively the linear and the nonlinear SI cancellation
parameters capturing the SI cancellation performance. When
no SI cancellation is performed η, κ = 1, while η = 0
represents the ideal case of perfect SI cancellation.

B. Statistical QoS guarantees
Real time multimedia services like video streaming require
bounded delays. In this context, a received packet that violates
its delay bound requirement is considered useless and is
discarded. Due to the wireless nature of the access links in a
mobile cellular network, providing deterministic delay bound
guarantees is impossible. Thus, effective capacity defined as
the maximum throughput under a given delay constraint, has
been used to analyze multimedia wireless systems [15]. Any
active entity in a cellular network can be regarded as a
queueing system: it generates packets according to an arrival
process, stores them in a queue and transmits them according
to a service process. For stationary and ergodic arrival and
service processes, the queue length process Q(t) converges,
in distribution, to a random variable Q(∞) as follows
log (Pr {Q(∞) > Qth })
= θ,
Qth →∞
Qth

− lim

(2)

where Qth is the queue length threshold and θ is a constant
value called QoS exponent. In fact (2) states that the probability that the queue length process violates this threshold
decays exponentially fast as the threshold increases, i.e.,
Pr {Q(t) > Qth } ∼ e−θQth as Qth → ∞ [18]. In addition,
it was shown in [15] that for small values of Qth , the
violation probability can be approximated more accurately
as Pr {Q(t) > Qth } ≈ δe−θQth , where δ represents the
probability that the buffer is not empty, and the QoS exponent,
θ, characterizes the decaying rate of the QoS violation probability. A large value for θ corresponds to a faster decaying
rate, which means that the system has stringent statistical delay
constraints. For instance, when θ → ∞ the system is very
sensitive to delay and generally no delay is tolerable. On the
other hand, for small values of θ the system can tolerate the
delays and, when θ → 0 there is no sensitivity at all to delays
in the system, and in this case the EC tends to the Shannon
capacity [19].
Let us define the service provided by the channel until time
slot t as
C (0, t) =

t
X

R [k]

(3)

k=1

where R[k] denotes the bits served in time slot k. The effective
capacity of the channel is defined as [15]
ΛC (−θ)
(4)
θ

where ΛC (−θ) = lim 1t log E e−θC(0,t) is the Gärtner t→∞
Ellis limit of the service process C(0, t). If the instantaneous
service process, R[k], is independent over time, EC can be
simplified to
n
o
1
EC (θ) = − log E e−θR[k] .
(5)
θ
EC is defined as the maximum arrival rate a given service
process can support in order to guarantee a QoS requirement
specified by θ [19]. We note that EC is defined for the
service process and not for the arrival process. However, the
EC (θ) = −

3

Femto
Pico
Pico

Femto
Macro
Pico

Picocell

Femto
Femto

Fig. 1. System model: an HCN with one macrocell and several low-power
BSs.
Fig. 2. Illustration of one resource block in LTE-A.

dual definition of EC for the arrival process, referred to as
the effective bandwidth, serves this purpose. It indicates the
minimum service process required by a given arrival process
for which the QoS exponent θ is satisfied [19].
III. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a HCN consisting of a macro cell, overlaid by
different tiers of small cells, each with its own characteristics
including transmit power, path loss exponent, and coverage
range. Each tier is assumed to have a circular coverage area
provided by an omni-directional antenna to serve any user
within its coverage range. The small cells are assumed to use
out of band resources like fiber optics, wire, or microwave
links for backhauling. Fig. 1 depicts an example of such a
HCN. When the system is HD, a conventional frequencydivision-duplexed (FDD) HCN is assumed, which separates
up-link (UL) and down-link (DL) transmissions, while in the
FD case we consider a completely FD HCN where all the
network entities are assumed to be (imperfect) FD devices
which communicate in bidirectional FD mode, as depicted in
Fig. 1.
To model the location of small cells and the distribution
of the user equipments (UEs) within each small cell we use
a Matérn HCPP. In this process the locations of BSs follow
a PPP with a hard core distance constraint between BSs. The
locations of the users associated to each BS are assumed to be
uniformly distributed in the coverage area of the corresponding
BS. Moreover, in line with common practice, we assume that
the positions of the BSs are known by the network operator,
leading to a Matérn HCPP with known locations for the cluster
heads (BSs).
We consider a Rayleigh fading, path loss dominated, AWGN
channel model. As a result, the interference at the desired UE
from another network entity located at distance x is given by
−α
P hkxk , where P is the transmit power of the interferer, h
is an exponential random variable modeling Rayleigh fading
(h ∼ exp (1)), and α represents the path loss exponent.
In a FD HCN, a UE in the network experiences three
different types of interference: (1) RSI, due to concurrent
transmission and reception in the same frequency band at the
same time and imperfect cancellation; (2) interference from
BSs that are transmitting in the same resource blocks (RBs)
as those in which the UE is being served; and (3) interference

from other UEs in the network that are transmitting in the same
RBs in which the UE is being served. In the HD scenario,
we instead assume frequency–division duplexing, where the
UE does not experience RSI or interference from other UEs.
However, the interference from other BSs is still present.
In the FD HCN, the Signal–to–Interference plus Noise Ratio
(SINR) at the desired FD UE is expressed as
SINRFD =
Pi hxi kxi k−αi

.

!
P

P

k

x∈ΦBS
k

Pk hx

kxk −αk

+

P
y∈ΦUE
k

PUE hy

kyk −αk

+

ηP κ

+

σ2

(6)
In this notation, the numerator represents the desired signal
power received from a BS in the ith tier which serves the UE.
Here, a tier is defined as the set of BSs with a given density
and the same characteristics including average transmit power,
supported data rate, and coverage area [7]. The first and second
terms in the denominator represent the interference from other
BSs and UEs in the network operating in the same RBs as the
UE
desired UE. Specifically, ΦBS
k and Φk indicate sets containing
the positions of all interfering BSs and UEs in the k th tier, and
the summation is over all possible tiers. The third term is the
RSI signal power as modeled in (1). Finally, σ 2 is the additive
noise power.
This paper analyzes the system performance on a resource
block (RB) basis. An illustration of a single RB in LTE-A is
presented in Fig. 2. The reason for following a RB analysis
is three-fold: i) the service rate, R[k], can be replaced by the
instantaneous capacity of the channel. This is due to the fact
that the service time, Tf , is less than the coherence time of the
channel, but still sufficiently long to support the information
theoretic assumption of adaptive modulation and capacity
achieving coding; ii) the service rate, R[k], becomes statistically independent from one RB to another, as was assumed
in deriving (5); iii) most importantly, the RB based analysis
will assist to find a very tight, computationally efficient and
scalable lower bound for analyzing EC in the meaningful range
of values for the QoS exponent. Consequently, in this work, the
unit for both the service rate, R[k], and the effective capacity,
EC(θ), is defined as bits per RB.

4

We recall that the number of bits delivered to a UE during an
interval, Tf , in a given bandwidth, BW , if capacity achieving
modulation and coding are used, can be represented as
R = Tf BW log2 (1 + SINR) .

(7)

Therefore, the effective capacity of the desired UE based on
(5) can be expressed as
1
EC (θ) = − log (E {exp (−θTf BW log2 (1 + SINR))})
θ
 

1
−θT BW log2 e
= − log E (1 + SINR) f
(8)
θ
where the expectation is taken with respect to the SINR.
In a HD scenario, a 1/2 scaling factor is needed and, also,
the SINR would become
SINRHD = P P

Pi hxi kxi k−αi
Pk hx kxk −αk + σ 2

(9)

k x∈ΦBS
k

where the numerator represents the desired signal power
received from a BS in the ith tier, which serves the UE
and the denominator includes noise and DL interference from
interfering BSs in the k th tier and the summation is over all
tiers.
IV. T HEORETICAL ANALYSIS
We aim at computing the QoS experienced by a generic
UE, that can be placed anywhere in the coverage area of its
own small cell with uniform distribution. To find the exact EC
in a given topology, one needs to compute (8) either through
extensive simulations or by mathematical analysis. It is worth
mentioning that, if there are M small cells within the macro
cell communicating with M FD UEs, the associated integrals
(or simulation setups) would be in a 2M + 1 dimensional
parameter space. To understand why this is the case just note
that the expectation in (8) is with respect to SINR which is a
function of desired and interferer’s signal strength. This is seen
in (8) as the expectation with respect to SINR is a function of
both desired signal and interference.
A. Approximating EC
Let us define a generic function g of s, I, a, and β as follows
∆

g(s, I) =


1+

s
I +a

−β
.

(10)

This function has the same structure of the expectation argument in (8), where s models the received signal power,
I represents the overall interference from other BSs and
UEs in the network, a represents the RSI and noise, and
β = θ · Tf · BW · log2 e. Based on this definition, the EC
can be rewritten as
1
(11)
EC(θ) = − log (Es,I g (s, I))
θ
Lemma 1. For 0 ≤ β ≤ 1, g is always a concave function of
I.

Proof. By assuming s as a constant, taking the second derivative of g with respect to I leads to
∂ 2 g(s, I)
=
∂I 2

−(β+2)
s
βs
1
+
(−2 (I + a) + (β − 1) s)
4
I +a
(I + a)
(12)
2
which is negative, for all values of 0 ≤ β < 1 + SINR
, where
s
SINR= I+a ≥ 0. This readily shows that g is a concave
function of I for any 0 ≤ β ≤ 1.

The concavity of g helps us find a tight lower bound for
the EC with greatly decreased complexity. To this end, by
exploiting Jensen’s inequality, we obtain
"
−β #
−1
s
ECLB (θ) =
log Es
≤ EC (θ) (13)
1+ ¯
θ
I +a
Here, I¯ = EI (I) is the average interference experienced by
the UE, and the remaining expectation only applies to the
desired signal power. The advantage of this lower bound is its
much smaller computational complexity. Indeed, calculating
this lower bound only requires a 1–dimensional integral (or
simulation) with respect to the desired signal power provided
¯
that the average interference on the desired network entity (I)
is known. Therefore, the proposed bound makes this calculation scalable with the size of the network, at the possible cost
of losing some precision.
In order to efficiently compute the proposed lower bound
in (13), i.e., ECLB (θ), one has to calculate analytically the
¯ Recalling the
average interference on the desired UE, I.
expression of the interference from Section III, the average
power from an interferer located at distance x from the
considered UE can be found as
(a)

(b)

E[P hkxk−α ] = P E(h) E[kxk−α ] = P E[kxk−α ]

(14)

where (a) follows from the fact that the channel coefficient and
distance between the interferer and the desired UE are independent random variables and (b) holds because we assumed
the Rayleigh fading channel, h, has unit mean. Consequently,
all our efforts will be focused on finding the average path loss
from the desired UE to the interferers.
It is noteworthy that in deriving the lower bound proposed
in (13) we implicitly have a constraint on the QoS exponent,
θ, through Lemma 1, where we assumed the constraint on β
as 0 ≤ β ≤ 1. This imposes a constraint on θ, as 0 ≤ θ ≤
1
Tf BW log2 e , while in general, the QoS exponent is defined
in the range [0, ∞). Due to the per RB based analysis this
constraint on θ would amount to
1
0≤θ≤
≈ 10−2 .
(15)
Tf BW log2 e
Fortunately, the range of θ in (15) lies in the meaningful range
of the QoS exponent [19]. However, simulations show that our
method gives a good approximation for EC even in a wider
range.

5

position for the interferer, i.e., fixed (r1 , θ1 ). Subsequently, we
compute the expectation of the resulting quantity with respect
to all possible values of (r1 , θ1 ).
Regarding the first step, since we assumed (r1 , θ1 ) is fixed,
c and ψ become constants, which facilitates the analysis

Macro BSs
x
c
r1 θ1

ψ

d

r2
γ θ2
R2

h
E(r2 ,θ2 )

R1

Z2πZR2
=
Fig. 3. Structure of the interference on the desired UE.

B. Average Interference on a UE
As mentioned in the previous section we need to provide a
¯ In the rest of this section, we present the
framework to find I.
building blocks to achieve this goal.
Fig. 3 depicts a deployment of two small cells and their
corresponding coverage areas within a macro cell. This is an
example of a Matérn HCPP with two cluster heads (BSs) and
a hard core distance rh ≥ R1 + R2 . This assumption for the
hard core distance makes the two small cells non–overlapping.
The probability density functions (PDFs) of the interferer and
desired UE locations, expressed in polar coordinates, are
 ri
0 < ri < Ri , 0 < θi < 2π
πRi 2
fi (ri , θi ) =
0
Otherwise
(16)
respectively for i = 1, 2; see Fig. 3.
Proposition 1. Consider a UE being served in a small cell in
presence of an interferer BS, according to Fig. 3. The average
interference from a specific interferer BS on the desired UE is




α2 R24
R22
α R24
IBS−UE = PBS d
1+
+ 2 +
.
8 3d4
d
4 3d4
(17)
where PBS is the transmit power of the BS, d is the distance
between the interferer BS and the BS serving the desired UE,
α is the pathloss exponent, and R2 is the coverage radius of
the small cell in which the desired UE is being served.
−α

Proof. We can find the squared distance between the desired
UE and the interferer as (Fig. 3)
x2 = c2 + r22 − 2cr2 cos (γ)

γ = π − θ2 − ψ

0

0

0

− α2

i
(r1 , θ1 )

(22)

− α 1 r2
c2 + r22 + 2cr2 cos (θ2 + ψ) 2 .
dr2 dθ2
π R22

(23)
α


Z2πZR2
−2
r 
 r 2
1 r2
2
2
c−α 1 +
+2
cos (θ2 + ψ)
dr2 dθ2
=
c
c
π R22
(a)

−α

'c

Z2πZR2
0



r 
α  r2 2
2
1−
+2
cos (θ2 + ψ) +
2
c
c

0

(24)
2 )
1 r2
2
2
cos (θ2 + ψ)
.
dr2 dθ2
+2
8
c
c
π R22




R22
α R24
α2 R24
+
+
(25)
= c−α 1 +
8 3c4
c2
4 3c4

α (α + 2)  r 2

r 

where in (a) we used the first three terms of the Taylor series
−ω
expansion of (1 + x)
= 1 − ωx + ω(ω+1)
x2 + . . . . The
2!
Taylor approximation is legitimate if x < 1 (c > R2 ) which
is already satisfied considering the repulsive point process we
have assumed for the small cells, characterized by the hard
core distance rh ≥ R1 + R2 .
We recall that this result holds for any fixed values of
(r1 , θ1 ). In particular, by setting r1 → 0 (i.e., c → d in
(25)), we obtain the average path loss component between
a randomly deployed UE and the BS. Therefore, the average
interference that an external BS causes to the considered UE
uniformly placed in any point within the coverage area of its
small cell would become




R22
α R24
α2 R24
−α
IBS−UE = PBS d
1+
+ 2 +
.
8 3d4
d
4 3d4
(26)

(18)

where
c2 =r12 + d2 − 2r1 d cos (θ1 )

0

c2 + r22 + 2cr2 cos (θ2 + ψ)

(19)
(20)

and ψ is also a random variable depending on the interferer’s
position.
Our goal is to compute the average path loss between the
considered UE and the interferers
h
i
h
− α i
−α
E kxk
= E c2 + r22 + 2cr2 cos (θ2 + ψ) 2
(21)
which is challenging to compute in general. To this end, we
first compute the expectation in (21) by assuming a fixed

Due to the possible concurrent transmissions on the UL and
DL in the FD scenarios, in the next proposition the average
interference from another UE is provided.
Proposition 2. The average interference from a uniformly
deployed UE located in a neighboring small cell on the desired
UE is



IUE - UE = PU E ·
E c−α +
(r1 ,θ1 )
h
i α (α + 2) R4
h
i
α2 R22
2
−(α+2)
−(α+4)
E
c
+
E
c
.
8 (r1 ,θ1 )
24
(r1 ,θ1 )
(27)

6

where PU E is the transmit power of the interferer UE, and c
is the distance between the interferer and the BS which serves
the UE. The expectation terms are with respect to the location
of the interferer, i.e., (r1 , θ1 ).
Proof. We compute the expectation of (25) with respect to the
position of the interferer, i.e., (r1 , θ1 ), which leads to (27).
It must be noted that to compute the quantity in (27), one
needs to calculate only E(r1 ,θ1 ) [c−α ], since the other two
expectations can be immediately obtained by replacing α with
α + 2 and α + 4. We further observe that this expectation
corresponds to the average path loss component between the
interferer and the desired UE’s BS. This quantity can be
derived from (26) by setting PBS = 1 and changing R2 to
R1 .
The proposed relations in (26) and (27) can hence be
used as a basic mathematical tool to investigate the system
performance.

x0
r10
c0

θ10

ψ0
Macro BS θ∗

r20 θ0
2

d0
R20
R10

C. Average Interference from a free UE
We should note that the only source of interference on a
desired UE that does not follow the structure provided in Fig.
3 is the UE connected to the macro BS, that we refer to as free
UE. We make here a simplifying assumption in order to derive
an approximate expression for the interference caused by the
free UE to the desired UE, of which we are computing the
effective capacity. Specifically, let R10 be the coverage radius
of the macro BS, R20 the coverage radius of the small cell
where the desired UE is placed, d0 the distance between the
macro BS and the BS of the small cell and θ∗ the angle of the
circular sector centered in the macro BS which fully encloses
the coverage area of the small cell, as represented in Fig. 4.
We assume that the free UE can be deployed anywhere in the
coverage area of the macro BS except in the sector with angle
2θ∗ , i.e., the shaded area in Fig. 4. Thus, the PDF of the free
UE in the polar coordinates of the macro cell would be
(
r10
θ∗ < θ10 < 2π − θ∗
0
0
(π−θ ∗ )R10 2
f (r1 , θ1 ) =
0
− θ∗ < θ10 < θ∗
(28)
The next proposition presents the average interference from a
free UE in this setting.
Proposition 3. The approximate average interference from the
free UE on a desired UE can be found by calculating
Ifree UE - UE ≈ PUE .




2
1
(α + 2) (α + 3)
0 −(α−2)
+
E
c
2
6
α − 2 R10


3
2
α 3α + 11α − 18α − 56 sin θ∗  0 −(α−2)
0
−
E
c
cos
ψ
15(π − θ∗ ) (α2 − 1)
R10 2
#

(α + 2) (α + 4) sin 2θ∗  0 −(α−2)
−
E c
cos 2ψ 0 .
(29)
16(π − θ∗ )
R10 2
where c0 is the distance between the macro BS to the desired UE which may deployed in anylocation of the macro
−(α−2)
cell according to (28). Moreover E c0
cos ψ 0 , and

Fig. 4. Structure of interference caused by a free UE on the desired UE.
The shaded sector is the area where we assume that the free UE can not be
deployed.



−(α−2)
E c0
cos 2ψ 0 are provided in (37) and (38), respectively.
The proof of this proposition is provided in Appendix A.
It is worth noting that in the simulations, we let the free UE
be in any location of the macro cell except the small cell
under investigation. We will then draw comparisons between
simulations and the analysis.
V. S IMULATIONS AND R ESULTS
This section provides numerical simulations to analyze
the performance of the FD and HD HCNs under statistical
QoS constraints. In addition, results are reported to assess
the scalability of our proposed approach to analyze system
performance. Although a single macro cell overlaid with randomly placed small cells is considered, the analytic framework
proposed in this paper readily allows the study of a scenario
with multiple macro cells. In the reported results, the UE
in the dashed small cell is under consideration. The exact
curves are obtained via Monte-Carlo simulation. A lower
bound is obtained using (13) and the average interference on
¯ calculated through Propositions 1-3. During
the desired UE, I,
the simulations the system for the HD scenario is considered
to be FDD. See Tab. I for the parameters adopted to carry out
the simulations.
In the following, Section V-A provides results on HD and
FD HCNs and studies the impact of FD technology on the
QoS experienced by the end users. In Section V-B the accuracy
and complexity of the proposed lower bound are investigated.
Finally in Section V-C the crossover point under different QoS
requirements is investigated, and the minimum level of SI

7

EC Vs QoS exponent
500

800
DL Effective Capacity, EC (θ) (bits/RB)

600
400

Y (meter)

200
0
−200
−400
−600

450
400
350
300
250
200
150

Monte−Carlo evaluation−FD
Monte−Carlo evaluation−HD
Proposed lower bound−FD
Proposed lower bound−HD

100
50

−800
−800

0

−600

−400

−200

0
200
X (meter)

400

600

800

−6

−4

10

−2

10

0

10

2

10

10

QoS Exponent, θ (1/bits)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5. (a) A specific realization of sparse small cell deployment using a Matérn HCPP with density λ = 5 small cells/km2 , and (b) DL effective capacity
experienced by a typical UE (uniformly distributed in the dashed small cell) vs. QoS exponent, for HD and FD (exact and lower bounds) with η = −150 dB.
−3

EC Vs Linear SI cancellation for QoS exponent = 10

800

600

DL Effective Capacity, EC(θ) (bits/RB)

600
400

Y (meter)

200
0
−200
−400
−600
−800
−800

−600

−400

−200

0
200
X (meter)

400

600

800

500

400

300

200

100

0
−120

Monte−Carlo evaluation−FD
Monte−Carlo evaluation−HD
Proposed lower bound−FD
Proposed lower bound−HD
−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

η (dB), Linear SI Cancellation Parameter

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. (a) A specific realization of sparse small cell deployment using a Matérn HCPP with density λ = 5 small cells/km2 , and (b) corresponding DL
effective capacity experienced by a typical UE (uniformly distributed in the dashed small cell) vs. linear SI suppression ratio, for HD and FD (exact and lower
bounds). QoS exponent θ = 10−3 (1/bit).

TABLE I
S YSTEM AND S IMULATION PARAMETERS
Description

Parameter

Value

Macro BS TX Power
Small Cell BS TX Power
User TX Power
Service Time
Service Bandwidth
Path loss exponent
Noise Power
Pico–Pico BSs Minimum Distance
Macro–Pico BSs Minimum Distance
Coverage Radii of Pico cells
Non–linear SI cancellation parameter
Linear SI cancellation parameter
QoS exponent
Density of small BSs

PM-BS
PP-BS
PUE
Tf
BW
α
σ2
κ
η
θ
λ

46 dBm
35 dBm
23 dBm
0.5 ms
180 kHz
3
-120 dBm
180 meters
80 meters
90 meters
1
Not fixed
Not fixed
Not fixed

cancellation required for the FD system to outperform the HD
one is determined.

A. Performance evaluation of HD and FD HCNs
Fig. 5 reports the DL EC of a perfect FD system compared
with that of a HD network for different QoS exponents. As
it can be seen, a 1.95X gain from a perfect FD compared to
HD in terms of EC is obtained. This is due to the fact that
in completely FD systems there would be more interference
in the network compared to a completely HD one since UL
and DL transmissions may occur in the same RBs. It is worth
noting again that when θ → 0 there is no sensitivity at all
to delays in the system, and in this case the EC tends to the
Shannon capacity.
Figs. 6 and 7 show DL EC versus linear SI cancellation parameter, η, under sparse and dense HCN scenarios,
respectively. As it can be seen, depending on the level of
SI cancellation, the system performance under FD scenario
exhibits various performance results. For instance, for low
SI cancellation parameter, i.e., η → 0 dB, the system can
not provide any service to the UE. However, as the system
goes towards perfect FD, i.e., η → −∞ dB, the system

8

−3

EC Vs Linear SI cancellation for QoS exponent =10
350

800
DL Effective Capacity, EC(θ) (bits/RB)

600
400

Y (meter)

200
0
−200
−400
−600
−800
−800

−600

−400

−200

0
200
X (meter)

400

600

800

(a)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
−120

Monte−Carlo evaluation−FD
Monte−Carlo evaluation−HD
Proposed lower bound−FD
Proposed lower bound−HD
−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

η (dB), Linear SI Cancellation Parameter

(b)

Fig. 7. (a) A specific realization of dense small cell deployment using a Matérn HCPP with density λ = 50 small cells/km2 , and (b) DL effective capacity
experienced by a typical UE (uniformly distributed in the dashed small cell) vs. linear SI suppression ratio, for HD and FD (exact and lower bounds). QoS
exponent θ = 10−3 (1/bit).

provides approximately 2X service to the UE compared to
the HD counterpart. In addition, there is a minimum linear SI
cancellation required so that FD operation mode outperform
HD one. We call this crossover point and as it can bee seen, it
is approximately −50 dB in this case. Detailed discussions
on this crossover point and its dependence on the system
parameters are presented in Sec. V-C.
Moreover, in Fig. 6.b the EC for the UE is approximately
1.67X that observed in Fig. 7.b for the same level of SI cancellation. This is mainly due to the lower level of interference
in the network. However, the area spectral efficiency is much
higher in the HCN of Fig. 7. In fact, as the network becomes
denser, a larger number of UEs can be served simultaneously
in a single RB. Thus, despite the decreased service rate to
each UE in a dense HCN, a very high area spectral efficiency
can be expected.

B. Assessment of the Lower Bound: Accuracy and Complexity
As Figs. 6 and 7 demonstrate, the proposed lower bound
is tight, and interestingly as the system becomes denser,
the lower bound becomes tighter. Furthermore, according to
Figs. 6 and 7, increasing the SI parameter, η, the gap between
the lower bound and the exact value of EC decreases. This
is due to the fact that as the SI parameter increases, the RSI
dominates other sources of interference on the desired UE and
since its power is constant as ηP κ , the interference tends to
a constant and Jensen’s inequality (invoked in (13)) becomes
an equality.
Fig. 5.b shows the impact of QoS exponent on the accuracy
of the lower bound. As it is shown, under loose QoS requirements, i.e., θ → 0, the lower bound becomes looser, however,
still it is tight enough to give insight on system performance.
On the other hand, for stringent QoS requirements the lower
bound becomes very tight. This figure demonstrates that in
a very broad range of QoS exponent the proposed approach
gives accurate results on the EC that a cellular network
provides in DL for a UE.

Fig. 8.a depicts the relative error of the proposed lower
bound versus the number of small cells. We considered the
number of small cells from the set {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 22, 37, 50},
and averaged the relative error of our scheme in 100 different
realizations of the HCN deployment for each case. As shown
in this figure, by increasing the number of interferes in the
network, the lower bound becomes tighter.
As discussed earlier in Section IV, the complexity of the
proposed approach for analyzing the system performance is
almost independent of the size of the network and significantly
smaller than that of the exact analysis. To be more concrete, an
exact analysis has a complexity in the order of O(N M ), where
N is the number of function evaluations in each dimension
of the integration, and M is the number of small cells in
the network. In comparison, the computational complexity of
the proposed lower bound is O(N + M ), where the first
term of the inner argument corresponds to integration in the
desired signal’s dimension and the second term corresponds
to calculating the average interference. To asses this claim for
the same realizations of the network considered in Fig. 8.a, the
average time elapsed to get the results is provided in Fig. 8.b
as a metric of complexity. As the number of interferes in the
network grows, the complexity of the exact analysis increases
dramatically, while the proposed lower bound has complexity
almost independent of the network size.
Given the complexity and accuracy issues discussed above,
it can readily be claimed that the approach proposed in
this paper is scalable. That is, the denser the network, the
tighter the approximation, without any significant additional
complexity.
C. Crossover Point
The SI cancellation techniques play an essential role in
enabling a wireless device to operate in FD mode; see e.g.,
[4], [11], [12], [20], [21], [22]. Despite the abundance of
many different proposed RF, active, and passive interference
2 All the simulations were carried out with an Intel Core i5-2.53GHz
processor and 4G RAM on a Dell Inspiron 5010.

9

Approximation error versus Number of Small Cells

Crossover curve

Relative error
Quadratic curve fitting

0.14

−45

Crossover point, η* (dB)

0.12

Relative Error

FD vs. HD for different QoS requirements

−40

0.16

0.1
0.08
0.06

−50

−55

−60

0.04
−65
0.02
0

0

10

20

30

40

50

Number of Small Cells

(a)

−70
−6
10

−5

10

−4

10

−3

10

−2

10

QoS exponent (1/bits)

−1

10

0

10

Fig. 9. Crossover point, η ∗ , versus QoS exponent, θ, in a random realization
of the HCN with λ = 5 small cells/km2 .

3

Time Elapsed for Getting Results in seconds

10

2

10

1

10

Monte−Carlo evaluation
Proposed Lower Bound
Quadratic Curve Fitting
Quadratic Curve Fitting

0

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Number of small Cells

(b)
Fig. 8. Accuracy and complexity analysis of the proposed scheme versus
the number of small cells in a macro cell averaged over 100 independent
network realizations. The parameters for these simulations are θ = 10−5 ,
and η = −110 dB, κ = 1. (a) relative error of the lower bound, and (b) time
elapsed to get the results 2 .

cancellation techniques with a variety of performance results,
establishing any FD wireless link requires carefully designed
SI cancellation techniques specific to the required application.
In this regards, a system level study helps gaining insight
on the required level of SI cancellation and thus on finding
the appropriate SI cancellation techniques. To this aim, in
the following we investigate the crossover point, η ∗ , i.e., the
minimum SI cancellation (η) required for the FD system to
start outperforming the HD counterpart. This would require
solving the equation:
h
i
1
−θT BW log2 e
=
ECHD (θ) = − log Es,I (1 + SINRHD ) f 2
θ
h
i
1
−θT BW log2 e
− log Es,I (1 + SINRFD ) f
= ECF D (θ)
θ
(30)
where SINRHD and SINRFD are provided in (9) and (6),
respectively. Eq. (30) is a complicated non-linear function

of the parameter η, the topology of the network, the QoS
constraint, θ, and the transmit powers in the network, which
makes finding any closed form expression for the trade off
point not possible. However, an estimate of such a point can
be found numerically.
As an example, we plotted this trade off point in Fig. 9
for a random realization of the HCN. This figure indicates
the relation between the crossover point, η ∗ , and the QoS
exponent, θ. Not intuitively, this plot indicates that the more
stringent the QoS constraint, the higher the SI cancellation
level required in order to make FD preferable to HD. In other
words, if the QoS constraint is higher, the impact is profound
on a FD system compared to its HD counterpart.
Finally, Figs. 10 and 11 provide the results for the DL EC
of a typical UE as a function of the transmit power of the
small cell BSs. As these figures show, the transmit power for
which the FD starts outperforming the HD counterpart is a
function of the topology of the network and, more importantly,
of the SI cancellation performance, η, κ. For instance, in Fig.
10 this occurs at 35 dBm, while for higher SI cancellation
parameters, e.g., η = −100 dB, FD would outperform HD in
a wider transmit power ranges as shown in Fig. 11.
VI. D ISCUSSIONS
A. UE Distribution, Coverage Areas, and Channel Models
The uniform distribution of the UEs around their corresponding BSs, which is a result of the Matérn HCPP model for
the system, can be relaxed. This is due to the fact that the result
given in (13) is true for any distribution of the UEs and BSs
in the network. In fact, we can expect to find similar results
for other point processes that can be used to model the nodes.
For instance, we can expect the same procedure to be applied
also for Thomas point processes, where child points (UEs) are
distributed with an isotropic Gaussian distribution with a given
variance around the cluster heads (BSs) [6]. In fact, for any
generic distribution we only need to build a computationally
efficient procedure to find the average interference on the

10

260

DL Effective Capacity (bits/RB)

240
220
200

Small cell

180
160

Transmission/Reception
Inter–UE interference

140
120

Fig. 12. Inter–UE interference in overlapping small cell scenario (full duplex).

Monte−Carlo evaluation−FD
Monte−Carlo evaluation−HD
Proposed lower bound−FD
Proposed lower bound−HD

100
80
60
25

30

35

40

45

Small Cell Transmit Power (dBm)

Fig. 10. DL EC versus small cell transmit power for a random realization of
the HCN, with η = −50 dB and θ = 10−2 , λ = 30 small cells/km2 .
200

DL Effective Capacity (bits/RB)

Small cell

150

this case, the interference caused by the neighboring UE to the
free UE (whose average value is expressed by Proposition (2))
is very high, since the distance between the two UEs is small.
This is particularly relevant if both UEs are FD and, hence,
both are transmitting and receiving at the same time. As a
consequence, the term EI (I) = I¯ may become very high in
this scenario and, consequently, the lower bound proposed in
(13) is much less tight.
Fortunately, in a real network scenario, the possibility that
two UEs very close to each other are served in the same
RB is practically very small, and can be neglected. Indeed,
exploiting cell coordination and channel measurements, two
close UEs deployed in different but overlapping cells will
be scheduled in different RBs. Consequently, the theoretical
approach proposed in this paper is of practical interest.

100

Monte−Carlo evaluation−FD
Monte−Carlo evaluation−HD
Proposed lower bound−FD
Proposed lower bound−HD
50
20

25

30

35

40

VII. C ONCLUSIONS
45

Small Cell Transmit Power (dBm)

Fig. 11. DL EC versus small cell transmit power for a random realization of
the HC, with η = −100 dB and θ = 10−2 , λ = 30 small cells/km2 .

desired network entity (UE or BS), as we have done in Section
IV-B.
Finally, we assumed a pathloss dominated AWGN Rayleigh
fading channel model, but, since the lower bound presented
in (13) is always valid for any distribution of the interferer’s
channel, it is straightforward to extend this work to other
channel models, e.g., including log-normal shadowing.
B. Overlapping Small Cells
The analysis carried out in Section IV relies on the assumption that two small cells deployed in the same macro cell do
not overlap. However, in very dense network deployments,
small cells are not perfectly separated and may overlap in
some cases, thus impairing the effectiveness of the analysis
proposed in this paper.
In detail, when two small cells overlap, as depicted in
Fig. 12, there can be two users deployed in the overlapping
regions which are served in the same RB, since we did not
make any assumption on the resource scheduling strategy. In

In this paper we introduced a lower bound for the evaluation
of EC in a wireless cellular scenario based on which we built
a scalable mathematical framework to analyze the statistical
QoS performance of ultra dense next generation HCNs. Our
proposed scalable scheme helped us analyzing HD and imperfect FD HCNs from the EC perspective with high accuracy at
only a fraction of the complexity needed for an exact analysis.
Moreover, we investigated the trade off between FD and HD
systems by finding the minimum amount of SI cancellation
needed for FD HCN to perform similar to HD in terms of
EC.
A PPENDIX A
The average path loss between the free UE and the desired
UE based on Fig. 4 can be found by computing



− α2
−α
2
2
(31)
E kx0 k
= E r10 + c0 − 2c0 r10 cos (θ10 − ψ 0 )
where
2

2

2

c0 = d0 + r20 + 2r20 d0 cos θ0 2

(32)

To approximately calculate (31) this time we assume that
(r20 , θ0 2 ), i.e., the position of the desired UE, is fixed, and

11

then take the expectation with respect to the position of the
free UE and finally with respect to the desired UE.

in (34), we obtain

I2 =

1
R10 2 (π − θ∗ )

0

ZR1 2π−θ
Z

E(r0 ,θ0 )
1 1


− α2
2
2
r10 + c0 − 2c0 r10 cos (θ10 − ψ 0 )
(r20 , θ20 )

c0

θ∗

×

∗

(−α+1)
r10


1+

c0
r10

2

!− α2
c0
− 2 0 cos (θ10 − ψ 0 )
r1

× dr10 dθ10

 α 2

1
2  0 −(α−2)
2
−α
0 −(α−2)
=
−
c
− R1
≈ 02
c0 c0
2
0
∗
(π
−
θ
)R
α−2
2 α
1
R1
0
θ∗




0
0
∗
4c
c
2π−θ
−α+1
−α+1
−α
0
0
∗
0
0
Z Z 
α
− 2 r0 dr0 dθ0
− R1
sin θ cos ψ
c
−R 1
+
(a)
2
2
1 1 1
(α − 1)(π − θ∗ )
=
r10 + c0 − 2c0 r10 cos (θ10 − ψ 0 )
"
2
4
(π − θ∗ )R10
 4c0 2
α (α + 2) 2c0  0 −(α+2)
−(α+2)
0
θ∗
c
×
− R10
+
|
{z
} +
8
α+2
α
I1
0
∗
2




ZR1 2π−θ
Z 
2c0
−α
−α
− α2 r 0 dr0 dθ0
0 −α
0 −α
c
−
c0 − R10
sin 2θ∗ cos 2ψ 0
−
R
2
2
1
1 1
0
0
0 0
0
0
1
∗
+
r1 + c − 2c r1 cos (θ1 − ψ )
α(π
−
θ
)
(π − θ∗ )R12
#)


03
c0
θ∗
8c
−(α+1)
−(α+1)
|
{z
} +
c0
− R10
sin θ∗ cos ψ 0
I2
(α + 1) (π − θ∗ )
(33)
(35)
0

∗

ZR1 2π−θ
Z 

− α2
2
2
r10 + c0 − 2c0 r10 cos (θ10 − ψ 0 )

r10 dr10 dθ10

where (a) holds, since (r20 , θ20 ) is fixed and consequently
(c0 , ψ 0 ) becomes constant, thus the integration can be separated
into two pieces.
By factorizing c0 in the first integral and r10 in the second,
we can find an approximation for (33) due to the fact that
r10 < c0 holds always in the former while c0 < r10 in the latter.

I1 =

c0

−α

×
θ∗ )
!− α2
 0 2
r1
r10
0
0
1+
r10 dr10 dθ10
− 2 0 cos (θ1 − ψ )
c0
c

R10 2 (π −
0
∗
Zc 2π−θ
Z

We can simplify (35) by recalling that R10 is the radius of
−t
the coverage area of the macro BS, thus we have R10

−t
c0 , ∀t > 0. By taking this into account and using (35) and
(34) we obtain the approximation for the average path loss
from a free UE to the desired UE as

Ifree UE - UE ≈ PUE .




(α + 2) (α + 3)
2
1
0 −(α−2)
E
c
+
6
α − 2 R10 2


α 3α3 + 11α2 − 18α − 56 sin θ∗  0 −(α−2)
0
−
E
c
cos
ψ
2
∗
2
15(π − θ ) (α − 1)
R10
#


(α + 2) (α + 4) sin 2θ∗
0 −(α−2)
0
−
cos 2ψ
.
(36)
E c
16(π − θ∗ )
R10 2



−(α−2)
where E c0
is already provided in (25) and




0
θ∗
−(α−2)
0
0
0 −(α−2)
0
E
c
cos
ψ
and
E
c
cos
2ψ
can be calcu


−(α−2)
c0
α
2α
α (α + 2) lated as follows
∗
0
≈
1−
+
sin θ cos ψ +
4
3 (π − θ∗ )
8
R10 2



4
1
8
1
× +
sin θ∗ cos ψ 0 − sin 2θ∗ cos 2ψ 0
3 (π − θ∗ ) 5
2


(34)
−(α−2)
E c0
cos ψ 0 =




−(α−1)
−(α−1) 0
d 0 E c0
+ E c0
r 2 cos θ0 2 ≈
 −(α+2) 04
 (α − 1) d0 −α R02

α2 − 1 d0
R2
2
0
0 −(α−1)
+
d E c
−
4
12
In the second integral, again by using the same approach as
(37)

12

and


0 −(α−2)

E c

cos 2ψ

0



=
 0
2 !!
r 2 sin θ0 2
0 −(α−2)
E c
1−2
≈
c0
(
−α
−(α+2) 04


d0 R022
d0
R2
0 −(α−2)
E c
−
+ α (4α + 7)
2
6
)
−(α+4) 06
d0
R2
(38)
+α (α + 2)
32
In deriving (37) and (38) we assumed R20 < d0 .
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Sadeghi, M. Luvisotto, F. Lahouti, S. Vitturi, and M. Zorzi, “Statistical QoS analysis of full duplex and half duplex heterogeneous cellular
networks,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Communications
(ICC), Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, May 2016.
[2] Ericsson Press Release, “Ericsson mobility report,” February 2015.
[3] J. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. Soong, and
J. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, June 2014.
[4] A. Sabharwal, P. Schniter, D. Guo, D. Bliss, S. Rangarajan, and R. Wichman, “In-band full-duplex wireless: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1637–
1652, September 2014.
[5] A. Ghosh, N. Mangalvedhe, R. Ratasuk, B. Mondal, M. Cudak, E. Visotsky, T. Thomas, J. Andrews, P. Xia, H. Jo, H. Dhillon, and T. Novlan,
“Heterogeneous cellular networks: From theory to practice,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 54–64, June 2012.
[6] H. ElSawy, E. Hossain, and M. Haenggi, “Stochastic geometry for
modeling, analysis, and design of multi-tier and cognitive cellular wireless networks: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 996–1019, March 2013.
[7] H. Dhillon, R. Ganti, F. Baccelli, and J. Andrews, “Modeling and
analysis of K-tier downlink heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 550–
560, April 2012.
[8] J. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage
and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications,
vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, November 2011.
[9] N. Deng, W. Zhou, and M. Haenggi, “The Ginibre point process as
a model for wireless networks with repulsion,” IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 107–121, January 2015.
[10] M. Luvisotto, A. Sadeghi, F. Lahouti, S. Vitturi, and M. Zorzi, “RCFD:
A novel channel access scheme for full-duplex wireless networks
based on contention in time and frequency domains,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1606.01038, 2017.
[11] D. Bharadia, E. McMilin, and S. Katti, “Full duplex radios,” in ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 43, no. 4, 2013, pp.
375–386.
[12] D. Bharadia and S. Katti, “Full duplex MIMO radios,” in Proc. 11th
USENIX Symposium on Networked Sys. Design and Implementation,
April 2014.
[13] M. Duarte, C. Dick, and A. Sabharwal, “Experiment-driven characterization of full-duplex wireless systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 4296–4307, December 2012.
[14] X. Zhang, W. Cheng, and H. Zhang, “Heterogeneous statistical QoS
provisioning over 5G mobile wireless networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 28,
no. 6, pp. 46–53, November 2014.
[15] D. Wu and R. Negi, “Effective capacity: a wireless link model for
support of quality of service,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 630–643, July 2003.
[16] L. Jimenez Rodriguez, N. Tran, and T. Le-Ngoc, “Performance of fullduplex AF relaying in the presence of residual self-interference,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1752–
1764, September 2014.
[17] D. Ramirez and B. Aazhang, “Optimal routing and power allocation for
wireless networks with imperfect full-duplex nodes,” IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communications, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 4692–4704, September
2013.

[18] C.-S. Chang, “Stability, queue length, and delay of deterministic and
stochastic queueing networks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 913–931, May 1994.
[19] X. Zhang, J. Tang, H.-H. Chen, S. Ci, and M. Guizani, “Cross-layerbased modeling for quality of service guarantees in mobile wireless
networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 100–
106, January 2006.
[20] M. Duarte and A. Sabharwal, “Full-duplex wireless communications
using off-the-shelf radios: Feasibility and first results,” in Conference
Record of the Forty Fourth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems
and Computers (ASILOMAR), 2010, pp. 1558–1562.
[21] J. I. Choi, M. Jain, K. Srinivasan, P. Levis, and S. Katti, “Achieving
single channel, full duplex wireless communication,” in Proceedings of
the Sixteenth Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing
and Networking (MobiCom), New York, NY, USA, 2010.
[22] A. Sadeghi, F. Lahouti, and M. Zorzi, “Constellation shaping and
LDPC coding in a bidirectional full duplex communication,” in IEEE
Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), San Diego, USA,
December 2015.

