Renewal-Theoretic Packet Collision Modeling
under Long-Tailed Heterogeneous Traffic
Aamir Mahmood and Mikael Gidlund

arXiv:1706.02798v1 [cs.IT] 9 Jun 2017

Department of Information Systems and Technology
Mid Sweden University, Sweden
Email: firstname.lastname@miun.se

Abstract—Internet-of-things (IoT), with the vision of
billions of connected devices, is bringing a massively heterogeneous character to wireless connectivity in unlicensed
bands. The heterogeneity in medium access parameters,
transmit power and activity levels among the coexisting
networks leads to detrimental cross-technology interference. The stochastic traffic distributions, shaped under
CSMA/CA rules, of an interfering network and channel
fading makes it challenging to model and analyze the performance of an interfered network. In this paper, to study
the temporal interaction between the traffic distributions
of two coexisting networks, we develop a renewal-theoretic
packet collision model and derive a generic collision-time
distribution (CTD) function of an interfered system. The
CTD function holds for any busy- and idle-time distributions of the coexisting traffic. As the earlier studies suggest
a long-tailed idle-time statistics in real environments, the
developed model only requires the Laplace transform of
long-tailed distributions to find the CTD. Furthermore,
we present a packet error rate (PER) model under the
proposed CTD and multipath fading of the interfering
signals. Using this model, a computationally efficient PER
approximation for interference-limited case is developed to
analyze the performance of an interfered link.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In typical office, home and industrial settings, simultaneous presence of heterogeneous wireless technologies
is becoming certain; now that we are on the pulse of
the networked society [1]. For instance, we use WLAN
for the Internet, and low-power Bluetooth- and IEEE
802.15.4- based HVAC and industrial control systems.
The coexistence of these technologies affects their performance in three domains: frequency, time, and space.
On a certain frequency channel, interference in temporal
domain is dictated by the traffic parameters whereas the
spatial interference depends on the transmission power
and location of the interferer, and multipath fading. Be it
temporal or spatial domain, modeling the heterogeneous
coexistence to its exactness is quite complex although
desired for performance evaluation and enhancement
especially in interference prone low-power networks.
Starting with temporal overlap between two coexisting networks, the collision-time of interfered packets
together with the SINR determines the eventual packet
error rate (PER). The collision-time is defined by the
traffic parameters of the coexisting networks: that is,

distributions of the packet length and idle-time. In a
realistic environment, while modeling the collisions with
a multi-terminal system like WLAN, the compound traffic observed by an interfered link has to be considered.
In many measurement studies [2][3], it is shown that
the WLAN traffic shaped under CSMA/CA protocol
follows long-tailed idle-time statistics such as hyperexponential or hyper-Erlang distribution. This is where the
deterministic models (e.g., [4]) for constant packet interarrivals fail to encompass the real traffic characteristics.
A collision-time distribution for interfered packets of
constant length in the presence of arbitrary idle-time
(busy-time) statistics of the interference is developed in
[5]. However, this distribution is derived for constant,
and exponential and gamma distributions of the idletime.
In this paper, we derive a theoretical collision time
distribution (CTD) which holds for any idle-time distribution with known Laplace transform. Thus, CTD can
easily be evaluated for mixture distributions such as hyperexponential and hyper-Erlang. Using the alternating
renewal process representation of the WLAN traffic from
[5], the collision-time of an interfered packet depends on
the initial observed state of the WLAN traffic (i.e., idle
or busy) as well as the residual life of that state. Then the
CTD in each state is the distribution of the random sum
of the busy-times encountered in the interfered packet
length. While the random sum is weighted by the distribution of the number of renewals (idle-times) observed
during the interfered packet. In particular for exponential distributed interfered packet length, we develop
the distributions of the number of renewals for each
initial observed state: which are generic and can easily
be evaluated for any idle-time distribution. We validate
the theoretical derived CTD with the simulation results,
showing a perfect match. We also give the collisiontime distributions for hyperexponential idle-times with
parameters, reported in [2], fitted to the measurements
from a real heterogeneous environment.
The developed CTD and the distribution of the number
of renewals under realistic coexisting traffic can be
utilized in a number of ways e.g.,
•

Link quality analysis as studied further in this paper.

Simulating the performance of a transmission
scheme, packet length optimization and dimensioning the spectrum sensing algorithms.
• To find the distribution of the harvested energy
based on the temporal overlap of RF power source
and the harvesting device [6].
With the temporal interaction of an interfered link
fully captured by collision-time distribution, we develop
its PER model which, contrary to [4][5], also incorporates the effect of multipath fading of the interfering
signals during the collision time. Specifically, we consider the PER analysis of an interfered link operating
in a relatively static environment, and in the presence
of multiple interferers of identical powers undergoing
Rayleigh fading. For the considered case, we develop
two PER approximations for transmission schemes with
bit error rate (BER) in the form of Gaussian Q-function.
We evaluate the accuracy of each approximation and
discuss how to combine them to evaluate the PER
accurately and in computationally efficient manner.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section
II develops a collision-time distribution function based
on renewal-theoretic packet collision modeling. Section
III finds the distributions for interference on time and the
number of renewals. Section IV presents the PER model
and develops its approximations. Section V draws the
concluding remarks.
•

Fig. 1. System model for heterogeneous coexistence

II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a low-power wireless sensor system,
where each sensor link between a transmitter and receiver pair, is subjected to interference from coexisting
WLAN system as shown in Fig. 1. In the WLAN system,
at any time instant, there can be a random number of
associated stations however under CSMA/CA medium
access (ideally) only one station is in transmit (receive)
state to (from) the access point (AP). The composite
traffic arrival process, shaped by CSMA/CA rules and
with or without any perturbations in the arrival process
due to collisions or interference, observed by the sensor
link is denoted as β(t) in Fig. 1.
A. Packet Collision Model for an Interfered Sensor Link
Now we develop a packet collision model for the
sensor link under the effect of packet arrival process of
the WLAN system.
Consider an alternating renewal process representing
WLAN packet arrivals. At any time instant, the process
is in one of the two states: busy (on) or idle (off ) (see
Fig. 2). Denote the state of the process at time t ≥ 0 by
χ(t), and let χ(t) = 1 if the process is on and χ(t) = 0
if it is off. The time evolution of the process is then
described by the two state stochastic process {χ(t), t ≥
0}. The total on time in which the process spends in state
χ(t) = 1 during the time interval (t0 , t) is a stochastic
process, denoted as β(t), and it is the potential collision

Fig. 2. Sample functions of WLAN traffic and collision time processes

time for a sensor link. Mathematically, β(t) in terms of
χ(t) is defined as
Zt
β (t) =

χ (x) dx
t0

The complement of β(t) is the total off time, which is
the time the process is spends in the state χ(t) = 0
during (t0 , t), and follows α (t) = t − β (t).
Let variables ηi (ξi ) denote the time spent in state
on(off ) during the ith visit to that state. We assume that all ηi (ξi ) are independent and identically
distributed as η(ξ) according to H (x) = Pr{η ≤
x} (G (x) = Pr{ξ ≤ x}), and both η and ξ are con¯ The
tinuous random variables with mean η̄ and ξ.
distribution of the sum η1 + η2 + · · · + ηn is the n-fold
convolution of H(x), i.e.
n
nX
o
Hn (x) = Pr
ηi ≤ x
i=1

where H0 (x) = 1. An analogous definition holds for
Gn (x), being the n-fold convolution of G(x). A symbolic representation of the functions χ(t) and β(t) is
shown in Fig. 2

collision-time distribution of the sensor link), ω0 (x), can
be determined from (1) as
Z ∞
∞
X
ω0 (x) =
Hn (x) Pr{N e (t − x) = n}ftz (t)dt
=

n=0
∞
X

0

Hn (x) Pr{Ntez (x) = n}

(4)

n=0

Fig. 3. State of the alternating renewal process at observation instant:
(a) there is no WLAN packet at the observation instant t0 (that is, at
the start of a transmission over the sensor link), (b) there is an ongoing
WLAN packet transmission at t0 . The shaded area represents length
of the interfered packet which follows a distribution.

Assuming the process enters the state on at time t0 , the
cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the on time,
β (t), is given by Takács [7]

Pr {β (t) ≤ x} =

∞
X

Hn (x) Pr{N (t − x) = n} (1)

n=0

where Pr{N (t − x) = n}, is the probability mass
function (PMF) of the number of renewals (or the idletimes) during the time interval (t0 , t − x) with x- the
collision time. From [8], the PMF is related to Gn (x) as
Pr{N (t − x) = n} = Gn (t − x) − Gn+1 (t − x) (2)
From an interfered system’s perspective, the process
χ (t) however can be in an arbitrary state at time instant
t0 (see Fig. 3). As a result, at t0 the χ (t) can be in
either state on or off as shown in Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 3(b).
Define η R and ξ R be the residual time of ξ and η with
distribution function H R = Pr{η R ≤ x} and GR =
Pr{ξ R ≤ x} respectively. Then, the distribution of the
sum η R + η2 + · · · + ηn is
HnR (x) = H R (x) ∗ Hn (x)
n
n
o
X
= Pr η R +
ηi ≤ x

(3)

i=2

with H0R (x) = 1 and H1R (x) = H R (x). An analogous
definition holds for GR
n (x), being the convolution of
Gn (x) with GR (x).
Now consider the packet length, tz , of the interfered
system is a random variable, independent of the random
variables η and ξ, with probability density function (pdf)
ftz (t). If χ (t0 ) = 0, the CDF of on time (i.e., the

where from (3) and (2), Pr{N e (t − x) = n} =
R
GR
n (t − x) − Gn+1 (t − x) is the PMF of number of
renewals in an equilibrium renewal process over a fixed
time and Pr{Ntez (x) = n} is the same measure in a
random time.
On the other hand, if χ (t0 ) = 1, the collision-time
distribution, ω1 (x), from (1) is
Z ∞
∞
X
ω1 (x) =
HnR (x) Pr{N o (t − x) = n}ftz (t)dt
=

n=0
∞
X

0

HnR (x) Pr{Ntoz (x) = n}

(5)

n=0

where Pr{N o (t−x) = n} = Gn (t − x)−Gn+1 (t − x)
corresponds to the PMF of the number of renewals
in an ordinary renewal process in a fixed time and
Pr{Ntoz (x) = n} denotes the PMF in a random time.
As, at an arbitrary time instant t0 > 0, we find the
system in on state with probability Pr {χ (t0 ) = 1} =
η̄
, α and in off state with probability 1 − α, the
η̄+ξ̄
joint collision-time distribution function is
Ω (x) , αω1 (x) + (1 − α) ω0 (x) .

(6)

III. C OLLISION T IME A NALYSIS
In this section, for a random packet length tz we find
the on time distributions, Hn (x) and HnR (x), and the
PMF of the number of renewals, Pr{Ntez (x) = n} and
Pr{Ntoz (x) = n}, assuming various on- and off -time
distributions of the WLAN system.
A. Interference On Time Distribution
The packet transmission time, which depends on the
packet length and the bit rate, corresponds to the on time
of an alternating renewal process. In the following, we
consider constant and exponentially distributed on time
without the loss of generality.
1) Constant packet length: Assuming a constant
WLAN packet length (i.e., η̄ = tw ), the on time
distribution is given by [5]
(
0, x < ntw
Hn (x) =
(7)
1, x ≥ ntw
Since the residual time, η R is uniformly distributed in
the interval [0, tw ], we have [5]


x < (n − 1) tw
0,
HnR (x) = x−(n−1)T
,
(n − 1) T ≤ x < ntw (8)
T


1,
x ≥ ntw

2) Random packet length: On the other hand, if tw
follows the exponential distribution with parameter µ
and mean η̄ = 1/µ, Hn (x) = HnR (x) is the Erlangn distribution
Hn (x) = HnR (x) = 1 −

n−1
X
k=0

1
k
(µx) exp (−µx) (9)
k!

B. PMF of Number of Renewals
Let P (t, z) be the probability generating function
(PGF) of Nt , the number of renewals in a fixed interval
in (0, t), defined as
∞

 X
P (t, z) = E z Nt =
Pr{Nt = n}z n

(10)

n=0

Then P (z), the PGF of Ntz i.e., the number of renewals
in a random interval in (0, tz ) with PDF ftz (t), is
Z ∞
P (z) =
P (t, z)ftz (t)dt
(11)
0

The PMF of Ntz from (11) can be determined as
1 dn
P (z)
n! dz n

, n = 0, 1, 2, ...
(12)
With the basic relations in place in (10)-(12), we find
Pr{Ntez (x) = n} and Pr{Ntoz (x) = n} need in (4)
and (5). The PGF of the number of renewals in a fixed
interval assumes a general form [8, eq. (3.2.2)]
Pr{Ntz = n} =

P (t − x, z) = 1 +

∞
X

z=0

z n−1 (z − 1){Gn (t − x)}n (13)

n=1

Now if the Laplace transform of gn (t) is gn∗ (s), then
that of Gn (t − x) is gn∗ (s)e−sx /s. The function gn∗ (s)
for ordinary and equilibrium renewal process is equal
¯ reto {g ∗ (s)}n /s and to {1 − g ∗ (s)}{g ∗ (s)}n−1 /(ξs)
spectively. Therefore, the Laplace transform of (13) for
equilibrium renewal process is
Pe∗ (s, z) =

1 (z − 1){1 − g ∗ (s)} −sx
+ ¯2
e
s
ξs {1 − zg ∗ (s)}

and (5) with (12). We find that the PMF of number of
renewals in (4) is
Pr{Ntez (x) = n}



{1 − g ∗ (s)}e−sx

1 −
,
n=0


sξ¯

s=λz



e−sx
=
∗
n+1
∗
n
∗
n−1
{g
(s)}
−2{g
(s)}
+{g
(s)}
,



sξ¯

s=λz


n≥1
(17)
while the PMF in (5) is
Pr{Ntoz (x) = n}


(
1 − e−sx g ∗ (s) s=λz ,

=  −sx
e
{g ∗ (s)}n − {g ∗ (s)}n+1 s=λz ,

Pr{Ntez (x) = n} = Pr{Ntoz (x) = n}

ρe−λz x


1 −
,

λz + ρ
=

n−1 


ρ
λz

−λz x

,
e
λz + ρ
λz + ρ

(14)

s=λz

(19)
n≥1

2) Hyperexponential idle time: The hyperexponential
distribution is the mixture of k exponential random
variables, i.e.
g(x) =

k
X

pi ρi e−ρi x

(20)

Pk
Pk
where
i=1 pi = 1 and E[X] =
i=1 pi /ρi . The
Laplace transform of hyperexponential PDF is,
g ∗ (s) =

(15)

Assuming tz is exponential distributed with parameter
λz , from [8, eq. (3.4.3)] the (14) and (15) can easily be
inverted with
∗
P{e,o} (z) = λz P{e,o}
(s, z)

n=0

i=1

∗

1 − g (s)
e−sx
=
s{1 − zg ∗ (s)}

n≥1
(18)

For any idle-time distribution of WLAN traffic with
known Laplace transform, one can easily find the PMF
of the number of renewals observed during a packet
duration over the sensor link from (17) and (18). In the
following, we consider the exponential and hyperexponential idle-time distributions (without loss of generality)
as examples.
1) Exponential idle times: The Laplace transform of
exponential distribution with parameter ρ is g ∗ (s) :=
ρ
s+ρ , and the distribution of the renewals is

while for ordinary renewal process we have
Po∗ (s, z)

n=0

(16)

Now by substituting (14) and (15) in (16), one can
find the PMFs of the number of renewals desired in (4)

M
X
i=1

pi

ρi
s + ρi

(21)

Substituting (21) into (17) and (18), it is straightforward to find the desired expressions of PMFs, which are
excluded here due to space limitations.
C. Numerical Validation
We validate the proposed CTD in (6) with the distributions developed in Section III-A & III-B respectively.
We assume that mean interfered packet transmission
time is t̄z = 1/λz = 1.984 ms equaling a packet size

of 60 bytes at 256 kbps whereas WLAN busy-time is
constant with tw = 374 µs which is equivalent of a
nominal packet size of 500 bytes at 12 Mbps. Also, we
assume that the idle-time is exponentially distributed. For
validation, the numerical results from (6) are compared
against Matlab simulations, and shown in Fig. 4 for
α = 0.0361 and α = 0.1575. It can be observed that
the numerical results are in excellent agreement with the
simulations both for the low and high channel activity
factors. Note that y−intercept is the probability of having
no collisions with WLAN traffic during the interfered
packet duration.
After validating the proposed model, we look at the
collision-time distributions under realistic hyperexponential idle-time distribution of WLAN. For this purpose, the
hyperexpoential distribution parameters are taken from
[2] that fit best, based on the algorithm in [9], to the idletime measurements taken from a real environment with
heterogeneous WLANs/Bluetooth at 2.4 GHz. The fitted
hyperexponential parameters with respect to the observed spectrum activity factor (α) are given in Table I.
For the measurement setup and other details, the reader
can refer to [2]. Again, assuming the t̄z = 1/λz = 1.984
ms and tw = 374 µs, the numerical CTD is plotted in
Fig. 5. A number of observations can be made from
Fig. 5. As the activity factor increases the probability
of collisions and the collision time increases. However
owing to the long-tailed behavior in hyperexponential
case, the probability of no collision remains smaller than
the exponential case with the same activity factor.

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

Simulation
Theoretical
0.4
0

Depending on the composite traffic arrival process,
β(t) and the packet length of the sensor link, the number
of interfered bits follow the collision-time distribution
which we derived in the previous sections. In order to
analyze the packet error performance under an observed
β(t), now we develop a packet error rate model (PER).
A. PER Model
We assume that (in general) the downlink traffic from
the WLAN AP to the stations outweighs the uplink
traffic. In addition, when the WLAN stations are approximately at the same distance relative to the sensor system,

TABLE I
E STIMATED PARAMETERS FOR H YPEREXPONENTIALLY
D ISTRIBUTED I DLE T IMES [2]

1/λ1
1/λ2
1/λ3
p1
p2
p3

α < 0.1
0.040380
0.01174
0.00468
0.328
0.356
0.316

α ∈ [0.1, 0.3]
0.022490
0.006445
0.000388
0.093
0.577
0.330

α ∈ [0.3, 0.5]
0.012690
0.003289
0.000457
0.037
0.467
0.496

α ≥ 0.5
0.014890
0.002606
0.000395
0.012
0.176
0.812

1

1.5

2

2.5

3
10-3

Fig. 4. Collision-time distribution under exponential channel idle-times
1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
0

IV. PACKET E RROR A NALYSIS UNDER β(t)

0.5

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3
10-3

Fig. 5. Collision-time distribution under hyperexponential channel
idle-times

it can be assumed that the interference power experienced by the sensor link is equivalent to the interference
I from the AP (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, we consider
the case where the desired signal undergoes constant
channel gain as in [10], while the WLAN interfering
signal is subject to Rayleigh multipath fading. Therefore,
without WLAN interference, the received signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) of the sensor link is γs = Es /N0 where
Es is the bit energy of the desired signal and N0 the
noise power. Whereas in the presence of interference,
the received SINR is γc = γs /(1 + γI ) [11] where
γI = |hI |2 EI /No is the instantaneous interference-tonoise-ratio (INR) of the interfering signal with γ̄I =
EI /No the average INR. Here, hI is the complex channel
gain between the WLAN signal and the sensor receiver
(with its envelop following the Rayleigh distribution).
Therefore, γI is exponentially distributed with the PDF,
fγI = γ̄1I exp (−γI /γ̄I ).
Consider the packet transmission time of the sensor
link tz is exponentially distributed. If the tb is the

Pe (γ, γ̄I ) = 1 −

NX
=∞

q0 (γs )

N −`

`=0

Z

∞



q1 (γs /γI )

where cm and km are the modulation-specific constants,
and Q(·) is the Gaussian Q-function. Define q0 (γs ) =
1−be (γs ) be the bit success probability when there is no
interference, and q1 (γs /γI ) = 1 − be (γs /(1 + γI )) be
the bit success probability under interference. The PER
of an N -bit packet with ` interfered number of bits is
then given by
Z
`
N −` ∞
Pe (γs ,γ̄I ) = 1− q0 (γs )
q1 (γs /γI ) fγI dγI (24)
0

Under β(t), ` will follow a distribution, and the PER
model (24) can be reformulated as in (22), where Ω (x)
is the collision time distribution defined in (6) with x
the collision time. Note that Ω (x) = 0 for x < 0.
We assume that the level of interference at the sensor
receiver is such that the effect of thermal noise on link
performance can be ignored.
B. PER Approximations
In this section, we develop approximations for the
integral in (22), which using (23) is
Z

∞



`
p
km γs /γI
fγI dγI
1 − cm Q



fγI dγI Ω (`tb ) − Ω ((` − 1) tb )

(22)

0

physical layer bit duration, the number of bits in a packet
are N = [0, ∞]. Let be (γ) be the BER in AWGN
channel which has general form for M-ASK, M-PAM,
MSK, M-PSK and M-QAM modulations as

p
km γ
(23)
be (γ) = cm Q

I` =

`

(25)

0

Due to the polynomial of degree `, the integral in
(25) is difficult to evaluate without using Q-function
approximations. One can apply the binomial expansion
to the term (1−Q(x))` and use either QN approximation
[12] or exponential function based bounds to Q-function
[13][14]. However, the approximation in [13] is not
accurate and approximation in [14] is not integrable
with respect to γI for ` ≥ 2 in Rayleigh fading [12].
Therefore, we used the QN approximation [12]
X
−`x2
(26)
Q` (x) '
K` C` xfm e 2
k1 ,k2 ,··· ,kna

where the summation is carried over all sequences of
non-negative integers k1 + · · · + kna = ` and, K` , C`
and fm are defined after [12, (4)-(6)]. Note that, the
accuracy of (26) depends on na with na = 8 being the
reasonable choice. With binomial expansion and using
(26), the integral (25) is evaluated as in (29), where δ =
1
4 (2 − fm ) and Kn (·, ·) is the modified Bessel function
of the second kind.

The approximation in (29) is tight as shown in the
Fig. 6, however, it is computationally intensive for higher
integer powers (` ≥ 8) of the Q-function due to the
fact that summation is carried over all sequences of
non-negative integers k1 , k2 , · · · , k8 that sum to `. As
a result, we utilized an extreme value theory based
approximation proposed in [15] for higher powers. From
[15], the integrand in (25), denote as I(x), can be as
asymptotically approximated by the Gumbel distribution
function for the sample maximum as

 x − a 
`
(27)
I(x) ' exp − exp −
b`

2
where a` = k2m erf −1 1 − `c2m
and b` =
 −1
2
2
2
1 − `cm e
− a` are the normalizing conkm erf
stants, e is the base of the natural logarithm and erf −1 (·)
is the inverse error function.
The approximation in (27) is still not integrable in
(25). However, Gumbel distribution function (27) can be
tightly approximated by the CDF of Gamma distribution
by matching the first two moments:
2

κ` =

a` + b` E0
6 (a` + b` E0 )
, θ` =
2
2
π b`
κ`

where E0 = 0.5772 is the Euler constant. Using the CDF
of Gamma distribution, the integral in (25) becomes

Z ∞ 
γs
1
γ́ κ` ,
I` =
fγI dγI
(28)
Γ(κ` ) 0
θ` γI
where γ́ (., .) and Γ(·) stand for lower incomplete and
complete Gamma functions respectively [16, p.892]. The
integral in (28) over the exponential PDF, we get (30),
where Kn (·, ·) is the modified Bessel function of the
second kind.
Fig. 6 compares the proposed approximations of I`
in (29) and (30) for different values of `. It can be
observed that approximation (29) is quite tight however
its computational demanding. On the other hand, as the
number of interfered bits (`) increase, the tightness of
the approximation in (30) also increases suggesting its
usage for higher `.
In Fig. 7, the PER in (22) is evaluated under the
collision-time distribution with hyperexpoential parameters given in Table I, and the approximations in (29) and
(30). As the approximation in (29) is computationally
demanding, we want to compute it for as lower values
of ` as possible and use approximation (30) for higher
values. In Fig. 7, for ` ≤ 8 we use (29) and ` > 8
(30). It can be observed that this approach matches the
numerical result tightly for small to large WLAN activity
factors.

I` = 1 +

`  
1 X `
r
(−cm )
γ̄I r=1 r

X
k1 ,k2 ,··· ,kna

√



δ 
1−2δ
2rkm γs
km γs
Kr Cr 21−δ rkm γs γ̄I
Kn −2δ, √
γ̄I


1
I` =
Γ (κ` )

Γ (κ` ) − 2

γs
γ̄I θ`

 κ2`


!
r
γs
Kn −κ` , 2
γ̄I θ`

(29)

(30)

easily be evaluated for long-tailed hyperexponential or
hyper-Erlang distribution. The theoretical collision-time
distribution is in excellent agreement with the simulation
results. We incorporated the proposed collision- time distribution into a PER model which also takes into account
the fading of the interfering signals. We investigated the
approximations to PER and derived easy to compute
and accurate expressions. As future extension of this
work, we would like to study the potential of the packet
collision model to RF energy harvesting problems.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

R EFERENCES

0.2
0.1
-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

SIR (dB)

Fig. 6. Comparing I` approximations for different values of ` with
cm = 1 and km = 2.
0.6

0.5

PER

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

SIR (dB)

Fig. 7. PER of an interfered link under WLAN interference. The
modulation parameters of the interfered link are: cm = 1 and km = 2,
which correspond to BPSK/QPSK modulation.

V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have developed a generic collisiontime distribution (CTD) function of an interfered link
based on renewal-theoretic modeling of the coexisting
traffic. For the exponentially distributed interfered packet
lengths, the CTD function is a random sum of the
distributions of on-time and number of renewals of the
coexisting traffic. The distribution of the number of
renewals, which depends on the idle-time statistics, is
derived theoretically. The distribution requires only the
Laplace transform of the idle-time statistics thus can

[1] A. Ericsson, “Ericsson mobility report: On the pulse of the
networked society,” Ericsson, Sweden, Tech. Rep. EAB-14, vol.
61078, 2015.
[2] L. Stabellini, “Quantifying and modeling spectrum opportunities
in a real wireless environment,” in IEEE WCNC. IEEE, 2010,
pp. 1–6.
[3] S. Geirhofer, L. Tong, and B. M. Sadler, “A measurement-based
model for dynamic spectrum access in WLAN channels,” in IEEE
MILCOM. IEEE, 2006, pp. 1–7.
[4] S. Y. Shin, H. S. Park, and W. H. Kwon, “Mutual interference
analysis of IEEE 802.15.4 and IEEE 802.11b,” Comput. Netw.,
vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 3338–3353, Aug. 2007.
[5] A. Mahmood, H. Yigitler, and R. Jäntti, “Stochastic packet collision modeling in coexisting wireless networks for link quality
evaluation,” in IEEE ICC, June 2013, pp. 1915–1920.
[6] S. Lee, R. Zhang, and K. Huang, “Opportunistic wireless energy
harvesting in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. W. Commun., vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 4788–4799, 2013.
[7] L. Takács, “On certain sojourn time problems in the theory of
stochastic processes,” Acta Mathematica Hungarica, vol. 8, pp.
169–191, 1957.
[8] D. Cox, Renewal Theory. Methuen, 1970.
[9] A. Feldmann and W. Whitt, “Fitting mixtures of exponentials to
long-tail distributions to analyze network performance models,”
Performance evaluation, vol. 31, no. 3-4, pp. 245–279, 1998.
[10] H. Shariatmadari, A. Mahmood, and R. Jantti, “Channel ranking
based on packet delivery ratio estimation in wireless sensor
networks,” in IEEE WCNC, April 2013, pp. 59–64.
[11] P. S. Bithas and A. A. Rontogiannis, “Mobile communication
systems in the presence of fading/shadowing, noise and interference,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 724–737, March
2015.
[12] Y. Isukapalli and B. D. Rao, “An analytically tractable approximation for the Gaussian Q-function,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 669–671, September 2008.
[13] M. Wu, X. Lin, and P. Y. Kam, “New exponential lower bounds
on the Gaussian Q-function via Jensen’s inequality,” in IEEE 73rd
Veh. Tech. Conf. (VTC Spring), May 2011, pp. 1–5.
[14] G. K. Karagiannidis and A. S. Lioumpas, “An improved approximation for the Gaussian Q-function,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 644–646, August 2007.
[15] A. Mahmood and R. Jäntti, “Packet error rate analysis of uncoded
schemes in block-fading channels using extreme value theory,”
IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 208–211, Jan 2017.
[16] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of integrals, series, and
products, 7th ed. Elsevier, 2007.

