Rao-Blackwellized Coverage Estimation in Poisson Networks: A High-Fidelity Hybrid Framework

Junaid Farooq; Kumar Vijay Mishra; Sunder Ram Krishnan; S. Unnikrishna Pillai; Theodore S. Rappaport; Xingchen Liu

arxiv: 2511.19568 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-24 · 💻 cs.IT · eess.SP· math.IT· math.PR

Rao-Blackwellized Coverage Estimation in Poisson Networks: A High-Fidelity Hybrid Framework

Sunder Ram Krishnan , Junaid Farooq , Kumar Vijay Mishra , Xingchen Liu , S. Unnikrishna Pillai , Theodore S. Rappaport This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 05:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT eess.SPmath.ITmath.PR

keywords Rao-Blackwellized estimatorcoverage probabilityPoisson point processstochastic geometryhybrid Monte CarloLaplace functionalfar-field interferencevariance reduction

0 comments

The pith

The Rao-Blackwellized Hybrid Estimator remains unbiased for any finite truncation while its bias to the infinite-plane coverage probability decays as O(K^{1-η/2}).

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops a hybrid estimator that samples the K strongest interferers exactly while averaging the infinite remaining interference through the conditional Laplace functional of the Poisson point process. The construction is designed to preserve unbiasedness at every finite truncation and to make the difference from the true infinite model shrink at a polynomial rate set by the path-loss exponent. A reader would care because ordinary Monte Carlo simulations for cellular coverage converge slowly due to the variability of distant interferers, and the hybrid form promises to reach target precision with far fewer independent spatial realizations.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Rao-Blackwellized Hybrid Estimator formed by exact spatial sampling of K dominant interferers together with analytical marginalization of the residual far-field via the conditional Laplace functional is exactly unbiased for every finite K. Its systematic bias relative to the infinite-plane benchmark decays at rate O(K^{1-η/2}).

What carries the argument

The Rao-Blackwellized Hybrid Estimator that partitions the interference field into K sampled dominant interferers and an analytically averaged infinite tail through the conditional Laplace functional.

If this is right

The estimator stays exactly unbiased no matter how small the truncation parameter K is chosen.
Systematic bias to the infinite-plane result vanishes polynomially with increasing K at a rate governed by the path-loss exponent.
Variance is reduced by more than 90 times when K equals 2 in the high-reliability regime, cutting the number of required spatial realizations by roughly 99 percent.
The same hybrid construction applies directly to any performance metric whose Laplace functional admits a closed conditional form.
Purely analytical models and full Monte Carlo simulation are bridged by a single tunable truncation parameter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same partitioning idea could be tested on other point-process functionals such as achievable rate or latency distributions.
Numerical experiments that plot empirical bias against K for several path-loss exponents would directly confirm or refute the stated decay rate.
The reduction in required realizations could enable coverage maps over much larger regions or finer grids than previously feasible.
If conditional functionals remain tractable, the method might extend to non-Poisson deployments such as clustered or hard-core point processes.

Load-bearing premise

The far-field interference after selecting the K dominant interferers admits an exact analytical representation via the conditional Laplace functional of the Poisson point process.

What would settle it

A side-by-side numerical computation of coverage probability in a very large finite network versus the RBHE output for successive values of K, checking whether the observed difference follows the predicted decay rate O(K^{1-η/2}) and whether bias is exactly zero for any finite K.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.19568 by Junaid Farooq, Kumar Vijay Mishra, Sunder Ram Krishnan, S. Unnikrishna Pillai, Theodore S. Rappaport, Xingchen Liu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Coverage probability vs. SINR threshold T (dB) with σ 2 = 0.1 for: (a) η = 3.4142, N = 10, K = 4, and (b) K = 1, 2, 3, 4 and N = 5. VI. CONCLUSION The proposed hybrid framework offers a unified and computationally efficient approach for SINR coverage analysis in Poisson cellular networks. By decomposing interference into a deterministic set of dominant sources and a statistically modeled residual tail, th… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

While stochastic geometry provides a powerful framework for the analysis of cellular networks, standard Monte Carlo simulations often suffer from slow convergence due to the stochasticity of the infinite far-field. This work introduces the \textit{Rao-Blackwellized Hybrid Estimator} (RBHE), which enhances simulation efficiency by analytically marginalizing the residual far-field interference via the conditional Laplace functional. By partitioning the interference field into $K$ dominant interferers and an infinite tail, we derive an estimator that combines exact spatial sampling with a rigorous analytical representation. We prove that the RBHE is an unbiased estimator for any finite truncation, while its systematic bias relative to the infinite-plane benchmark decays at a rate of $\mathcal{O}(K^{1-\eta/2})$. Numerical results demonstrate significant sample parsimony; in the high-reliability regime ($T = -10$ dB) with $K=2$, the RBHE yields a variance reduction gain of $90.75\times$, enabling a $98.90\%$ reduction in the spatial realizations required to reach a target precision. This framework effectively bridges the gap between tractable analytical models and high-fidelity simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The RBHE combines sampling of K dominant interferers with analytical marginalization of the tail via conditional Laplace, delivering large reported variance cuts, but the unbiasedness and bias-rate claims rest on whether the residual process keeps its standard form after power-based selection.

read the letter

The core contribution is a hybrid estimator that draws the K strongest interferers from the PPP and then plugs an analytical expression for the remaining far-field into the coverage probability. This is a clean application of Rao-Blackwellization to the usual Monte Carlo setup in stochastic geometry. The numerical example at T = -10 dB with K=2 shows a 90x variance reduction and nearly 99% fewer spatial realizations, which is the kind of practical payoff that matters for reliability studies. They also state an explicit bias decay order relative to the infinite-plane case, which is more than most truncation papers give. That combination of finite-K unbiasedness plus a rate is new enough in this literature to be worth checking. The main soft spot is the step that treats the residual interference after selecting the K largest-power points as having an unchanged conditional Laplace functional. Power-based selection with fading introduces size-biasing, so the leftover process is no longer a simple homogeneous PPP; the standard integral form may need correction terms. If the derivation skips that adjustment, both the unbiasedness claim and the O(K^{1-η/2}) rate become conditional on an unstated simplification. The abstract and stress-test note leave this unclear, so the central math needs explicit verification. This paper is aimed at researchers who already run Monte Carlo coverage simulations and want to cut compute while keeping the estimator unbiased for any chosen K. A serious referee should see it because the efficiency numbers are concrete and the technique is reproducible once the conditioning is clarified. I would send it to review with a request to expand the Laplace-functional derivation and confirm the bias rate under the actual selection rule.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper introduces the Rao-Blackwellized Hybrid Estimator (RBHE) for coverage estimation in Poisson networks. By simulating K dominant interferers and analytically integrating the residual far-field interference using the conditional Laplace functional, the method aims to improve simulation efficiency. The authors prove that the RBHE is unbiased for any finite K and that its bias relative to the infinite-plane benchmark decays at O(K^{1-η/2}). Numerical results highlight variance reduction gains, for example 90.75× with K=2 at T = -10 dB, leading to substantial reduction in required spatial realizations.

Significance. Should the central mathematical claims be verified, this framework represents a meaningful advance in hybrid analytical-simulation techniques for stochastic geometry applied to wireless networks. It addresses the slow convergence issue in Monte Carlo simulations of infinite networks by leveraging Rao-Blackwellization, potentially enabling more efficient high-fidelity analysis. The explicit bias decay rate and reported empirical gains are strengths that could influence simulation practices in the field if the assumptions hold.

major comments (1)

The proof that the RBHE is unbiased for finite truncation and the O(K^{1-η/2}) bias decay both rely on the residual far-field after selecting the K dominant interferers admitting an exact analytical representation via the conditional Laplace functional. Please provide the detailed steps showing how the conditioning on the K strongest marks (by instantaneous power h_i r_i^{-η}) affects the intensity measure of the remaining PPP, as the marking theorem typically induces a non-homogeneous residual process requiring adjusted terms in the Laplace functional exp(-∫ (1 - ℒ_h(s r^{-η})) Λ(dr)). If this adjustment is omitted, the unbiasedness claim may not hold as stated.

minor comments (2)

Consider clarifying the selection criterion for the K dominant interferers (e.g., whether based on distance only or including fading) early in the introduction to aid reader understanding.
The numerical results section could benefit from additional details on the simulation parameters and how the variance reduction gain is computed to facilitate reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered the major comment and revised the paper to provide additional details on the derivation of the conditional Laplace functional. Below we address the comment point by point.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The proof that the RBHE is unbiased for finite truncation and the O(K^{1-η/2}) bias decay both rely on the residual far-field after selecting the K dominant interferers admitting an exact analytical representation via the conditional Laplace functional. Please provide the detailed steps showing how the conditioning on the K strongest marks (by instantaneous power h_i r_i^{-η}) affects the intensity measure of the remaining PPP, as the marking theorem typically induces a non-homogeneous residual process requiring adjusted terms in the Laplace functional exp(-∫ (1 - ℒ_h(s r^{-η})) Λ(dr)). If this adjustment is omitted, the unbiasedness claim may not hold as stated.

Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out the need for explicit details on the conditioning effect. In the original manuscript, the proof in Section III and Appendix A already incorporates the adjusted intensity for the residual PPP. Specifically, the K dominant interferers are identified by ordering the marks M_i = h_i r_i^{-η}. The residual process Φ' is the original PPP conditioned on all points having M < M_{(K)}, where M_{(K)} is the K-th order statistic. By the properties of PPP and independent marking, the conditional intensity measure for the residual is adjusted by the probability that a potential interferer at distance r with fading h satisfies h r^{-η} < M_{(K)}. The Laplace functional for the residual interference is then computed using this thinned and marked conditional process: exp(-∫ (1 - E_h[exp(-s h r^{-η}) | h r^{-η} < M_{(K)} ]) Λ(dr)). We have expanded the proof in the revised manuscript with step-by-step calculations showing the modified intensity measure Λ'(dr) = Λ(dr) ⋅ P(h r^{-η} < M_{(K)}), and the corresponding conditional Laplace transform. This ensures the estimator is unbiased by the law of total expectation, as the analytical marginalization exactly equals the conditional coverage probability. The O(K^{1-η/2}) bias decay follows from the tail behavior of the K-th order statistic in the marked point process under power-law path loss. We have added a new subsection in Section III detailing these steps and updated Appendix A with the full mathematical derivation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation uses standard PPP Laplace functional properties external to the paper

full rationale

The RBHE construction partitions interference into K sampled dominant terms plus an analytically marginalized tail via the conditional Laplace functional of the residual PPP. Unbiasedness for any finite K and the O(K^{1-η/2}) bias decay are direct consequences of the marking theorem and Laplace transform properties of homogeneous PPPs, which are standard external results and not derived from the estimator itself or from self-citations. No fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, no ansatz is smuggled via prior work by the same authors, and the central claims remain independently verifiable against the infinite-plane benchmark using established stochastic geometry. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the standard assumption that base stations form a homogeneous Poisson point process and that the conditional Laplace functional of the residual interference field can be evaluated in closed form.

free parameters (1)

K
Truncation threshold separating dominant interferers from the analytical tail; chosen by the user.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Base stations are distributed as a homogeneous Poisson point process in the plane.
Invoked throughout the stochastic geometry model for cellular networks.
domain assumption The conditional Laplace functional of the far-field interference admits an exact closed-form expression.
Central to the analytical marginalization step.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5531 in / 1434 out tokens · 44824 ms · 2026-05-17T05:07:49.771876+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We prove that the RBHE is an unbiased estimator for any finite truncation, while its systematic bias relative to the infinite-plane benchmark decays at a rate of O(K^{1-η/2}). ... analytically marginalizing the residual far-field interference via the conditional Laplace functional.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

E[exp(−sItail)|Φ] = ∏ 1/(1+s∥x∥−η) ... exp(−2πλ ∫ RN^RK ... )

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Propagation measurements and models for wireless communications channels,

J. Andersen, T. Rappaport, and S. Yoshida, “Propagation measurements and models for wireless communications channels,”IEEE Communica- tions Magazine, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 42–49, 1995

work page 1995
[2]

Characterization of interrupted brownian noise and performance analysis of receiver mismatch,

U. Pillai and L. Jiang, “Characterization of interrupted brownian noise and performance analysis of receiver mismatch,”IEEE Communications Letters, 2025

work page 2025
[3]

T. S. Rappaport,Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

On the statistics of signal-to-interference plus noise ratio in wireless communications,

K. A. Hamdi, “On the statistics of signal-to-interference plus noise ratio in wireless communications,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 3199–3204, 2009

work page 2009
[5]

A primer on spatial modeling and analysis in wireless networks,

J. G. Andrews, R. K. Ganti, M. Haenggi, N. Jindal, and S. Weber, “A primer on spatial modeling and analysis in wireless networks,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 156–163, 2010

work page 2010
[6]

Haenggi,Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks

M. Haenggi,Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2012

work page 2012
[7]

New trends in stochastic geometry for wireless networks: A tutorial and survey,

Y . Hmamouche, M. Benjillali, S. Saoudi, H. Yanikomeroglu, and M. D. Renzo, “New trends in stochastic geometry for wireless networks: A tutorial and survey,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1200– 1252, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Modeling and analysis of cellular networks using stochastic geometry: A tutorial,

H. ElSawy, A. Sultan-Salem, M.-S. Alouini, and M. Z. Win, “Modeling and analysis of cellular networks using stochastic geometry: A tutorial,” Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 19, no. 1, p. 167–203, Jan. 2017

work page 2017
[9]

Modeling and analysis of k-tier downlink heterogeneous cellular networks,

H. S. Dhillon, R. K. Ganti, F. Baccelli, and J. G. 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, 2012

work page 2012
[10]

Stochastic geometry modeling of cellular networks: A new definition of coverage and its application to energy efficiency optimization,

M. Di Renzo, A. Zappone, T. T. Lam, and M. Debbah, “Stochastic geometry modeling of cellular networks: A new definition of coverage and its application to energy efficiency optimization,” in26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 2018), 2018, pp. 1507–1511

work page 2018
[11]

T. S. Rappaport, R. W. Heath Jr, R. C. Daniels, and J. N. Murdock, Millimeter wave wireless communications. Pearson Education, 2015

work page 2015
[12]

SINR and throughput of dense cellular networks with stretched exponential path loss,

A. AlAmmouri, J. G. Andrews, and F. Baccelli, “SINR and throughput of dense cellular networks with stretched exponential path loss,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1147– 1160, 2018

work page 2018
[13]

Millimeter wave multi-beam antenna combining for 5G cellular link improvement in new york city,

S. Sun, G. R. MacCartney, M. K. Samimi, S. Nie, and T. S. Rappaport, “Millimeter wave multi-beam antenna combining for 5G cellular link improvement in new york city,” inIEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2014), 2014, pp. 5468–5473

work page 2014
[14]

The mean interference-to-signal ratio and its key role in cellular and amorphous networks,

M. Haenggi, “The mean interference-to-signal ratio and its key role in cellular and amorphous networks,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 597–600, 2014

work page 2014
[15]

A probabilistic alternative to coverage analysis in uniform random wireless networks,

J. Farooq and U. Pillai, “A probabilistic alternative to coverage analysis in uniform random wireless networks,”Journal on Communications and Networks, 2025. To be published

work page 2025
[16]

The meta distribution of the SIR for cellular networks with power control,

Y . Wang, M. Haenggi, and Z. Tan, “The meta distribution of the SIR for cellular networks with power control,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1745–1757, 2018

work page 2018
[17]

The meta distribution of the SINR and rate in heterogeneous cellular networks,

N. Deng and M. Haenggi, “The meta distribution of the SINR and rate in heterogeneous cellular networks,” inIEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 2018), Bologna, Italy, Sept. 2018

work page 2018
[18]

A dominant interferer plus mean field-based approximation for sinr meta distribution in wireless networks,

Y . Qin, M. A. Kishk, and M.-S. Alouini, “A dominant interferer plus mean field-based approximation for sinr meta distribution in wireless networks,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 3663–3678, 2023

work page 2023
[19]

Last and M

G. Last and M. Penrose,Lectures on the Poisson Process, ser. Institute of Mathematical Statistics Textbooks. Cambridge University Press, 2017

work page 2017
[20]

On distances in uniformly random networks,

M. Haenggi, “On distances in uniformly random networks,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 3584–3586, 2005

work page 2005
[21]

A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,

J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, 2011

work page 2011

[1] [1]

Propagation measurements and models for wireless communications channels,

J. Andersen, T. Rappaport, and S. Yoshida, “Propagation measurements and models for wireless communications channels,”IEEE Communica- tions Magazine, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 42–49, 1995

work page 1995

[2] [2]

Characterization of interrupted brownian noise and performance analysis of receiver mismatch,

U. Pillai and L. Jiang, “Characterization of interrupted brownian noise and performance analysis of receiver mismatch,”IEEE Communications Letters, 2025

work page 2025

[3] [3]

T. S. Rappaport,Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

On the statistics of signal-to-interference plus noise ratio in wireless communications,

K. A. Hamdi, “On the statistics of signal-to-interference plus noise ratio in wireless communications,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 3199–3204, 2009

work page 2009

[5] [5]

A primer on spatial modeling and analysis in wireless networks,

J. G. Andrews, R. K. Ganti, M. Haenggi, N. Jindal, and S. Weber, “A primer on spatial modeling and analysis in wireless networks,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 156–163, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Haenggi,Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks

M. Haenggi,Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2012

work page 2012

[7] [7]

New trends in stochastic geometry for wireless networks: A tutorial and survey,

Y . Hmamouche, M. Benjillali, S. Saoudi, H. Yanikomeroglu, and M. D. Renzo, “New trends in stochastic geometry for wireless networks: A tutorial and survey,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1200– 1252, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Modeling and analysis of cellular networks using stochastic geometry: A tutorial,

H. ElSawy, A. Sultan-Salem, M.-S. Alouini, and M. Z. Win, “Modeling and analysis of cellular networks using stochastic geometry: A tutorial,” Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 19, no. 1, p. 167–203, Jan. 2017

work page 2017

[9] [9]

Modeling and analysis of k-tier downlink heterogeneous cellular networks,

H. S. Dhillon, R. K. Ganti, F. Baccelli, and J. G. 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, 2012

work page 2012

[10] [10]

Stochastic geometry modeling of cellular networks: A new definition of coverage and its application to energy efficiency optimization,

M. Di Renzo, A. Zappone, T. T. Lam, and M. Debbah, “Stochastic geometry modeling of cellular networks: A new definition of coverage and its application to energy efficiency optimization,” in26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO 2018), 2018, pp. 1507–1511

work page 2018

[11] [11]

T. S. Rappaport, R. W. Heath Jr, R. C. Daniels, and J. N. Murdock, Millimeter wave wireless communications. Pearson Education, 2015

work page 2015

[12] [12]

SINR and throughput of dense cellular networks with stretched exponential path loss,

A. AlAmmouri, J. G. Andrews, and F. Baccelli, “SINR and throughput of dense cellular networks with stretched exponential path loss,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1147– 1160, 2018

work page 2018

[13] [13]

Millimeter wave multi-beam antenna combining for 5G cellular link improvement in new york city,

S. Sun, G. R. MacCartney, M. K. Samimi, S. Nie, and T. S. Rappaport, “Millimeter wave multi-beam antenna combining for 5G cellular link improvement in new york city,” inIEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2014), 2014, pp. 5468–5473

work page 2014

[14] [14]

The mean interference-to-signal ratio and its key role in cellular and amorphous networks,

M. Haenggi, “The mean interference-to-signal ratio and its key role in cellular and amorphous networks,”IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 597–600, 2014

work page 2014

[15] [15]

A probabilistic alternative to coverage analysis in uniform random wireless networks,

J. Farooq and U. Pillai, “A probabilistic alternative to coverage analysis in uniform random wireless networks,”Journal on Communications and Networks, 2025. To be published

work page 2025

[16] [16]

The meta distribution of the SIR for cellular networks with power control,

Y . Wang, M. Haenggi, and Z. Tan, “The meta distribution of the SIR for cellular networks with power control,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1745–1757, 2018

work page 2018

[17] [17]

The meta distribution of the SINR and rate in heterogeneous cellular networks,

N. Deng and M. Haenggi, “The meta distribution of the SINR and rate in heterogeneous cellular networks,” inIEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 2018), Bologna, Italy, Sept. 2018

work page 2018

[18] [18]

A dominant interferer plus mean field-based approximation for sinr meta distribution in wireless networks,

Y . Qin, M. A. Kishk, and M.-S. Alouini, “A dominant interferer plus mean field-based approximation for sinr meta distribution in wireless networks,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 3663–3678, 2023

work page 2023

[19] [19]

Last and M

G. Last and M. Penrose,Lectures on the Poisson Process, ser. Institute of Mathematical Statistics Textbooks. Cambridge University Press, 2017

work page 2017

[20] [20]

On distances in uniformly random networks,

M. Haenggi, “On distances in uniformly random networks,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 3584–3586, 2005

work page 2005

[21] [21]

A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,

J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, 2011

work page 2011