Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Satellite Infrastructure Sharing: Orbit-Structured Stochastic Geometry Modeling and Connectivity Analysis in Heterogeneous Satellite Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that uncoordinated multi-operator LEO satellite sharing can be modeled in closed form by a spherical Cox-Boolean process, yielding explicit formulas for connection probability, connection number, association distance…

desk verdict Solid Cox-Boolean geometry for LEO coverage overlap, but Theorem 5's Laplace transform drops the retention probability and the abstract overclaims a closed-form SIR result. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12265 v1 pith:MM6FY5MO submitted 2026-08-12 cs.IT eess.SPmath.ITmath.PR

Chang-Sik Choi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.ITmath.PR MSC 60D0560G55
keywords satelliteinfrastructuresharingstochasticgeometryCoxpointprocessBooleanmodelLEOconstellationsconnectionprobabilitynumbersignal-to-interferenceratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that when multiple LEO operators share satellite infrastructure without coordinating their orbits, the resulting coverage of the Earth is statistically tractable: the joint distribution of orbits and satellites can be described by a spherical Cox point process, and the union of circular coverage footprints forms a spherical Cox-Boolean model. On this basis the paper derives closed-form expressions for the probability that a typical user is covered, the distribution and mean of the number of satellites covering that user, the distance to the nearest covering satellite, and the total received power, with an empirical SIR characterization under nearest-association. These formulas make the trade-offs of sharing explicit: combining operators roughly adds their coverage linearly, but enlarging communication ranges or adding orbital planes also multiplies the interferers that share the spectrum, so geometric coverage gains do not automatically translate into better link quality. A comparison with a realistic inclined multi-shell constellation indicates the Cox model captures the scale and trend of coverage overlap after calibrating its parameters to visibility statistics. If correct, the framework lets system designers quantify sharing benefits without Monte Carlo simulation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spherical Cox-Boolean model: a Cox point process on a sphere of radius r_s generates orbital planes (a Poisson process of isotropic orbit orientations) and then places Poisson-distributed satellites along each orbit; each satellite carries an i.i.d. mark κ, the communication range, so its footprint on Earth is a spherical cap C_{i,j}, and the union of these caps is a Boolean model driven by the Cox process. The analysis works by conditioning on the orbit process, using the probability generating functional of the one-dimensional Poisson satellite process per orbit to obtain void probabilities and Laplace transforms, and then applying the probability generating functional of the orbit process; all final expressions are single or double integrals over the angle window in which an orbit can come within the maximum range of the typical user. This machinery converts a seemingly unstructured multi-operator deployment into explicit formulas whose only inputs are λ, μ, and the complementary CDF of the communication range.

What would settle it

In the regime λ=60, μ=20, c_M=900 km, compare the SIR CCDF from Eq. (19) with a simulation that includes as interferers all satellites within distance c_M of the user—not just those whose random range covers the user—and check whether the reported P(SIR>τ) curves shift downward; a material downward shift would show the model's SIR claim is optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the geometric and communication performance of shared, uncoordinated satellite networks is governed by three parameters—the mean number of orbital planes λ, the mean number of satellites per orbit μ, and the distribution of random communication ranges κ—and can be expressed in closed form. The proof strategy conditions on the orbit process, then on the satellite phases along each orbit, and applies the probability generating functionals of the two nested Poisson processes; the resulting formulas for connection probability (Theorem 1), connection number Laplace transform and mean (Theorems 2 and 3), association distance (Theorem 4), and total received power (Theorem 5) all reduce to integrals over an angular wedge defined by the maximum range c_M. The paper also shows the mean connection number scales linearly in λ and μ, that multi-altitude operators factor into a product of outage probabilities (Proposition 1), and that a calibrated Cox model approximates the mean connection number of a down-sampled realistic LEO constellation. A baseline SIR analysis, with the serving satellite as the nearest co-covering satellite and all other co-covering satellites as interferers, indicates that adding orbital planes helps at moderate SIR thresholds but saturates, while increasing c_M degrades SIR because overlap interference grows faster than the desired signal.

Load-bearing premise

The SIR analysis assumes the only interferers are the other satellites whose coverage cells contain the typical user, so satellites that transmit on the same spectrum but fall outside the user's coverage footprint contribute no interference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The mean connection number under infrastructure sharing is the arithmetic sum of the individual operators' mean connection numbers, so pooling three comparable constellations triples the expected number of satellites covering a user.
  • Connection probability rises through an exponentiated integral of orbit and satellite densities, meaning several sparse uncoordinated operators together can approach universal coverage even when each alone covers only a small fraction of users.
  • Increasing the maximum communication range improves geometric coverage but worsens SIR, because the number of co-covering interferers grows with the footprint; coverage-centric metrics alone are therefore misleading under shared spectrum.
  • Association distance shrinks as more orbital planes join the shared network, improving the geometry of the desired link even while aggregate interference grows.
  • For multi-altitude deployments, the connection probability factorizes as one minus the product of per-altitude outage probabilities, so each altitude shell can be evaluated independently and then combined.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the explicit dependence of connection probability and total received power on λ, μ, and the range distribution invites a direct optimization: one could solve for the maximum c_M or constellation density that achieves a target SIR, producing a Pareto frontier of coverage versus interference.
  • The small but consistent overestimate of connection number in the realistic-constellation comparison suggests a latitude-dependent correction could be derived by conditioning on the actual inclination distribution rather than full isotropy, which would sharpen the model for real inclined shells.
  • Because all final formulas depend on the range distribution only through its complementary CDF, the framework can be used to design the distribution of communication ranges—for example concentrating ranges near a moderate value—to shift the coverage-interference trade-off without changing constellation size.
  • The linear scaling of mean connection number with the product λμ could inform spectrum sharing policy: regulators might bound aggregate orbital density across operators rather than per-operator constellation size when multiple fleets share the same spectrum.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical framework for satellite infrastructure sharing in heterogeneous LEO/MEO networks. It models orbital planes as a Poisson point process on a torus, places satellites on each orbit as a Poisson process, and assigns each satellite an i.i.d. communication range so that the coverage region is a spherical Cox-Boolean model. Using probability generating functional and Campbell arguments, Theorems 1–3 derive the connection probability, the Laplace transform of the connection number, and the mean connection number; Theorem 4 derives the association distance distribution; Theorem 5 gives the mean total received power and a claimed Laplace transform of total received power. The paper also presents Monte Carlo SIR CCDFs in Section III-E, a multi-altitude extension in Section IV-A, and a comparison with a down-sampled Starlink-like constellation in Section IV-B.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the framework is a valuable addition to stochastic geometry for non-terrestrial networks: it is one of the first to combine orbit-structured Cox point processes with random spherical footprints, and Theorems 1–4 provide tractable, parameter-explicit expressions that show how orbital-plane density, per-orbit satellite density, and communication range jointly govern coverage and connectivity. The derivations follow standard PGFL and Campbell arguments and appear internally consistent for Theorems 1–4. The paper also makes an honest effort to validate against system-level simulation and a realistic constellation model. However, the advertised closed-form total-power Laplace transform in Eq. (17) is missing a retention-probability factor, and the SIR contribution is simulation-only despite being advertised as closed-form; both issues must be corrected before the claims are sound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-D, Eq. (17)] The Laplace transform of the total received power omits the retention probability \bar F_κ(\tilde K(φ,η)) in the inner integral. Re-deriving from the conditional PGFL of the thinned satellite process ψ_i^p, the inner integral must be ∫_0^{\tilde ω(φ)} \bar F_κ(\tilde K(φ,η)) (1 - L_H(s \bar p / \tilde K^α(φ,η))) dη; the displayed equation contains only (1 - L_H(...)). This is internally inconsistent with Eq. (16), where \bar F_κ appears, and with the definition of Ψ_p in Eq. (8). Because the missing factor sits inside an exponential, it changes L_T(s) for every s>0 and invalidates the stated closed-form total-power Laplace transform, which is one of the paper's advertised contributions.
  2. [Abstract and Section III-E] The abstract advertises 'closed-form expressions ... including ... the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) distribution', but Section III-E contains no analytical SIR derivation; Figs. 7 and 8 report Monte Carlo CCDFs only. In addition, Eq. (19) defines interferers as exactly the co-covering satellites Ψ_p \ X^*, so any satellite outside the typical user's coverage cells that still transmits on the shared spectrum is excluded from the interference sum. This assumption is load-bearing for the SIR curves and should be stated as a restrictive modeling assumption or relaxed, and the abstract should be corrected to describe the SIR results as simulation-based.
  3. [Section IV-B, Fig. 10] The Cox model parameters λ and μ are calibrated to the average number of visible orbits and visible satellites measured from the same Starlink-like constellation that is then used for comparison of the mean connection number. The agreement in Fig. 10 is therefore partly enforced by the calibration step, not an independent test of the orbit-structure hypothesis. The paper acknowledges this, but to support the 'practical relevance' claim it should show sensitivity of the comparison to the calibration (e.g., uncalibrated parameters or a second constellation geometry).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-E] The SIR results should be described as simulation-based; the text currently says 'we evaluate the SIR distribution' without a theorem, which is easy to misread as analytic.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (33)] Eq. (33) has an extra closing parenthesis in arcsin(\sqrt{1 - cos^2(\hat φ(z)) sec^2(φ)}))); this typo should be corrected.
  3. [Table I] The notation table lists F_κ but not \bar F_κ(x) = P(κ > x), even though the CCDF is used throughout; add it for completeness.
  4. [Section II-E] The connection number is called 'a nonnegative discrete random variable' in Section II-E2 and later 'a positive random variable' in Section III-B; clarify whether it can be zero.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Theorems 1–5 are self-contained PGFL/Campbell derivations; the only mild circularity is the Starlink validation, where λ and µ are calibrated to visibility statistics before comparing the mean connection number.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-B (Connection Number: Cox vs. Starlink), using Eq. (13)]
    "The comparison is carried out by calibrating the Cox model parameters using visibility statistics obtained from the Starlink-like constellation over 10^4 independent realizations. Specifically, the mean number of orbital planes λ in the Cox model is set to match the average number of visible orbits observed from the typical user, while the mean number of satellites µ is set to match the average number of visible satellites per realization. The mean connection number of the two models is then estimated over 3×10^4 independent realizations for each value of cM ∈ [650,900] km."

    Equation (13) gives n_c = (λµ/π) ∫ cos(φ) F̄κ(K̃) dη dφ, so λ and µ enter multiplicatively as the scale of the mean connection number. Section IV-B sets λ to the average number of visible orbits and µ to the average number of visible satellites observed from the same Starlink-like constellation, which fixes the product λµ that dominates the predicted n_c. The subsequent close agreement of the Cox and Starlink curves is therefore partly enforced by the calibration rather than being an independent out-of-sample prediction. The paper discloses the calibration and the comparison still tests the shape versus cM, so this is a partial, auxiliary circularity rather than a defect in Theorems 1–5.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained. Theorems 1–5 and Proposition 1 are direct probability-generating-functional and Campbell-formula computations from the marked spherical Cox-Boolean model defined in Section II; no target metric is used as an input and no fitted parameter appears in the closed forms. Self-citations [39]–[41] introduce the Cox construction and the time-invariance remark, but the construction is restated in the paper and the rotation invariance used for the typical-user reduction follows from the isotropic definition, so those citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The Starlink comparison in Section IV-B is the only partly circular element: λ and µ are calibrated to visibility statistics from the same constellation before the mean connection number is compared, and Eq. (13) is linear in λµ, so the scale agreement is partially enforced. Because the paper discloses the calibration as a first-order fit and because the cM-shape comparison retains some structural content, I score this as a minor partial circularity rather than a fundamental one. The apparent omission of F̄κ in Eq. (17) is a correctness/consistency concern, not a circular step, and does not affect this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Theorems 1-5 are derived from the Cox model plus standard stochastic geometry. The model parameters λ, µ, and the range distribution are inputs, not derived from the target outputs. In the Starlink validation, λ and µ are fitted to visibility statistics, so part of the agreement is due to calibration. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • λ (mean number of orbital planes) = calibrated in Section IV-B to average visible orbits from Starlink-like constellation
    Model input in Theorems 1-5; in the Starlink comparison it is fitted to visibility statistics rather than derived from first principles.
  • µ (mean number of satellites per orbit) = calibrated in Section IV-B to average visible satellites per realization
    Model input in Theorems 1-5; fitted to Starlink visibility data for the validation comparison.
  • c_M (maximum communication range) = varies by experiment: 559-743 km, 770 km, 916 km, 1000 km, 1100 km
    Chosen by hand to represent footprint radii; the formulas are general in the range distribution but all numerical results depend on the chosen c_M.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Orbit process is an isotropic Poisson point process on the torus with intensity λ sin(ϕ)/(2π), and satellites on each orbit form independent Poisson processes of intensity µ/(2π).
    Introduced in Section II-A as the model for uncoordinated multi-operator orbital foundations; this is the core statistical assumption, imported from prior Cox work [39]-[41].
  • domain assumption Communication ranges κ are i.i.d. uniform on [c_m,c_M] with c_m = r_s - r_e and c_M < sqrt(r_s^2 - r_e^2).
    Section II-C; enables tractable thinning and Boolean model. The uniform choice is a modeling convenience, and Section IV-C shows the framework only needs the CDF F_κ.
  • domain assumption Satellite process is time-invariant; a snapshot at time zero represents all times.
    Remark 1 and [40]; relies on all satellites having equal altitude and using the displacement theorem for rotation.
  • standard math Standard point process tools: probability generating functional, Campbell's theorem, Slivnyak-Mecke, and thinning.
    Used throughout Appendix A-E; standard results from [14]-[17].
  • domain assumption Interference is caused only by co-covering satellites of Ψ_p, and the network is interference-limited with no noise.
    Section III-E, Eq. (19); this excludes non-covering satellites from the interference sum and is load-bearing for the SIR figures.
  • domain assumption Users are uniformly random on Earth and performance is averaged over the typical user at the North pole.
    Section II-B; rotation invariance justifies the typical-user analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Satellite Infrastructure Sharing: Orbit-Structured Stochastic Geometry Modeling and Connectivity Analysis in Heterogeneous Satellite Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MM6FY5MO

@misc{pith2026260812265,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Satellite Infrastructure Sharing: Orbit-Structured Stochastic Geometry Modeling and Connectivity Analysis in Heterogeneous Satellite Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MM6FY5MO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12265}
}
read the original abstract

This paper develops an analytical framework to evaluate the feasibility and performance of satellite infrastructure sharing among multiple low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite operators. Motivated by the growing demand for universal connectivity under limited satellite resources, the proposed model captures uncoordinated deployments where independently operated constellations coexist without predefined orbital agreements. To describe such heterogeneous configurations, the spherical Cox point process is employed to jointly generate orbital structures and satellites. Then, each satellite is further assigned a random communication range, reflecting variations in coverage capability across operators. The overall coverage region is modeled through a spherical Cox-Boolean model that captures the spatial overlap of individual satellite spherical footprints on Earth. Using the proposed framework, the feasibility and benefits of satellite infrastructure sharing are mathematically analyzed, and closed-form expressions are derived for key performance metrics such as the connection probability, connection number, and downlink signal characteristics including the nearest serving distance, total received signal power, and the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) distribution in the interference-limited regime. The analytical results, validated through system-level simulations, provide a tractable characterization of how orbital geometry governs coverage, connectivity, and interference, and reveal the inherent trade-offs induced by coverage overlap in heterogeneous satellite constellations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12265 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of satellite sharing with two operators. In total, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The connection probability of the typical user obtained by Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the mean connection number obtained by simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The mean connection number for two cM values. Specifically, rs = 6921 km, cm = 550 km, and cM = {916 km, 1100 km} tion range can take, while the communication range of each satellite is randomly distributed between cm = 550 km and the chosen cM value. The figure demons…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The normalized association distance distribution of the typical user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: illustrates the impact of the mean number of orbital planes λ on the SIR distribution. As λ increases, the SIR distribution improves in the moderate SIR regime, as reflected by the upward shift of the CCDF surface. This behavior is due to the increased spatial diversit…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the impact of the maximum communication distance cM on the SIR distribution. In contrast to the behavior observed with λ, increasing cM leads to a degradation of the SIR distribution across all SIR thresholds. While a larger cM expands the coverage region and inc…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The connection probability of typical user with multi-altitude satellite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean connection number of the typical user as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The mean connection number of the typical user with communication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The role of satellites in 5G,

    B. G. Evans, “The role of satellites in 5G,” inProc. IEEE ASMS/SPSC, 2014, pp. 197–202

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Broadband LEO satellite communications: Architectures and key technologies,

    Y . Su, Y . Liu, Y . Zhou, J. Yuan, H. Cao, and J. Shi, “Broadband LEO satellite communications: Architectures and key technologies,”IEEE Wireless Commn., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 55–61, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Non-terrestrial networks in the 6G era: Challenges and opportunities,

    M. Giordani and M. Zorzi, “Non-terrestrial networks in the 6G era: Challenges and opportunities,”IEEE Network, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 244– 251, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Evolution of non-terrestrial networks from 5G to 6G: A survey,

    M. M. Azari, S. Solanki, S. Chatzinotas, O. Kodheli, H. Sallouha, A. Colpaert, J. F. Mendoza Montoya, S. Pollin, A. Haqiqatnejad, A. Mostaani, E. Lagunas, and B. Ottersten, “Evolution of non-terrestrial networks from 5G to 6G: A survey,”IEEE Commun. Surv&Tuts, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2633–2672, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Seamless and energy-efficient maritime coverage in coordinated 6G space–air–sea non-terrestrial networks,

    S. S. Hassan, D. H. Kim, Y . K. Tun, N. H. Tran, W. Saad, and C. S. Hong, “Seamless and energy-efficient maritime coverage in coordinated 6G space–air–sea non-terrestrial networks,”IEEE Internet of Things J., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 4749–4769, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    LEO satellite constellation for Internet of Things,

    Z. Qu, G. Zhang, H. Cao, and J. Xie, “LEO satellite constellation for Internet of Things,”IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 18 391–18 401, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    FCC authorizes Kuiper satellite constellation

    Federal Communications Commission. FCC authorizes Kuiper satellite constellation. [Online]. Available: https://www.fcc.gov/document/ fcc-authorizes-kuiper-satellite-constellation

    work page

  8. [8]

    FCC authorizes Boeing broadband satellite con- stellation

    ——. FCC authorizes Boeing broadband satellite con- stellation. [Online]. Available: https://www.fcc.gov/document/ fcc-authorizes-boeings-broadband-satellite-constellation

    work page

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    SpaceX authorized for SCS and operations at lower altitudes

    ——. SpaceX authorized for SCS and operations at lower altitudes. [Online]. Available: https://www.fcc.gov/document/ spacex-authorized-scs-and-operations-lower-altitudes

  2. [10]

    Ultra-dense LEO satellite constellations: How many LEO satellites do we need?

    R. Deng, B. Di, H. Zhang, L. Kuang, and L. Song, “Ultra-dense LEO satellite constellations: How many LEO satellites do we need?”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 4843–4857, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Satellite communications in the new space era: A survey and future challenges,

    O. Kodheli, E. Lagunas, N. Maturo, S. K. Sharma, B. Shankar, J. F. M. Montoya, J. C. M. Duncan, D. Spano, S. Chatzinotas, S. Kisseleff, J. Querol, L. Lei, T. X. Vu, and G. Goussetis, “Satellite communications in the new space era: A survey and future challenges,”IEEE Commun. S...

    2021

  4. [12]

    J. Fomon. Starlink slowed in Q2, competitors mounting challenges. [Online]. Available: https://www.ookla.com/articles/ starlink-hughesnet-viasat-performance-q2-2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    A survey on nongeostationary satellite systems: The communication perspective,

    H. Al-Hraishawi, H. Chougrani, S. Kisseleff, E. Lagunas, and S. Chatzinotas, “A survey on nongeostationary satellite systems: The communication perspective,”IEEE Commun. Surv&Tuts, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 101–132, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    D. J. Daley and D. Vere-Jones,An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes: Volume I: Elementary Theory and Method. Springer, New York, 2003

    2003

  7. [15]

    S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke,Stochastic Geometry and Its Applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2013. 14

    2013

  8. [16]

    Stochastic geometry and wireless networks: volume I theory,

    F. Baccelli and B. Błaszczyszyn, “Stochastic geometry and wireless networks: volume I theory,”Foundations and Trends® in Networking, vol. 3, no. 3–4, pp. 249–449, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Haenggi,Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks

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

    2012

  10. [18]

    Stochastic geometry and dynamical system analysis of Walker satellite constellations,

    C.-S. Choi and F. Baccelli, “Stochastic geometry and dynamical system analysis of Walker satellite constellations,”early access: IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., pp. 1–6, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    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 Trans. Commun., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    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 J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 550–560, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Stochastic analysis of spatial and opportunistic aloha,

    F. Baccelli, B. Blaszczyszyn, and P. Muhlethaler, “Stochastic analysis of spatial and opportunistic aloha,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1105–1119, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Coverage analysis of a vehicular network modeled as Cox process driven by Poisson line process,

    V . V . Chetlur and H. S. Dhillon, “Coverage analysis of a vehicular network modeled as Cox process driven by Poisson line process,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 4401–4416, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Poisson Cox point processes for vehicular networks,

    C.-S. Choi and F. Baccelli, “Poisson Cox point processes for vehicular networks,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 10 160–10 165, Oct 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Modeling and analysis of vehicle safety message broadcast in cellular networks,

    ——, “Modeling and analysis of vehicle safety message broadcast in cellular networks,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 4087–4099, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Downlink coverage and rate analysis of low Earth orbit satellite con- stellations using stochastic geometry,

    N. Okati, T. Riihonen, D. Korpi, I. Angervuori, and R. Wichman, “Downlink coverage and rate analysis of low Earth orbit satellite con- stellations using stochastic geometry,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 5120–5134, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Nearest neighbor and contact distance distribution for binomial point process on spherical surfaces,

    A. Talgat, M. A. Kishk, and M.-S. Alouini, “Nearest neighbor and contact distance distribution for binomial point process on spherical surfaces,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2659–2663, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Stochastic geometry-based analysis of LEO satellite communi- cation systems,

    ——, “Stochastic geometry-based analysis of LEO satellite communi- cation systems,”IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 2458–2462, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Performance analysis of satellite communication system under the shadowed-Rician fading: A stochastic geometry approach,

    D.-H. Jung, J.-G. Ryu, W.-J. Byun, and J. Choi, “Performance analysis of satellite communication system under the shadowed-Rician fading: A stochastic geometry approach,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2707–2721, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Spectrum sharing between low Earth orbit satellite and terrestrial networks: A stochastic geometry perspective analysis,

    D. Kim, J. Park, J. Choi, and N. Lee, “Spectrum sharing between low Earth orbit satellite and terrestrial networks: A stochastic geometry perspective analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12145, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Performance analysis for NOMA-assisted LEO communications: A two-dimensional stochastic geometric approach,

    S. Yang, Y . Zhu, O. A. Dobre, G. K. Karagiannidis, and Z. Ding, “Performance analysis for NOMA-assisted LEO communications: A two-dimensional stochastic geometric approach,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 3822–3836, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Analyzing localizability of LEO/MEO hybrid networks: A stochastic geometry approach,

    R. Wang, M. A. Kishk, H. H. Yang, and M.-S. Alouini, “Analyzing localizability of LEO/MEO hybrid networks: A stochastic geometry approach,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 10 720–10 736, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Downlink coverage analysis for a finite 3-D wireless network of unmanned aerial vehicles,

    V . V . Chetlur and H. S. Dhillon, “Downlink coverage analysis for a finite 3-D wireless network of unmanned aerial vehicles,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 4543–4558, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    A stochastic model for uav networks positioned above demand hotspots in urban environments,

    B. Galkin, J. Kibiłda, and L. A. DaSilva, “A stochastic model for uav networks positioned above demand hotspots in urban environments,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 6985–6996, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Stochastic geometric analysis of multiple unmanned aerial vehicle-assisted communications over internet of things,

    S. Zhang, J. Liu, and W. Sun, “Stochastic geometric analysis of multiple unmanned aerial vehicle-assisted communications over internet of things,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5446–5460, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Moving aerial base station networks: A stochastic geometry analysis and design perspective,

    S. Enayati, H. Saeedi, H. Pishro-Nik, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Moving aerial base station networks: A stochastic geometry analysis and design perspective,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 2977– 2988, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Sir analysis in 3D uav networks: A stochastic geometry approach,

    C. K. Armeniakos, P. S. Bithas, and A. G. Kanatas, “Sir analysis in 3D uav networks: A stochastic geometry approach,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 204 963–204 973, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Modeling and analysis of mmWave UA V swarm networks: A stochastic geometry approach,

    X. Shi and N. Deng, “Modeling and analysis of mmWave UA V swarm networks: A stochastic geometry approach,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Com- mun., vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 9447–9459, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Uav-aided post-disaster cellular networks: A novel stochastic geometry approach,

    M. Matracia, M. A. Kishk, and M.-S. Alouini, “Uav-aided post-disaster cellular networks: A novel stochastic geometry approach,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 9406–9418, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Cox point processes for multi altitude LEO satellite networks,

    C.-S. Choi and F. Baccelli, “Cox point processes for multi altitude LEO satellite networks,”IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 15 916–15 921, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Modeling and analysis of downlink communications in a heterogeneous LEO satellite network,

    C.-S. Choi, “Modeling and analysis of downlink communications in a heterogeneous LEO satellite network,”IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8588–8602, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    A novel analytical model for LEO and MEO satellite networks based on Cox point processes,

    C.-S. Choi and F. Baccelli, “A novel analytical model for LEO and MEO satellite networks based on Cox point processes,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 2265–2279, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Analysis of a delay-tolerant data harvest architecture lever- aging low Earth orbit satellite networks,

    C.-S. Choi, “Analysis of a delay-tolerant data harvest architecture lever- aging low Earth orbit satellite networks,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1329–1343, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Leveraging aerial platforms for downlink communications in sparse satellite networks,

    ——, “Leveraging aerial platforms for downlink communications in sparse satellite networks,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 9805–9820, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Modeling and analysis for multiple-layer LEO satellite internet of things constellations,

    M. Ying, X. Chen, Q. Qi, and Y . Xu, “Modeling and analysis for multiple-layer LEO satellite internet of things constellations,”submitted IEEE Trans. Wireless. Commun., pp. 1–14, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    I. S. Molchanov,Theory of Random Sets. Springer, 2005, vol. 87, no. 2

    2005

  38. [46]

    Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN),

    3GPP TR 38.821, “Solutions for NR to support non-terrestrial networks (NTN),”3GPP TR 38.821, Apr. 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    NR; study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,

    3GPP TR 38.901, “NR; study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,”3GPP TR 38.901, Sep. 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Satellite constellations,

    J. G. Walker, “Satellite constellations,”Journal of the British Interplan- etary Society, vol. 37, pp. 559–572, 1984. APPENDIXA PROOF OFTHEOREM1 Based on the definition of the connection probability, it is given by one minus the outage probability, namely the probability that ...

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.