Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Mathematical Cell Deployment Optimization for Capacity and Coverage of Ground and UAV Users

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that jointly optimizing where new base stations sit and how their antennas point, using the alternating-update ideas of quantization theory, consistently outperforms adjusting only the tilts and powers of existing base…

desk verdict A useful extension of the authors' prior quantization framework to site placement and bearings; the coverage-capacity half holds up, but the capacity-per-region KPI rests on a partition heuristic that is not proven and may not match real user association. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00928 v1 pith:WQL5GSPV submitted 2025-02-02 cs.IT eess.SPmath.IT

Saeed Karimi-Bidhendi , Giovanni Geraci , Hamid Jafarkhani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITeess.SPmath.IT MSC 90C2690C3090C90
keywords celldeploymentoptimizationquantizationtheoryUAVcorridorsantennatiltcoverage-capacitytrade-offcapacityperregionVoronoitessellationalternating
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

This paper tries to establish that cell deployment—where new base stations sit, which way their antennas point, and how loudly they transmit—can be optimized as a single mathematical problem by borrowing the alternating-update machinery of quantization theory. It claims that jointly optimizing the locations and bearings of additional base stations beats adjusting only the tilts and powers of existing ones, no matter how ground users are spread. It further claims that including drone corridors in the objective greatly improves aerial service while costing ground users very little. If these claims hold, operators could replace trial-and-error radio planning with a deterministic algorithm that works for arbitrary 3D user densities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized Voronoi tessellation: each user location $q$ is assigned to the base station giving the highest received signal strength, which the paper proves is the optimal cell partition whenever the KPI is a continuous increasing function of SINR. Around this partition, the algorithm alternates: recompute the max-RSS cells; run gradient ascent on vertical tilts $\theta_n$ and powers $\rho_n$; and, for new sites, run gradient ascent on site locations $\hat{p}_m$ and reference bearings $\hat{\phi}_m$; then repeat. This is the alternating partition-and-update scheme of quantization theory transplanted to radio planning, and it is what turns an NP-hard joint problem into a sequence of tractable improvement steps.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 4 on a small two-site network with a fixed user density and compare its converged capacity-per-region value against the optimum found by exhaustive enumeration of all cell partitions; a material gap would show that the greedy partition rule can stall at a poor local optimum and that the reported gains are not guaranteed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single performance function $P(\mathcal{V},\ldots)$, defined as the integral over each cell of a chosen key performance indicator $\gamma^{(n)}(q)$ weighted by the user density $\lambda(q)$, captures coverage, capacity, and load balancing, and that maximizing it by alternating between a generalized Voronoi partition and gradient ascent over all antenna and site parameters yields locally optimal configurations for realistic 3D networks. For the coverage-capacity KPI, the optimal partition is provably the strongest-signal partition, because both the log-rate and coverage terms are continuous increasing functions of SINR. For the capacity-per-region KPI, the paper adopts a greedy rule that applies the strongest-signal partition only when it improves the metric. The case studies report that deploying new base stations with optimized locations and bearings improves both KPIs over antenna-only tuning, and that optimizing for $r=0.5$, equal weight to ground users and UAVs, produces large UAV gains with small ground-user losses.

Load-bearing premise

For the capacity-per-region metric, the paper asserts without a full proof that the greedy strongest-signal partition update, applied only when it improves the metric, converges to a good solution, and this unproved convergence claim is the load-bearing step behind the capacity-per-region gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operators can tune tilts, powers, and new-site positions in one iterative procedure rather than through trial-and-error field measurements or separate optimization tools.
  • Deploying additional base stations with optimized locations and bearings yields larger KPI gains than exclusively retuning existing antennas, for both uniform and clustered ground-user distributions.
  • Including UAV corridors in the objective, for example with $r=0.5$, substantially raises UAV SINR and rate while producing only a small drop in ground-user performance.
  • The framework accepts any deterministic 3D user density $\lambda(q)$, so it can model nonuniform ground hotspots and aerial corridors within the same optimization problem.
  • For the coverage-capacity KPI, the optimal cell partition is explicitly characterized by the maximum-RSS rule, giving a clear and simple association policy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same alternating structure could extend to other KPIs beyond log-rate and coverage indicator, as long as the per-cell contribution is a monotone function of SINR, in which case the max-RSS partition remains provably optimal.
  • The capacity-per-region greedy partition rule could be stress-tested against a small-network exhaustive search; if it stalls or converges to poor local optima, a swap-based partition update would be a natural remedy.
  • Real deployments with terrain shadowing would require substituting the idealized pathloss model with site-specific maps, which the integral formulation can accommodate but the case studies do not demonstrate.
  • The reported advantage of deploying new sites may diminish as the number of existing sites grows, since additional degrees of freedom have decreasing marginal value; the paper does not plot this scaling behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantization-theoretic framework for jointly optimizing cell partitions, vertical antenna tilts, transmit powers, and, for newly deployed base stations, site locations and horizontal bearings. The framework is applied to two KPIs: a coverage-capacity trade-off (γ1) and a capacity-per-region metric (γ2), for a 3D user population comprising ground users and UAV corridors. The authors present alternating optimization algorithms (Algorithms 1–4), prove the optimality of max-RSS partitioning for γ1, derive gradient expressions for the remaining variables, and report case studies showing that deployment optimization outperforms antenna-only tuning and that joint GUE/UAV optimization improves UAV performance with limited GUE loss.

Significance. If the technical claims are correct, the framework is a useful extension of the authors' earlier work [45] to the optimization of new-site locations and bearings, and it addresses a practically relevant 3D deployment problem with GUEs and UAV corridors. The proof of Lemma 1 and the boundary-cancellation argument for γ1 are standard and sound, and the gradient formulas appear dimensionally consistent. However, the paper currently has two substantial weaknesses: several propositions that are load-bearing for the deployment algorithms are stated without proofs, and the capacity-per-region KPI uses a heuristic partition update whose relationship to actual user association is not established. The paper would be considerably stronger with complete proofs for the location/bearing gradients and a clarification or fix of the γ2 partition update; as it stands, the central numerical claims for KPI #2 are not fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV-A, Lemma 2; Algorithms 3-4; Table II] The max-RSS partition update is proved optimal only for the auxiliary objective in (34), which omits the load denominator in (16). For the actual KPI (33), the denominator couples each cell's contribution to its own mass, so the max-RSS partition need not be optimal at every iteration. Algorithms 3 and 4 therefore apply the max-RSS assignment only 'if and only if it improves the KPI,' which is a heuristic. The omitted convergence proof (Proposition 10) does not address optimality, and a fixed point of this rule can have a partition V that is not max-RSS at the converged parameters. If user association in the network follows max-RSS, as assumed for KPI #1 and in the SINR/rate CDFs, then the Pγ2 values reported in Table II (e.g., 176.33 to 190.22) are not the capacity-per-region realized under the paper's own association model. Please either evaluate the final KPI under the max-RSS partition at the converged parameters, explicitly model and justify a controllable (biased) association rule, or state clearly that the KPI #2 results are for a heuristic partition and remove the stronger claims.
  2. [Sections III-B and IV-B, Propositions 5-7, 10-12] The gradient formulas for site locations and bearings (Propositions 5, 6, 11, 12) are stated without proofs, and convergence of Algorithms 2, 3, and 4 is asserted with 'proof similar to Proposition 4' or simply omitted. These are not routine corollaries: the derivatives through SINR with respect to co-located site positions and bearings involve the three-sector coupling in (27)-(32), and Proposition 10 cannot follow from Proposition 4 because Lemma 2 does not establish optimality of the partition update for the true KPI #2. Since all deployment results in Tables I-II and Figures 2-5 rely on these algorithms, the authors should provide complete derivations and convergence arguments (e.g., in a supplementary appendix), or explicitly label the site-location/bearing updates and heuristic partition updates as heuristics supported only by the numerical study.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table II caption] The caption of Table II says 'Coverage-capacity performance comparison' but the section and KPI are for capacity per region; please correct the caption to match the content.
  2. [Algorithms 1-4 and Section V] The algorithms do not specify step-size rules, convergence thresholds, initialization strategy, or the number of Monte Carlo samples used to evaluate the integrals in (21), (23), (26), (30), (37), (38), (40), and (41). Without these details, the reported four-decimal-place values in Tables I and II and the CDFs in Figures 2 and 5 cannot be reproduced.
  3. [Section II-D, Eq. (14)] The sigmoid steepness κ in (14) is not given in the case-study setup in Section V-A; please specify its value together with T, β, and o_n.
  4. [Section II-A, Eq. (1) and Section II-D, Eq. (16)] Because the KPI γ2 in (16) depends on the partition V through the denominator, the performance function in (1) is not of the stated separable form with an integrand independent of V. Please generalize the framework definition or clarify that (1)-(2) apply only to KPIs whose integrand does not depend on V.
  5. [Abstract and Section I-B] The statement that optimizing deployments 'consistently outperforms' antenna-only optimization is a monotonicity consequence of optimizing over a strictly larger feasible set, assuming the algorithms reach good optima. The numerical comparison is a useful sanity check on the local algorithms, but it should be presented as a validation of the algorithms rather than as an empirical discovery.
  6. [Throughout] There are several small typos: 'gradient ascend' appears in Algorithms 1, 3, and 4; 'UA Vs' appears with irregular spacing in the abstract; and Proposition 7 states that its proof is similar to Proposition 4 but no proof or reference to an appendix is provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained, and the self-citations to prior work are elementary identities that do not encode the paper's target conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The only imports from the authors' prior work are (i) the equivalence between max-SINR and max-RSS association, cited to Proposition 4 of [45] in the proof of Lemma 1, and (ii) the elementary partial derivatives dSINR/dtheta and dSINR/drho, cited to Propositions 5 and 6 of [45] in Appendices A and B. These are parameter-free mathematical identities that follow directly from the RSS and SINR definitions in Eqs. (9)-(10); they do not assume the KPIs, the deployment variables, or the paper's comparative claims, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular way. The genuinely new results, including the gradients with respect to new-site locations and bearings in Propositions 5, 6, 11, and 12, are derived from the same channel model, and the alternating algorithms are standard Lloyd/gradient-ascent iterative-improvement schemes. The headline claim that deploying additional BSs outperforms antenna-only tuning is a monotonicity consequence of optimizing over a larger feasible set, not a fitted quantity disguised as a prediction. The capacity-per-region partition update is explicitly hedged as applying the max-RSS rule 'if and only if it improves the KPI', so the paper does not pretend Lemma 2 solves the true objective. The omitted convergence proofs are a completeness and rigor concern, not a circularity concern. No step was found that is equivalent by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on a known and deterministic user density, a 3GPP-style channel and antenna model, and a set of KPI hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The main modeling burden is the greedy partition update for the capacity-per-region KPI, whose convergence is unproved.

free parameters (5)
  • beta (coverage-capacity weighting) = 0.5 in case study
    User-chosen hyperparameter in KPI #1, eq. (15); the results depend on it, and it is not fitted to data.
  • T (SINR coverage threshold) = -5 dB in case study
    Threshold in the coverage sigmoid, eqs. (13) and (14); set by the user and affects the coverage term.
  • o_n (cell-area offset) = 0.002 in case study
    Offset in the capacity-per-region KPI, eq. (16); chosen to avoid degenerate tiny-cell solutions.
  • kappa (sigmoid steepness) = unspecified
    Controls the approximation of the coverage indicator in eq. (14); the value is never given in the case study, so results depend on an undeclared parameter.
  • Gradient ascent step sizes = unspecified
    The algorithms require step sizes for tilt, power, location, and bearing updates; none are reported, which affects reproducibility.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The user density lambda(q) is known exactly and time-invariant.
    All integrals and gradients assume a perfect density; robustness to density estimation error is not analyzed (Section II-A).
  • domain assumption The optimal cell partition for any increasing function of SINR is the max-RSS Voronoi tessellation.
    Lemma 1 and eq. (18) rely on the equivalence between max SINR and max RSS, with the last step attributed to Proposition 4 of the authors' prior work [45]; it is not re-derived from first principles here.
  • standard math Boundary terms in the performance-function derivatives cancel because the KPI is continuous and equal on cell boundaries.
    This is a standard Reynolds-transport argument, but the paper does not justify it beyond citing [30] and [45] in Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper The capacity-per-region partition update applies max-RSS only if it improves the KPI.
    For KPI #2 the denominator couples cells and the max-RSS partition is not provably optimal; the authors adopt a greedy rule and do not prove convergence (Proposition 10 omitted).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mathematical Cell Deployment Optimization for Capacity and Coverage of Ground and UAV Users." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQL5GSPV

@misc{pith2026250200928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mathematical Cell Deployment Optimization for Capacity and Coverage of Ground and UAV Users},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQL5GSPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00928}
}
read the original abstract

We present a general mathematical framework for optimizing cell deployment and antenna configuration in wireless networks, inspired by quantization theory. Unlike traditional methods, our framework supports networks with deterministically located nodes, enabling modeling and optimization under controlled deployment scenarios. We demonstrate our framework through two applications: joint fine-tuning of antenna parameters across base stations (BSs) to optimize network coverage, capacity, and load balancing, and the strategic deployment of new BSs, including the optimization of their locations and antenna settings. These optimizations are conducted for a heterogeneous 3D user population, comprising ground users (GUEs) and uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) along aerial corridors. Our case studies highlight the framework's versatility in optimizing performance metrics such as the coverage-capacity trade-off and capacity per region. Our results confirm that optimizing the placement and orientation of additional BSs consistently outperforms approaches focused solely on antenna adjustments, regardless of GUE distribution. Furthermore, joint optimization for both GUEs and UAVs significantly enhances UAV service without severely affecting GUE performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00928 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Uptilted (θn > 0) and downtilted (θn < 0) BSs serving GUEs and UAV corridors, with θn, θ3dB, ϕn, and ρn denoting vertical tilt, vertical HPBW, horizontal bearing, and transmit power, respectively. Also, pn−2 = pn−1 = pn denote the position of three co-located sectorized BSs. given a set of parameters {α1, · · · , αK}; and (ii) finding the optimal parameters {α1, · · · , αK} for a given cell partitioning V . The solu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The CDF of SINR when the cell partitioning, antenna [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Optimal BS antenna tilts (blue circles) and transmit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Optimal deployment and cell partitioning when network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The CDF of spectral efficiency (bps/Hz) when cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Data-Driven Cellular Mobility Management via Bayesian Optimization and Reinforcement Learning

    cs.IT 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Per-cell Bayesian optimization of handover parameters beats fixed 3GPP settings in a simulated urban network, while reinforcement learning matches it with transfer learning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [45]

    Optimizing cellular networks for UA V corridors via quantization theory,

    S. Karimi-Bidhendi, G. Geraci, and H. Jafarkhani, “Optimizing cellular networks for UA V corridors via quantization theory,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 14 924–14 939, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Joint uplink–downlink capacity and coverage optimization via site-specific learning of antenna settings,

    E. Tekgul, T. Novlan, S. Akoum, and J. G. Andrews, “Joint uplink–downlink capacity and coverage optimization via site-specific learning of antenna settings,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4032–4048, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    3D aerial highway: The key enabler of the retail industry transformation,

    N. Cherif, W. Jaafar, H. Yanikomeroglu, and A. Yongacoglu, “3D aerial highway: The key enabler of the retail industry transformation,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 65–71, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    A novel metric for mMIMO base station association for aerial highway systems,

    M. Bernabè, D. López-Pérez, N. Piovesan, G. Geraci, and D. Gesbert, “A novel metric for mMIMO base station association for aerial highway systems,” in Proc. IEEE ICC Workshops , 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    What will the future of UA V cellular communications be? A flight from 5G to 6G,

    G. Geraci, A. Garcia-Rodriguez, M. M. Azari, A. Lozano, M. Mezzavilla, S. Chatzinotas, Y . Chen, S. Rangan, and M. Di Renzo, “What will the future of UA V cellular communications be? A flight from 5G to 6G,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1304–1335, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    A comprehensive overview on 5G-and-beyond networks with UA Vs: From communications to sensing and intelligence,

    Q. Wu, J. Xu, Y . Zeng, D. W. K. Ng, N. Al-Dhahir, R. Schober, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “A comprehensive overview on 5G-and-beyond networks with UA Vs: From communications to sensing and intelligence,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 2912–2945, 2021

    2021

  7. [6]

    Study on enhanced LTE support for aerial vehicles (Release 15),

    3GPP Technical Report 36.777, “Study on enhanced LTE support for aerial vehicles (Release 15),” Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 16),

    3GPP Technical Report 38.901, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 16),” Dec. 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Understanding UA V cellular communications: From existing networks to massive MIMO,

    G. Geraci, A. Garcia-Rodriguez, L. Galati Giordano, D. López-Pérez, and E. Björnson, “Understanding UA V cellular communications: From existing networks to massive MIMO,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 67 853– 67 865, 2018

    2018

  2. [9]

    The essential guide to realizing 5G- connected UA Vs with massive MIMO,

    A. Garcia-Rodriguez, G. Geraci, D. López-Pérez, L. Galati Giordano, M. Ding, and E. Björnson, “The essential guide to realizing 5G- connected UA Vs with massive MIMO,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 84–90, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Analysis of UA V communications in cell-free massive MIMO systems,

    C. D’Andrea, A. Garcia-Rodriguez, G. Geraci, L. Galati Giordano, and S. Buzzi, “Analysis of UA V communications in cell-free massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Society , vol. 1, pp. 133–147, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    Online antenna tuning in heterogeneous cellular networks with deep reinforcement learning,

    E. Balevi and J. G. Andrews, “Online antenna tuning in heterogeneous cellular networks with deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1113– 1124, 2019

    2019

  5. [12]

    Multi-UA V reinforcement learning for data collection in cellular MIMO networks,

    C. Diaz-Vilor, A. M. Abdelhady, A. M. Eltawil, and H. Jafarkhani, “Multi-UA V reinforcement learning for data collection in cellular MIMO networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 15 462–15 476, 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Remote electrical tilt optimization via safe reinforcement learning,

    F. Vannella, G. Iakovidis, E. A. Hakim, E. Aumayr, and S. Feghhi, “Remote electrical tilt optimization via safe reinforcement learning,” in 2021 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2021, pp. 1–7. 13

    2021

  7. [14]

    Dynamic self- optimization of the antenna tilt for best trade-off between coverage and capacity in mobile networks,

    N. Dandanov, H. Al-Shatri, A. Klein, and V . Poulkov, “Dynamic self- optimization of the antenna tilt for best trade-off between coverage and capacity in mobile networks,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 92, pp. 251–278, 2017

    2017

  8. [15]

    Coordinated reinforcement learning for optimizing mobile networks,

    M. Bouton, H. Farooq, J. Forgeat, S. Bothe, M. Shirazipour, and P. Karlsson, “Coordinated reinforcement learning for optimizing mobile networks,” in Proc. NeurIPS Workshop Cooperat. AI , 2021, pp. 1–14

    2021

  9. [16]

    Optimizing coverage and capacity in cellular networks using machine learning,

    R. M. Dreifuerst, S. Daulton, Y . Qian, P. Varkey, M. Balandat, S. Kasturia, A. Tomar, A. Yazdan, V . Ponnampalam, and R. W. Heath, “Optimizing coverage and capacity in cellular networks using machine learning,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP , 2021, pp. 8138–8142

    2021

  10. [17]

    Designing cellular networks for UA V corridors via Bayesian optimization,

    M. Benzaghta, G. Geraci, D. López-Pérez, and A. Valcarce, “Designing cellular networks for UA V corridors via Bayesian optimization,” inProc. IEEE Globecom, 2023, pp. 4552–4557

    2023

  11. [18]

    Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization,

    B. Shahriari, K. Swersky, Z. Wang, R. P. Adams, and N. De Freitas, “Taking the human out of the loop: A review of Bayesian optimization,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 148–175, 2015

    2015

  12. [19]

    A tutorial on Bayesian optimization,

    P. I. Frazier, “A tutorial on Bayesian optimization,” arXiv:1807.02811, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Bayesian optimization for radio resource management: Open loop power control,

    L. Maggi, A. Valcarce, and J. Hoydis, “Bayesian optimization for radio resource management: Open loop power control,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1858–1871, 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    Quantization,

    R. M. Gray and D. L. Neuhoff, “Quantization,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2325–2383, 1998

    1998

  15. [22]

    Stochastic geometry and random graphs for the analysis and design of wireless networks,

    M. Haenggi, J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, O. Dousse, and M. Franceschetti, “Stochastic geometry and random graphs for the analysis and design of wireless networks,” IEEE journal on selected areas in communications , vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1029–1046, 2009

    2009

  16. [23]

    A mathematical theory of network interference and its applications,

    M. Z. Win, P. C. Pinto, and L. A. Shepp, “A mathematical theory of network interference and its applications,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 205–230, 2009

    2009

  17. [24]

    Stochastic geometry for modeling, analysis, and design of multi-tier and cognitive cellular wireless networks: A survey,

    H. ElSawy, E. Hossain, and M. Haenggi, “Stochastic geometry for modeling, analysis, and design of multi-tier and cognitive cellular wireless networks: A survey,” IEEE Communications surveys & tutorials, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 996–1019, 2013

    2013

  18. [25]

    Cellular connectivity for UA Vs: Network modeling, performance analysis, and design guidelines,

    M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, and S. Pollin, “Cellular connectivity for UA Vs: Network modeling, performance analysis, and design guidelines,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 3366–3381, 2019

    2019

  19. [26]

    UA V- to-UA V communications in cellular networks,

    M. M. Azari, G. Geraci, A. Garcia-Rodriguez, and S. Pollin, “UA V- to-UA V communications in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 6130–6144, 2020

    2020

  20. [27]

    Performance gains of optimal antenna deployment in massive MIMO systems,

    E. Koyuncu, “Performance gains of optimal antenna deployment in massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2633–2644, 2018

    2018

  21. [28]

    Modified vector quantization for small-cell access point placement with inter-cell interference,

    G. R. Gopal, E. Nayebi, G. P. Villardi, and B. D. Rao, “Modified vector quantization for small-cell access point placement with inter-cell interference,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 6387–6401, 2022

    2022

  22. [29]

    Vector quantization methods for access point placement in cell-free massive MIMO systems,

    G. R. Gopal and B. D. Rao, “Vector quantization methods for access point placement in cell-free massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , 2023

    2023

  23. [30]

    Sensor deployment with limited communication range in homogeneous and heterogeneous wireless sensor networks,

    J. Guo and H. Jafarkhani, “Sensor deployment with limited communication range in homogeneous and heterogeneous wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 6771–6784, 2016

    2016

  24. [31]

    Spatially-distributed coverage optimization and control with limited-range interactions,

    J. Cortes, S. Martinez, and F. Bullo, “Spatially-distributed coverage optimization and control with limited-range interactions,” ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 691–719, 2005

    2005

  25. [32]

    A source coding perspective on node deployment in two-tier networks,

    J. Guo, E. Koyuncu, and H. Jafarkhani, “A source coding perspective on node deployment in two-tier networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 3035–3049, 2018

    2018

  26. [33]

    An energy efficient deployment of nodes in wireless sensor network using V oronoi diagram,

    M. R. Ingle and N. Bawane, “An energy efficient deployment of nodes in wireless sensor network using V oronoi diagram,” in 2011 3rd International Conference on Electronics Computer Technology , vol. 6. IEEE, 2011, pp. 307–311

    2011

  27. [34]

    Movement-efficient sensor deployment in wireless sensor networks with limited communication range,

    J. Guo and H. Jafarkhani, “Movement-efficient sensor deployment in wireless sensor networks with limited communication range,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 3469–3484, 2019

    2019

  28. [35]

    Coverage control for mobile sensing networks,

    J. Cortes, S. Martinez, T. Karatas, and F. Bullo, “Coverage control for mobile sensing networks,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 243–255, 2004

    2004

  29. [36]

    Energy-efficient node deployment in heterogeneous two-tier wireless sensor networks with limited communication range,

    S. Karimi-Bidhendi, J. Guo, and H. Jafarkhani, “Energy-efficient node deployment in heterogeneous two-tier wireless sensor networks with limited communication range,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 40–55, 2020

    2020

  30. [37]

    Three-dimensional V oronoi diagram–based self-deployment algorithm in IoT sensor networks,

    X. Tang, L. Tan, A. Hussain, and M. Wang, “Three-dimensional V oronoi diagram–based self-deployment algorithm in IoT sensor networks,” Annals of Telecommunications, vol. 74, pp. 517–529, 2019

    2019

  31. [38]

    Energy-efficient deployment in static and mobile heterogeneous multi-hop wireless sensor networks,

    S. Karimi-Bidhendi, J. Guo, and H. Jafarkhani, “Energy-efficient deployment in static and mobile heterogeneous multi-hop wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 4973–4988, 2021

    2021

  32. [39]

    Movement-assisted sensor deployment,

    G. Wang, G. Cao, and T. F. La Porta, “Movement-assisted sensor deployment,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 640–652, 2006

    2006

  33. [40]

    Outage-aware deployment in heterogeneous Rayleigh fading wireless sensor networks,

    S. Karimi-Bidhendi and H. Jafarkhani, “Outage-aware deployment in heterogeneous Rayleigh fading wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1146–1161, 2024

    2024

  34. [41]

    Deployment and trajectory optimization of UA Vs: A quantization theory approach,

    E. Koyuncu, M. Shabanighazikelayeh, and H. Seferoglu, “Deployment and trajectory optimization of UA Vs: A quantization theory approach,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 8531–8546, 2018

    2018

  35. [42]

    Optimal deployments of UA Vs with directional antennas for a power-efficient coverage,

    J. Guo, P. Walk, and H. Jafarkhani, “Optimal deployments of UA Vs with directional antennas for a power-efficient coverage,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 5159–5174, Aug. 2020

    2020

  36. [43]

    Optimal UA V deployment for rate maximization in IoT networks,

    M. Shabanighazikelayeh and E. Koyuncu, “Optimal UA V deployment for rate maximization in IoT networks,” in 2020 IEEE 31st Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications. IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  37. [44]

    Power-efficient deployment of UA Vs as relays,

    E. Koyuncu, “Power-efficient deployment of UA Vs as relays,” in 2018 IEEE 19th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–5

    2018

  38. [46]

    Least squares quantization in PCM,

    S. Lloyd, “Least squares quantization in PCM,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 129–137, 1982

    1982

  39. [47]

    Boots, K

    B. Boots, K. Sugihara, S. N. Chiu, and A. Okabe, Spatial Tessellations: Concepts and Applications of Voronoi Diagrams . John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Centroidal V oronoi tessellations: Applications and algorithms,

    Q. Du, V . Faber, and M. Gunzburger, “Centroidal V oronoi tessellations: Applications and algorithms,” SIAM Review, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 637–676, 1999

    1999

  41. [49]

    Integrating terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks: 3D opportunities and challenges,

    G. Geraci, D. López-Pérez, M. Benzaghta, and S. Chatzinotas, “Integrating terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks: 3D opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , pp. 1–7, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Toward 6G with connected sky: UA Vs and beyond,

    M. Mozaffari, X. Lin, and S. Hayes, “Toward 6G with connected sky: UA Vs and beyond,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 74–80, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Millimeter-wave UA V coverage in urban environments,

    S. Kang, M. Mezzavilla, A. Lozano, G. Geraci, W. Xia, S. Rangan, V . Semkin, and G. Loianno, “Millimeter-wave UA V coverage in urban environments,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom , 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  44. [52]

    On the optimization of cellular networks for UA V aerial corridor support,

    M. Bernabè, D. Lopez-Perez, D. Gesbert, and H. Bao, “On the optimization of cellular networks for UA V aerial corridor support,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom , 2022, pp. 2969–2974

    2022

  45. [53]

    A novel metric for mMIMO base station association for aerial highway systems,

    M. Bernabè, D. López-Pérez, N. Piovesan, G. Geraci, and D. Gesbert, “A novel metric for mMIMO base station association for aerial highway systems,” in Proc. IEEE ICC Workshops , 2023, pp. 1063–1068

    2023

  46. [54]

    Base station antenna uptilt optimization for cellular-connected drone corridors,

    S. J. Maeng, M. M. U. Chowdhury, ˙I. Güvenç, A. Bhuyan, and H. Dai, “Base station antenna uptilt optimization for cellular-connected drone corridors,” IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Ensuring reliable connectivity to cellular-connected UA Vs with up-tilted antennas and interference coordination,

    M. M. U. Chowdhury, I. Guvenc, W. Saad, and A. Bhuyan, “Ensuring reliable connectivity to cellular-connected UA Vs with up-tilted antennas and interference coordination,” arXiv:2108.05090, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Placement of mmWave base stations for serving urban drone corridors,

    S. Singh, U. Bhattacherjee, E. Ozturk, ˙I. Güvenç, H. Dai, M. Sichitiu, and A. Bhuyan, “Placement of mmWave base stations for serving urban drone corridors,” in Proc. IEEE 93rd VVTC , 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.