Metasurface Paper

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 25

Di Renzo and Song

Reflection Probability in Wireless Networks with


Metasurface-Coated Environmental Objects: An
Approach Based on Random Spatial Processes
Marco Di Renzo* and Jian Song
*
Correspondence:
marcodi.renzo@l2s.centralesupelec.fr Abstract
arXiv:1901.01046v1 [cs.IT] 4 Jan 2019

Laboratoire des Signaux et


Systèmes, CNRS, CentraleSupelec, An emerging and promising vision of wireless networks consists of coating the
Univ Paris-Sud, Université environmental objects with reconfigurable metasurfaces that are capable of
Paris-Saclay, Plateau du Moulon, modifying the radio waves impinging upon them according to the generalized law
91192, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Full list of author information is of reflection. By relying on tools from point processes, stochastic geometry, and
available at the end of the article random spatial processes, we model the environmental objects with a modified
random line process of fixed length, and with random orientations and locations.
Based on the proposed modeling approach, we develop the first analytical
framework that provides one with the probability that a randomly distributed
object that is coated with a reconfigurable metasurface acts as a reflector for a
given pair of transmitter and receiver. In contrast to the conventional network
setup where the environmental objects are not coated with reconfigurable
metasurfaces, we prove that the probability that the typical random object acts
as a reflector is independent of the length of the object itself. The proposed
analytical approach is validated against Monte Carlo simulations, and numerical
illustrations are given and discussed.
Keywords: Wireless networks; reconfigurable metasurfaces; stochastic geometry;
random spatial processes; reflection probability

1 Methods/Experimental
The methods used in the paper are based on the mathematical tools of random
spatial processes and stochastic geometry. A new analytical framework for perfor-
mance analysis is introduced. The theoretical framework is validated against Monte
Carlo simulations.

2 Introduction
Future wireless networks will be more than allowing people, mobile devices, and
objects to communicate [1]. Future wireless networks will be turned into a dis-
tributed intelligent wireless communications, sensing, and computing platform,
which, besides communications, will be capable of sensing the environment to pro-
vide context-awareness capabilities, of locally storing and processing data to enable
its time critical and energy efficient delivery, of accurately localizing people and
objects in harsh propagation environments. Future wireless networks will have to
fulfill the challenging requirement of interconnecting the physical and digital worlds
in a seamless and sustainable manner [2], [3].

To fulfill these challenging requirements, it is apparent that it is not sufficient


anymore to rely solely on wireless networks whose logical operation is software-
controlled and optimized [4]. The wireless environment itself needs to be turned
Di Renzo and Song Page 2 of 25

into a software-reconfigurable entity [5], whose operation is optimized to enable un-


interrupted connectivity. Future wireless networks need a smart radio environment,
i.e., a wireless environment that is turned into a reconfigurable space that plays an
active role in transferring and processing information.

Different solutions towards realizing this wireless future are currently emerging
[6]-[14]. Among them, the use of reconfigurable metasurfaces constitutes a promis-
ing and enabling solution to fulfill the challenging requirements of future wireless
networks [15]. Metasurfaces are thin metamaterial layers that are capable of modi-
fying the propagation of the radio waves in fully customizable ways [16], thus owing
the potential of making the transfer and processing of information more reliable
[17]. Also, they constitute a suitable distributed platform to perform low-energy and
low-complexity sensing [18], storage [19], and analog computing [20]. For this rea-
son, they are particularly useful for improving the performance of non-line-of-sight
transmission, e.g., to appropriately customize the impact of multipath propagation.

In [14], in particular, the authors have put forth a network scenario where every
environmental object is coated with reconfigurable metasurfaces, whose response
to the radio waves is programmed in software by capitalizing on the enabling tech-
nology and hardware platform currently being developed in [21]. Current research
efforts towards realizing this vision are, however, limited to implement hardware
testbeds, e.g., reflect-arrays and metasurfaces, and on realizing point-to-point ex-
perimental tests [6]-[14]. To the best of the authors knowledge, notably, there exists
no analytical framework that investigates the performance of large-scale wireless
networks in the presence of reconfigurable metasurfaces. In the present paper, mo-
tivated by these considerations, we develop the first analytical approach that allows
one to study the probability that a random object coated with a reconfigurable
metasurface acts as a reflector according to the generalized laws of reflection [16].
To this end, we capitalize on the mathematical tool of random spatial processes
[22], [23].

Random spatial processes are considered to be the most suitable analytical tool
to shed light on the ultimate performance limits of innovative technologies when
applied in wireless networks, and to guide the design of optimal algorithms and
protocols for attaining such ultimate limits. Several recent results on the appli-
cation of random spatial processes in wireless networks can be found in [24]-[32].
Despite the many results available, however, fundamental issues remain open [29].
In the current literature, in particular, the environmental objects are modeled as
entities that can only attenuate the signals, by making the links either line-of-sight
or non-line-of-sight, e.g., [26]-[28]. Modeling anything else is acknowledged to be dif-
ficult. Just in [33], the authors have recently investigated the impact of reflections,
but only based on conventional Snell’s laws. This work highlights the analytical
complexity, the relevance, and the non-trivial performance trade-offs: The authors
emphasize that the obtained trends highly depend on the fact that the total dis-
tance of the reflected paths is almost always two times larger than the distance of
the direct paths. This occurs because the angles of incidence and reflection are the
Di Renzo and Song Page 3 of 25

Table 1: Main symbols and functions used throughout the paper.


Symbol/Function Definition
Pr {A} Probability of Event A

Pr A Probability of complement of Event A
H (·), H̄ (·) Heaviside function, complementary Heaviside function
(xTx , yTx ) Location of the transmitter
(xRx , yRx ) Location of the receiver
(xobject , yobject ) Location of the center of the typical object
(xend1 , yend1 ), (xend2 , yend2 ) Coordinates of the end points of the typical object
L Length of the typical object
Rnet Radius of the network

same based on Snell’s law. In the presence of reconfigurable metasurfaces, on the


other hand, the random objects can optimize the reflected signals in anomalous
directions beyond Snell’s law. The corresponding achievable performance and the
associated optimal setups are unknown.

Motivated by these considerations, we develop an analytical framework that allows


one to quantify the probability that a random object coated with reconfigurable
metasurfaces acts as a reflector for a given pair of transmitter and receiver. Even
though reconfigurable metasurfaces can be used to control and customize the re-
fractions from environmental objects, in the present paper we focus our attention
on controlling and customizing only the reflections of signals, since refractions may
be subject to severe signal’s attenuation. Our proposed approach, in particular, is
based on modeling the environmental objects with a modified random line pro-
cess of fixed length, and with random orientations and locations. In contrast to
the conventional network setup where the environmental objects are not coated
with reconfigurable metasurfaces, we prove that the probability that the typical
random object acts as a reflector is independent of the length of the object itself.
The proposed analytical approach is validated against Monte Carlo simulations,
and numerical illustrations are given and discussed. In the present paper, we limit
ourselves to analyze a 2D network scenarios, but our approach can be applied to 3D
network topologies as well. This non-trivial generalization is postponed to a future
research work.

The remainder of the present paper is organized as follows. In Section 3, the sys-
tem model is introduced. In Section 4, the problem is formulated in mathematical
terms. In Section 5, the analytical framework of the reflection probability is de-
scribed. In Section 6, numerical results are illustrated, and the proposed approach
is validated against Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, Section 7 concludes the paper.

Notation: The main symbols and functions used in this paper are reported in
Table 1.
Di Renzo and Song Page 4 of 25

Tx
Rx

Figure 1: Probe transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx) in the presence of randomly
distributed environmental objects.

3 System Model
We consider a wireless network on a bi-dimensional plane, where the transmitters
and receivers are distributed independently of each other. Without loss of generality,
the location of the transmitter and receiver of interest, i.e., the probe transmitter
and receiver, are denoted by (xTx , yTx ) and (xRx , yRx ), respectively.
Besides the transmitter and receiver, we assume that environmental objects, e.g.,
buildings in a urban outdoor scenario, are randomly distributed in the same region.
An example of the network model is depicted in Fig. 1. More precisely, the envi-
ronmental objects are assumed to follow a Boolean model of line segments with the
following properties [22]:
• The center points of the objects form a homogeneous Poisson point process.
• The orientation of the objects are independent and identically distributed in
[0, 2π].
• The lengths of the objects are fixed and all equal to L.
• The random orientation and the center points of the objects are independent
of each other.

We consider a generic environmental object, i.e., the typical object, and denote its
center by (xobject, yobject), and the coordinates of its two end points by (xend1 , yend1)
and (xend2 , yend2 ).

4 Problem Formulation
The objective of the present paper is to compute the probability that a randomly
distributed object can act as a reflector for the pair of transmitter and receiver
located in (xTx , yTx ) and (xRx , yRx ), respectively. We analyze two case studies:

• Scenario I: The first scenario corresponds to the case study where the typical
object is coated with a reconfigurable metasurface, which can optimize the
angle of reflection regardless of the angle of incidence [16].
Di Renzo and Song Page 5 of 25

Figure 2: Scenario I (a): In the presence of reconfigurable metasurfaces, the


angle of incidence and reflection are not necessarily the same. Scenario II (b):
According to Snell’s law of reflection, the angle of incidence and reflection are
the same.

• Scenario II: The second scenario corresponds to the case study where the
typical object is not coated with a reconfigurable metasurface. This is the
state-of-the-art scenario, where the angle of reflection needs to be equal to
the angle of incidence according to Snell’s law of reflection [16].

The aim of the present paper is to develop a mathematical theory to compute the
probability that the typical object can act as a reflector, i.e., the reflection prob-
ability, and to quantify the gain of adding reconfigurable metasurfaces in wireless
networks. For analytical tractability, we assume that the reconfigurable metasur-
faces are capable of producing any angle of reflection for any given location of
transmitter and receiver, for any angle of incidence, and for any length. This yields
the best-case performance bound compared with conventional Snell’s law of reflec-
tion. The analysis, in addition, is conducted by relying on ray tracing arguments,
in order to highlight the potential gains of using reconfigurable metasurfaces. The
two case studies are sketched in Fig. 2. Generalizations of the proposed analytical
framework are left to future research works.

4.1 Scenario I: Reflections in the Presence of Reconfigurable Metasurfaces


In the presence of reconfigurable metasurfaces, an arbitrary angle of reflection can
be obtained for any angle of incidence. This implies that the typical object acts as
a reflector for a transmitter and receiver if they are both located on the same side
of the infinite line passing through the end points (xend1 , yend1 ) and (xend2 , yend2)
of the typical object.

For ease of exposition, we introduce the following event.

Event 1 The probe transmitter, Tx, and receiver, Rx, are located on the same side
of the infinite line passing through the end points (xend1 , yend1 ) and (xend2 , yend2)
of the typical object.
Di Renzo and Song Page 6 of 25

Tx
Rx Tx
Rx

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Illustration of Event 1 based on Approach 1. (a) Event 1 holds true


if the intersection point between the infinite lines falls outside the Tx-Rx line
segment. (b) Otherwise, Event 1 does not hold true.

Therefore, the typical object acts as a reflector if Event 1 holds true. Our objective
is to formulate the probability of Event 1, i.e., to compute Pr {Event 1}. This latter
probability can be formulated in two different but equivalent ways.

4.1.1 Approach 1
Let us consider the infinite line that connects the locations of transmitter and re-
ceiver, and the infinite line that connects the two end points of the typical object.
Event 1 holds true if the intersection point, denoted by (x∗ , y ∗ ), of these two infinite
lines falls outside the line segment that connects that transmitter and the receiver.
An illustration is given in Fig. 3.

In mathematical terms, therefore, Pr {Event 1} can be formulated as follows:


Pr {Event 1} = 1 − Pr Event 1 (1)

where Event 1 is the complement of Event 1, and Pr Event 1 denotes the proba-
bility that the intersection point (x∗ , y ∗ ) is on the Tx-Rx line segment:

min (xTx , xRx ) 6 x∗ 6 max (xTx , xRx )


( )

Pr Event 1 = Pr (2)
∩ min (yTx , yRx ) 6 y ∗ 6 max (yTx , yRx )

4.1.2 Approach 2
The probability that Event 1 holds true can be formulated also in terms of the po-
sitions of the transmitter and receiver with respect to the infinite line that connects
the end points of the typical object. In particular, Event 1 holds true if both the
transmitter and receiver are on the same side of the infinite line, i.e., either they
are above or they are below the infinite line. This interpretation can be viewed as a
problem of classifying points with respect to a line. This interpretation is depicted
in Fig. 4.
Di Renzo and Song Page 7 of 25

Tx
Rx

Tx Tx
Rx Rx

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4: Illustration of Event 1 based on Approach 2. Event 1 holds true if


both Tx and Rx are above (a) or below (b) the infinite line corresponding to
the typical object. Event 1 does not hold true if Tx and Rx are not on the
same side of the line (c).

Figure 5: Illustration of Event 3. In (a), Event 1 and Event 2 hold true: The
typical object acts as a reflector. In (b), Event 1 holds true but Event 2 does
not hold true: The typical object cannot be a reflector.

In mathematical terms, therefore, Pr {Event 1} can be formulated as follows:

( )
{[Tx is above the line] ∩ [Rx is above the line]}
Pr {Event 1} = Pr (3)
∪ {[Tx is below the line] ∩ [Rx is below the line]}

4.2 Scenario II: Reflections in the Absence of Reconfigurable Metasurfaces


In the absence of reconfigurable metasurfaces, the typical object acts as a reflector,
for a given transmitter and receiver, only if the angles of reflection and incidence
are the same. This is agreement with Snell’s law of reflection, and imposes some
geometric constraints among the locations of the typical object, the transmitter,
and the receiver. In order to compute the corresponding probability of occurrence,
we introduce the following event.

Event 2 The mid-perpendicular of the line segment that connects the transmitter
and receiver intersects the line segment that represents the typical object.
Di Renzo and Song Page 8 of 25

Let (x∗ , y∗ ) denote the intersection between the mid-perpendicular of the line
segment that connects the transmitter and receiver, and the line segment that rep-
resents the typical object. According to Snell’s law of reflection, for some given
locations of the transmitter and receiver, the typical object acts as a reflector if
the mid-perpendicular of the line segment that connects the transmitter and re-
ceiver intersects the line segment that represents the typical object (i.e., Event 2),
and, at the same time, the transmitted and receiver are located on the same side
of the infinite line passing through the end points of the typical object (i.e., Event 1).

In mathematical terms, the probability of occurrence of Event 2 can be formulated


as follows:
( )
min (xend1 , xend2 ) 6 x∗ 6 max (xend1 , xend2 )
Pr {Event 2} = Pr (4)
∩ min (yend1 , yend2) 6 y∗ 6 max (yend1, yend2 )

Based on Snell’s law of reflection, therefore, the typical object acts a reflector if
the following event holds true.

Event 3 The transmitter and receiver are located on the same side of the infinite
line passing through the end points of the typical object, and the mid-perpendicular
of the line segment that connects the transmitter and receiver intersects the line
segment that represents the typical object.

An illustration is given in Fig. 5. In mathematical terms, the probability of oc-


currence of Event 1 can be formulated as follows:

Pr {Event 3} = Pr {Event 1 ∩ Event 2} (5)

5 Analytical Formulation of the Reflection Probability


In this section, we introduce analytical expressions of the probability of occurrence
of the three events introduced in the previous sections, and, therefore, characterize
the probability that the typical object acts as a reflector in the presence and in
the absence of reconfigurable metasurfaces. First, we begin with some preliminary
results.

5.1 Preliminary Results


Lemma 1 Let (xTx , yTx ) and (xRx , yRx ) be the locations of the probe transmitter
and receiver, respectively. The infinite line passing through them can be formulated
as follows:

y = mx + z (6)

yTx −yRx
where m = xTx −xRx , and z = yRx − mxRx .

Proof: It follows by definition of line passing through two points. 


Di Renzo and Song Page 9 of 25

( xend1 , yend1 )

( xobject , yobject )

p ( xend2 , yend2 )

a
o

Figure 6: Geometric representation of the typical object in polar coordinates.

Lemma 2 Let us consider the typical object of length L depicted in Fig. 6. The

distance between the center of the line segment and the origin is p = Rnet u, where
u is a uniformly distributed random variable in [0, 1], and Rnet is largest size of
the region of interest. Let α be the angle between the perpendicular line to the line
segment, which passes through the center of the object, and the horizontal axis. The
infinite line passing through the end points of the object can be formulated as follows:

x cos α + y sin α = p (7)

where α ∈ [0, 2π].

In addition, the center of the line segment can be written as (xobject, yobject) =
(p cos α, p sin α), and its end points (xend1 , yend1 ) and (xend2 , yend2) can be formu-
lated as follows:

L L
xend1 = xobject − sin α, yend1 = yobject + cos α
2 2 (8)
L L
xend2 = xobject + sin α, yend2 = yobject − cos α
2 2

Proof: The proof follows by noting that the centers of the line segments (the ob-
jects) are distributed according to a Poisson point process with random orientations,

which implies p = Rnet u and α ∈ [0, 2π]. The rest follows from geometric consid-
erations. 

Lemma 3 The mid-perpendicular of the infinite line in (6) is as follows:

y = mp x + z p (9)
Di Renzo and Song Page 10 of 25

1 1 1
where mp = − m , and zp = 2m (xTx + xRx ) + 2 (yTx + yRx ).

Proof: See Appendix A. 

Lemma 4 The intersection point between the infinite line that connects the trans-
mitter and the receiver, and the infinite line that connects the end points of the line
segment representing the typical object can be formulated as follows:

p − z sin α
x∗ =
m sin α + cos α (10)
y ∗ = mx∗ + z

The intersection point between the (infinite) mid-perpendicular line to the line
segment that connects the transmitter and the receiver, and the infinite line that
connects the end points of the line segment representing the typical object can be
formulated as follows:

p − zp sin α
x∗ =
mp sin α + cos α (11)
y∗ = mp x∗ + zp

Proof: Equation (10) follows by solving the system of equations in (6) and (7).
Equation (11) follows by solving the system of equations in (7) and (9). 

Lemma 5 Let a generic infinite line formulated as: ax + by + c = 0. The following


holds true:

• The point (x1 , y1 ) is above the line if ax1 + by1 + c > 0 and b > 0, or if
ax1 + by1 + c < 0 and b < 0.
• The point (x1 , y1 ) is below the line if ax1 + by1 + c < 0 and b > 0, or if
ax1 + by1 + c > 0 and b < 0.

Proof: See Appendix B. 

5.2 Scenario I: Reflection Probability in the Presence of Reconfigurable Metasurfaces


Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 provide one with analytical expressions of the proba-
bility that the typical object acts as a reflector if it is coated with reconfigurable
metasurfaces. Theorem 1 is computed based on Approach 1, and Theorem 2 based
on the Approach 2.
Di Renzo and Song Page 11 of 25

Table 2: Auxiliary functions used in Theorem 1.


Function definition
1
f (α, ξ) = Rnet 
([m sin α + cos α] ξ + z sin α)

[m sin α+cos α][ω−z]
g (α, ω) = R 1 + z sin α
 net  h m
µ µ2
i
Θ α 1 = (min {µ1 , µ2 , 1})2 − (max {µ3 , µ4 , 0})2 H (min {µ1 , µ2 , 1} − max {µ3 , µ4 , 0})
µ3 µ4  
f (α, max (xTx , xRx )) g (α, max (yTx , yRx ))
θ1 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx ) = Θ α × H (m)
 f (α, min (xTx , xRx )) g (α, min (yTx , yRx )) 
f (α, max (xBS , xMT )) g (α, min (yBS , yMT ))
θ2 (α, xBS , xMT , yBS , yMT ) = Θ α × H̄ (m)
 f (α, min (xBS , xMT )) g (α, max (yBS , yMT )) 
f (α, min (xBS , xMT )) g (α, min (yBS , yMT ))
θ3 (α, xBS , xMT , yBS , yMT ) = Θ α × H (m)
 f (α, max (xBS , xMT )) g (α, max (yBS , yMT )) 
f (α, min (xBS , xMT )) g (α, max (yBS , yMT ))
θ4 (α, xBS , xMT , yBS , yMT ) = Θ α × H̄ (m)
f (α, max (xBS , xMT )) g (α, min (yBS , yMT ))

Theorem 1 Based on Approach 1, the probability of occurrence of Event 1 is as


follows:


Pr {Event1} = 1 − Pr Event1
 Z δ1 Z 2π 
θ (α, x , x , y , y )dα + θ (α, x , x , y , y )dα
 
1 Tx Rx Tx Rx 1 Tx Rx Tx Rx

 

 


 Z0 δ2



 δ1 Z 2π 
1  
=1− + θ2 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα + θ2 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα
2π 
 0 δ2 

 
δ2 δ2

 Z Z 

 
+ θ3 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα + + θ4 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα

 

δ1 δ1
(12)


where the integral limits are defined as δ1 = 2tan−1 m + 1 + m2 , and δ2 =


2π + 2tan−1 m − 1 + m2 , and the auxiliary functions are given in Table 2.


Proof: See Appendix C. 

Theorem 2 Based on Approach 2, the probability of occurrence of Event 1 is as


follows:

Pr {Event1}
1
Z 2π
1
Z 2π (13)
= ρ1 (α, xTx , yTx , xRx , yRx )dα + ρ2 (α, xTx , yTx , xRx , yRx )dα
2π 0 2π 0

where the integrand functions are defined as:

  2
xTx cos α + yTx sin α xRx cos α + yRx sin α
ρ1 (α, xTx , yTx , xRx , yRx ) = min , ,1
Rnet Rnet
  
xTx cos α + yTx sin α xRx cos α + yRx sin α
×H min , ,1
Rnet Rnet
(14)
Di Renzo and Song Page 12 of 25

and
"   2 #
xTx cos α + yTx sin α xRx cos α + yRx sin α
ρ2 (α, xTx , yTx , xRx , yRx ) = 1 − max , ,0
Rnet Rnet
  
xTx cos α + yTx sin α xRx cos α + yRx sin α
×H 1 − max , ,0
Rnet Rnet
(15)

Proof: See Appendix D. 

Remark 1 Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 are two analytical formulations of the same
event. In the sequel, we show that they coincide. 

5.3 Scenario II: Reflection Probability in the Absence of Reconfigurable Metasurfaces


The probability of occurrence of Event 3 is not easy to compute. The reason is that
Event 3 is formulated in terms of the intersection of Event 1 and Event 2, which
are not independent. In order to avoid the analytical complexity that originates
from the correlation between Event 1 and Event 2, we propose a upper-bound to
compute the probability of occurrence of Event 3. Before stating the main result,
we introduce the following proposition that provides one with the probability of
occurrence of Event 2.

Proposition 1 The probability of occurrence of Event 2 can be formulated as fol-


lows.
( )
min (xend1 , xend2 ) 6 x∗ 6 max (xend1 , xend2 )
Pr {Event2} = Pr
∩ min (yend1 , yend2 ) 6 y∗ 6 max (yend1 , yend2 )
(Z Z 3π Z π2 ) (16)
2π Z π
1 2
= Γ1 (α)dα + Γ2 (α)dα + Γ3 (α)dα + Γ4 (α)dα
2π 3π
2
π 0 π
2

where Γ1 (α) = Γa1 (α) + Γb1 (α) + Γc1 (α) + Γd1 (α), Γ2 (α) = Γa2 (α) + Γb2 (α) + Γc2 (α) +
Γd2 (α), Γ3 (α) = Γa3 (α) + Γb3 (α) + Γc3 (α) + Γd3 (α), and Γ4 (α) = Γa4 (α) + Γb4 (α) +
Γc4 (α) + Γd4 (α), which are all defined in Table 3.

Proof: See Appendix E. 

Theorem 3 The probability of occurrence of Event 3 is upper-bounded as follows:

Pr {Event3} 6 min {Pr {Event1} , Pr {Event2}} (17)

where Pr {Event1} is formulated in Theorem 1 or Theorem 2, and Pr {Event2} is


given in Proposition 1.

Proof: The proof follows by applying the Frechet inequality [34]. 


Di Renzo and Song Page 13 of 25

Table 3: Auxiliary functions used in Proposition 1.


Function definition
  −1
z sin α
F (α, t) = R 1 t + m sin p
α+cos α
1
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α
net p
  −1
mp zp sin α mp
G (α, v) = R 1 v + m sin α+cos α
− zp m sin α+cos α
− sin α
net
  p   p  
F α, − L sin α G α, L cos α
   
a 2 2 1 mp
Γ1 (α) = Θ α
     H
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H m − sin α
p sin α+cos α
F α, L 2
sin α G α, − L 2
cos α
     
F α, − L sin α G α, − L cos α
   
b 2 2 1 mp
Γ1 (α) = Θ α
     H
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H̄ m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, 2 sin α G α, 2 cos α
     
F α, L sin α G α, L cos α
   
c 2 2 1 mp
Γ1 (α) = Θ α      H̄
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, − 2 sin α G α, − 2 cos α
     
F α, L sin α G α, − L cos α
   
2 2 1 mp
Γd1 (α) = Θ α      H̄
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H̄ m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, − 2 sin α G α, 2 cos α
     
F α, − L sin α G α, − L cos α
   
2 2 1 mp
Γa2 (α) = Θ α
     H
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, 2 sin α G α, 2 cos α
     
F α, − L sin α G α, L cos α
   
b 2 2 1 mp
Γ2 (α) = Θ α
     H
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H̄ m − sin α
p sin α+cos α
F α, L 2
sin α G α, − L 2
cos α
     
F α, L sin α G α, − L cos α
   
c 2 2 1 mp
Γ2 (α) = Θ α
      H̄
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, − 2 sin α G α, 2 cos α
     
F α, L sin α G α, L cos α
   
d 2 2 1 mp
Γ2 (α) = Θ α
      H̄
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H̄ m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, − 2 sin α G α, − 2 cos α
     
F α, L sin α G α, L cos α
   
a 2 2 1 mp
Γ3 (α) = Θ α     H
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, − 2 sin α G α, − 2 cos α
     
F α, L sin α G α, − L cos α
   
2 2 1 mp
Γb3 (α) = Θ α     H
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H̄ m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, − 2 sin α G α, 2 cos α
     
F α, − L sin α G α, L cos α
   
2 2 1 mp
Γc3 (α) = Θ α      H̄
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, 2 sin α G α, − 2 cos α
     
F α, − L sin α G α, − L cos α
   
d 2 2 1 mp
Γ3 (α) = Θ α
      H̄
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H̄ m − sin α
p sin α+cos α
F α, L 2
sin α G α, L 2
cos α
     
F α, L sin α G α, − L cos α
   
a 2 2 1 mp
Γ4 (α) = Θ α
     H
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, − 2 sin α G α, 2 cos α
     
F α, L sin α G α, L cos α
   
b 2 2 1 mp
Γ4 (α) = Θ α     H
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H̄ m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, − 2 sin α G α, − 2 cos α
     
F α, − L sin α G α, − L cos α
   
c 2 2 1 mp
Γ4 (α) = Θ α      H̄
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, 2 sin α G α, 2 cos α
     
F α, − L sin α G α, L cos α
   
2 2 1 mp
Γd4 (α) = Θ α      H̄
mp sin α+cos α
− cos α H̄ m − sin α
L L p sin α+cos α
F α, 2 sin α G α, − 2 cos α

Remark 2 By comparing Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 against Theorem 3, we ob-


serve that the probability of being a reflector highly depends on the length of the
typical object if is it not coated with a reconfigurable metasurfaces, while it is in-
dependent of it if it is coated with a reconfigurable metasurface. This is a major
benefit of using reconfigurable metasurfaces in wireless networks. This outcome is
determined by the assumption that the metasurfaces can modify the angle of reflec-
tion regardless of their length. The analysis of the impact of the constraints imposed
Di Renzo and Song Page 14 of 25

0.8

0.7
Probability of being a reflector
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
With Metasurface (Approach 1, simulation)
With Metasurface (Approach 1, analysis)
0.2 With Metasurface (Approach 2, simulation)
With Metasurface (Approach 2, analysis)
Without Metasurface (simulation)
0.1
Without Metasurface (upper-bound, simulation)
Without Metasurface (upper-bound, analysis)
0
0 50 100 150
Length of the object [m]

Figure 7: Probability of being a reflector versus the length of the object. Setup:
Rnet = 30m, location of the transmitter (0, 3), location of the receiver (20, 20).

by the size of the metasurface on its capability of obtaining a given set of angles
of reflection as a function of the angle of incidence is an open but very important
research issue, which is left to future research. 

6 Numerical Results and Discussion: Validation Against Monte


Carlo Simulations
The aim of this section is to validate the analytical frameworks developed in the
previous sections against Monte Carlo simulations, and to study the potential of
using reconfigurable metasurfaces in wireless networks. The results are illustrated
either as a function of the length, L, of the typical object or as a function of the
locations of the transmitter and receiver. The simulation setup is detailed in the
caption of each figure.

In Fig. 7, we validate the proposed mathematical frameworks, against Monte


Carlo simulations, as a function of the length, L, of the typical object. The results
depicted in Fig. 7 confirm the good accuracy of the proposed analytical approach.
More importantly, we observe the large gain that the presence of metasurfaces bring
about: Especially for objects of small length, the presence of reconfigurable meta-
surfaces increases the probability of the typical object to be a reflector significantly.
This is expected to bring major gains in terms of signal strength of the received
signal thanks to the reflection generated by the randomly distributed reflectors. The
Di Renzo and Song Page 15 of 25

Length of the object = 5 m


1

0.9

0.8
Probability of being a reflector

0.7

0.6 With Metasurface (Approach 1, simulation)


With Metasurface (Approach 1, analysis)
With Metasurface (Approach 2, simulation)
0.5
With Metasurface (Approach 2, analysis)
Without Metasurface (simulation)
0.4
Without Metasurface (upper-bound, simulation)
Without Metasurface (upper-bound, analysis)
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Abscissa of Tx

Figure 8: Probability of being a reflector versus the horizontal location, xTx ,


of the transmitter. Setup: Rnet = 30m, vertical location of the transmitter
yTx = 3, location of the receiver (0, 0), length of the object L = 5m.

presence of multiple reflectors, however, may also increase the level of interference.
Therefore, the optimization of wireless networks in the presence of reconfigurable
metasurfaces is a challenging and open research issue. Figure 7, in addition, con-
firms the main finding in Remark 2.

In Figs. 8 and 9, we depict the probability that the typical object is as a reflec-
tor as a function of the location of the transmitter and for a fixed length of the
typical object. Once again, the proposed analytical frameworks are accurate, and
the upper-bound in Theorem 3 is sufficiently accurate for the considered setups.
Especially for small-size objects, we observe the large gains that employing meta-
surfaces bring about. Even small-size objects can provide one with a relatively high
probability of being a reflector, which is useful information in order to reduce the
deployment cost of the metasurfaces over large-size environmental objects. Small-
size metasurfaces, in fact, may be moved along large(size surfaces, and their location
may be optimized in order to optimize the system performance.

7 Conclusion and Discussion


In this paper, we have proposed the first analytical approach that provides one
with the probability that a random object coated with reconfigurable metasurfaces
acts as a reflector, and have compared it against the conventional setup in which
Di Renzo and Song Page 16 of 25

Length of the object = 20 m


1

0.9
Probability of being a reflector
0.8

0.7 With Metasurface (Approach 1, simulation)


With Metasurface (Approach 1, analysis)
With Metasurface (Approach 2, simulation)
0.6 With Metasurface (Approach 2, analysis)
Without Metasurface (simulation)
Without Metasurface (upper-bound, simulation)
0.5
Without Metasurface (upper-bound, analysis)

0.4

0.3

0.2
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Abscissa of Tx

Figure 9: Probability of being a reflector versus the horizontal location, xTx ,


of the transmitter. Setup: Rnet = 30m, vertical location of the transmitter
yTx = 3, location of the receiver (0, 0), length of the object L = 20m.

the object is not coated with reconfigurable metasurfaces. This result has been ob-
tained by modeling the environmental objects with a modified random line process
with fixed length, and random orientations and locations. Our proposed analytical
approach allows us to prove that the probability that an object is a reflector does
not depend on the length of the object if it is coated with metasurfaces, while it
strongly depends on it if the Snell’s law of reflection needs to be applied. The reason
of this major difference in system performance lies in the fact that the angles of
incidence and reflection need to be the same according to the Snell’s law of reflection.

In spite of the novelty and contribution of the present paper, it constitutes only a
first attempt to quantify the potential of reconfigurable metasurfaces in large-scale
wireless networks, and to develop a general analytical approach for understand-
ing the ultimate performance limits, and to identify design guidelines for system
optimization. For example, the performance trends are based on the assumption
that, for any angle of incidence, an arbitrary angle of reflection can be synthetized.
Due to practical constraints on implementing metasurfaces, only a finite subset of
angles may be allowed, which needs to account for the concept of field-of-view of
the metasurfaces. Also, the analytical models and the simulation results have been
obtained by using ray tracing assumptions, and ignore, e.g., the radiation pattern of
the metasurfaces, and near field effects. A major step is needed to obtain tractable
analytical expressions of relevant performance metrics that are suitable to unveil
Di Renzo and Song Page 17 of 25

scaling laws, amenable for optimization, and account for different functions applied
by the metasurfaces (not just reflections).

Appendix A: Proof of Lemma 3


Let us rewrite (6) and (9) in the following standard forms:

mx − y + z = 0
(18)
mp − y + z p = 0

where their slopes m and mp are assumed to be non-zero.

With this formulation, the directional vector of each line is as follows:


" # " #
m mp
∆= , ∆p = (19)
−1 −1

The two lines in (18) are perpendicular to each other if their directional vectors
are orthogonal:

∆T ∆p = 0 (20)

which implies that the following identity need to be fulfilled mmp = −1.

The coordinates of the mid-point of the line segment between the transmitter
Rx yTx +yRx
and receiver is xTx +x

2 , 2 , which is located on the line y = mp x + zp . By
substituting this latter point in (18), zp turns out to be the following:

1 1
zp = (xTx + xRx ) + (yTx + yRx ) (21)
2m 2

This concludes the proof.

Appendix B: Proof of Lemma 5


Let A (x1 , y1 ) be a point that does not lie on a generic line ax+by+c = 0. Let us draw
the perpendicular line from A (x1 , y1 ) to the horizontal axis. This perpendicular line
intersect the generic line ax + by + c = 0 in the point P (x1 , y), as shown in Fig.
10. By construction, x1 is the abscissa of the point P . Let y denote the ordinate of
P . Since P is on the line ax + by + c = 0, then the following equation needs to be
satisfied:

ax1 + c
ax1 + by + c = 0 ⇒ y = − (22)
b

Let us compute the difference y1 − y, as follows:


 
ax1 + c ax1 + by1 + c
y1 − y = y1 − − ⇒ y1 − y = (23)
b b
Di Renzo and Song Page 18 of 25

A ( x1 , y1 )

P ( x1 , y )

Figure 10: Position of a point with respect to a line.

Therefore, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• If the point A is above the line, then it must be y1 − y > 0. From equation
ax1 +by1 +c
(23), we evince that y1 − y > 0 if b > 0. This, in turn, corresponds
to the following: i) either ax1 + by1 + c > 0 and b > 0 or ii) ax1 + by1 + c < 0
and b < 0.
• If the point A is below the line, then it must be y1 −y < 0. From equation (23),
ax1 +by1 +c
we evince that y1 − y < 0 if b < 0. This, in turn, corresponds to the
following: i) either ax1 +by1 +c < 0 and b > 0 or ii) ax1 +by1 +c > 0 and b < 0.

This concludes the proof.

Appendix C: Proof of Theorem 1


From (10) in Lemma 4, the probability of the complement of Event 1 can be for-
mulated as follows:

min (xTx , xRx ) 6 x∗ 6 max (xTx , xRx )


( )

Pr Event 1 = Pr
∩ min (yTx , yRx ) 6 y ∗ 6 max (yTx , yRx )
 p − z sin α 
(24)
 min (xTx , xRx ) 6
 6 max (xTx , xRx ) 
m sin α + cos α

= Pr
 ∩ min (yTx , yRx ) 6 m p − z sin α + z 6 max (yTx , yRx )
 
m sin α + cos α

Based on the sign of m sin α + cos α and m, four cases can be identified.
Di Renzo and Song Page 19 of 25

C.1 Case 1

If m sin α + cos α > 0 and m > 0, we obtain the following:

 p − z sin α 
 min (xTx , xRx ) 6
 6 max (xTx , xRx ) 
m sin α + cos α
 
Pr Event 1 = Pr
 ∩ min (yTx , yRx ) 6 m p − z sin α + z 6 max (yTx , yRx )
 
m sin α + cos α
( )
(a) f (α, min (xTx , xRx )) 6 υ 6 f (α, max (xTx , xRx ))
= Pr
∩g (α, min (yTx , yRx )) 6 υ 6 g (α, max (yTx , yRx ))
Z 2π Z min{f (α,max(xTx ,xRx )),g(α,max(yTx ,yRx )),1}
1
= fυ (υ) × H (m sin α + cos α) H (m)
2π 0 max{f (α,min(xTx ,xRx )),g(α,min(yTx ,yRx )),0}
!
min {f (α, max (xTx , xRx )) , g (α, max (yTx , yRx )) , 1}
×H dυdα
− max {f (α, min (xTx , xRx )) , g (α, min (yTx , yRx )) , 0}
(Z Z 2π )
δ1
(b) 1
= θ1 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα + θ1 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα
2π 0 δ2

(25)


where (a) follows from p = Rnet u = Rnet υ, and (b) follows by computing the
integral with respect to υ, whose probability density function is fυ (υ) = 2υ, since
u is uniformly distributed in [0, 1].

The integration limits in (b) are determined from the conditions m sin α + cos α >

0, which implies 0 6 α 6 δ1 and δ2 6 α 6 2π, where δ1 = 2tan−1 m + 1 + m2


and δ2 = 2π + 2tan−1 m − 1 + m2 .


The other three case studies can be obtained by using the same approach as for
Case 1. Thus, the details are omitted and only the final result is reported.

C.2 Case 2

If m sin α + cos α > 0 and m < 0, we have the following:

 p − z sin α 
 min (xTx , xRx ) 6
 6 max (xTx , xRx ) 
m sin α + cos α
 
Pr Event 1 = Pr
 ∩ min (yTx , yRx ) 6 m p − z sin α + z 6 max (yTx , yRx )
 
m sin α + cos α
(Z Z 2π )
δ1
1
= θ2 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα + θ2 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα
2π 0 δ2

(26)
Di Renzo and Song Page 20 of 25

C.3 Case 3
If m sin α + cos α < 0 and m > 0, we have the following:

 p − z sin α 
 min (xTx , xRx ) 6
 6 max (xTx , xRx ) 
m sin α + cos α
 
Pr Event 1 = Pr
 ∩ min (yTx , yRx ) 6 m p − z sin α + z 6 max (yTx , yRx )
 
m sin α + cos α
(Z )
π Z δ2
1
= θ3 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα + θ3 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα
2π δ1 π
Z δ2
1
= θ3 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα
2π δ1
(27)

C.4 Case 4
If m sin α + cos α < 0 and m < 0, we have the following:

 p − z sin α 
 min (xTx , xRx ) 6
 6 max (xTx , xRx ) 
m sin α + cos α
 
Pr Event 1 = Pr
 ∩ min (yTx , yRx ) 6 m p − z sin α + z 6 max (yTx , yRx )
 
m sin α + cos α
(Z )
π Z δ2
1
= θ4 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα + θ4 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα
2π δ1 π
Z δ2
1
= θ4 (α, xTx , xRx , yTx , yRx )dα
2π δ1
(28)

This concludes the proof.

Appendix D: Proof of Theorem 2


The proof is based on Lemma 5. In particular, the following cases need to be ex-
amined.

• Case 1: The location of the transmitter (xTx , yTx ) is above the line x cos α +
y sin α − p = 0 given sin α > 0.
• Case 2: The location of the transmitter (xTx , yTx ) is above the line x cos α +
y sin α − p = 0 given sin α < 0.
• Case 3: The location of the receiver (xRx , yRx ) is above the line x cos α +
y sin α − p = 0 given sin α > 0.
• Case 4: The location of the receiver (xRx , yRx ) is above the line x cos α +
y sin α − p = 0 given sin α < 0.
• Case 5: The location of the transmitter (xTx , yTx ) is below the line x cos α +
y sin α − p = 0 given sin α > 0.
• Case 6: The location of the transmitter (xTx , yTx ) is below the line x cos α +
y sin α − p = 0 given sin α < 0.
Di Renzo and Song Page 21 of 25

• Case 7: The location of the receiver (xRx , yRx ) is below the line x cos α +
y sin α − p = 0 given sin α > 0.
• Case 8: The location of the receiver (xRx , yRx ) is below the line x cos α +
y sin α − p = 0 given sin α < 0.

From (3), the probability of Event 1 can be formulated as follows:


( )
{[Tx is above the line] ∩ [Rx is above the line]}
Pr {Event 1} = Pr
∪ {[Tx is below the line] ∩ [Rx is below the line]}
( )
[Case 1 ∪ Case 2] ∩ [Case 3 ∪ Case 4]
= Pr
∪ [Case 5 ∪ Case 6] ∩ [Case 7 ∪ Case 8]
(29)
= Pr {[Case 1 ∪ Case 2] ∩ [Case 3 ∪ Case 4]}
+ Pr {[Case 5 ∪ Case 6] ∩ [Case 7 ∪ Case 8]}
= Pr {Case 1 ∩ Case 3} + Pr {Case 2 ∩ Case 4}
+ Pr {Case 5 ∩ Case 7} + Pr {Case 6 ∩ Case 8}

Therefore, four probabilities need to be computed. Let us start with the first one:

Pr {Case 1 ∩ Case3}
= Pr {(xTx cos α + yTx sin α − p > 0 ∩ sin α > 0) ∩ (xRx cos α + yRx sin α − p > 0 ∩ sin α > 0)}
= Pr {[(xTx cos α + yTx sin α − p > 0) ∩ (xRx cos α + yRx sin α − p > 0)] ∩ sin α > 0}
    
(a) xTx cos α + yTx sin α xRx cos α + yRx sin α
= Pr υ< ∩ υ< ∩ sin α > 0
Rnet Rnet
n o
Z π Z min xTx cos Rα+yTx sin α , xRx cos Rα+yRx sin α ,1
1 net net
= fυ (υ)
2π 0 0
  
xTx cos α + yTx sin α xRx cos α + yRx sin α
×H min , ,1 dυdα
Rnet Rnet
Z π
(b) 1
= ρ1 (α, xTx , yTx , xRx , yRx )dα
2π 0
(30)

where (a) follows from p = Rnet u = Rnet υ, and (b) follows by solving the integral
with respect to υ whose probability density function is fυ (υ) = 2υ, since u is uni-
formly distributed in [0, 1].

By using a similar approach, we we obtain the following results:


Z 2π
1
Pr {Case 2 ∩ Case 4} = ρ2 (α, xTx , yTx , xRx , yRx )dα
2π π
Z π
1
Pr {Case 5 ∩ Case 7} = ρ2 (α, xTx , yTx , xRx , yRx )dα (31)
2π 0
Z 2π
1
Pr {Case 6 ∩ Case 8} = ρ1 (α, xTx , yTx , xRx , yRx )dα
2π π

This concludes the proof.


Di Renzo and Song Page 22 of 25

Appendix E: Proof of Proposition 1


From (8) in Lemma 2 and (11) in Lemma 4, the probability of Event 2 can be
formulated as follows:
( )
min (xend1 , xend2 ) 6 x∗ 6 max (xend1 , xend2 )
Pr {Event 2} = Pr
∩ min (yend1, yend2 ) 6 y∗ 6 max (yend1 , yend2 )
p − zp sin α
 

 min (xend1 , xend2 ) 6 6 max (xend1 , xend2 )  (32)
mp sin α + cos α
 

= Pr
p − zp sin α
 ∩ min (yend1 , yend2 ) 6 mp + zp 6 max (yend1 , yend2 )

 

mp sin α + cos α

In order to compute this probability, we need to examine four cases depending on


the relationship between xend1 and xend2 , as well as yend1 and yend2 .

E.1 Case 1
If xend1 > xend2 and yend1 > yend2 , which implies sin α < 0 and cos α > 0, we obtain
the following:

 
p − zp sin α p − zp sin α
Pr {Event 2} = Pr xend2 6 6 xend1 ∩ yend2 6 mp + zp 6 yend1
mp sin α + cos α mp sin α + cos α
 
L z sin α 1 L zp sin α
 
p
 2 sin α + m sin α + cos α 6 m sin α + cos α − cos α p 6 − 2 sin α + m sin α + cos α ∩

 


p p p
= Pr  
 − L cos α +
 mp zp sin α mp L mp zp sin α 
 − zp 6 − sin α p 6 cos α + − zp 

2 mp sin α + cos α mp sin α + cos α 2 mp sin α + cos α
(33)
   
1 mp
Depending on the sign of mp sin α+cos α − cos α and mp sin α+cos α − sin α , four
sub-cases need to be studied.

E.1.1
 Case 1-a   
1 mp
If mp sin α+cos α − cos α > 0 and mp sin α+cos α − sin α > 0, we have the follow-
ing:

 
p − zp sin α p − zp sin α
Pr {Event 2} = Pr xend2 6 6 xend1 ∩ yend2 6 mp + zp 6 yend1
mp sin α + cos α mp sin α + cos α
        
(a) L L L L
= Pr F α, sin α 6 υ 6 F α, − sin α ∩ G α, − cos α 6 υ 6 G α, cos α
2 2 2 2
Z 2π Z min{F (α,− L sin α),F (α,− L sin α),1}    
1 2 2 1 mp
= fυ (υ)H − cos α H − sin α
2π 0 max{F (α, L sin α),G(α,− L cos α),0} mp sin α + cos α mp sin α + cos α
2 2
      
L L

min F α, − sin α , F α, − sin α , 1
 2 2 
×H         H̄ (sin α) H (cos α) dυdα
 L L
− max F α, sin α , G α, − cos α , 0
2 2
Z 2π Z 2π
(b) 1 1
= Γa1 (α)H̄ (sin α) H (cos α) dα = Γa1 (α)dα
2π 0 2π 3π
2

(34)
Di Renzo and Song Page 23 of 25


where (a) follows from p = Rnet u = Rnet υ, and (b) follows by solving the integral
with respect to υ whose probability density function is fυ (υ) = 2υ, since u is uni-
formly distributed in [0, 1].

By using a similar approach, we can study the remaining three sub-cases.

E.1.2
 Case 1-b   
1 mp
If mp sin α+cos α − cos α > 0 and mp sin α+cos α − sin α < 0, we have the follow-
ing:

2π 2π
1 1
Z Z
Pr {Event 2} = Γb1 (α)H̄ (sin α) H (cos α) dα = Γb1 (α)dα (35)
2π 0 2π 3π
2

E.1.3
 Case 1-c   
1 mp
If mp sin α+cos α − cos α < 0 and mp sin α+cos α − sin α > 0, we have the follow-
ing:

2π 2π
1 1
Z Z
Pr {Event2} = Γc1 (α)H̄ (sin α) H (cos α) dα = Γc1 (α)dα (36)
2π 0 2π 3π
2

E.1.4
 Case 1-d   
1 mp
If mp sin α+cos α − cos α < 0 and mp sin α+cos α − sin α < 0, we have the follow-
ing:

2π 2π
1 1
Z Z
Pr {Event 2} = Γd1 (α)H̄ (sin α) H (cos α) dα = Γd1 (α)dα (37)
2π 0 2π 3π
2

Therefore, eventually, Pr {Event2} can be formulated as follows:

2π 2π
1 1
Z Z
Γa1 (α) + Γb1 (α) + Γc1 (α) + Γd1 (α) dα
 
Pr {Event 2} = Γ1 (α)dα =
2π 3π
2
2π 3π
2

(38)

By using a similar line of thought, the remaining three cases can be studied. The
final result is reported in the following sections.

E.2 Case 2
If xend1 > xend2 , and yend1 < yend2 , which implies sin α < 0 and cos α < 0, we
obtain the following:

3π 3π
1 1
Z 2
Z 2
Γa2 (α) + Γb2 (α) + Γc2 (α) + Γd2 (α) dα
 
Pr {Event 2} = Γ2 (α)dα =
2π π 2π π
(39)
Di Renzo and Song Page 24 of 25

E.3 Case 3
If xend1 < xend2 , and yend1 > yend2 , which implies sin α > 0 and cos α > 0, we have
the following:

π π
1 1
Z 2
Z 2
Γa3 (α) + Γb3 (α) + Γc3 (α) + Γd3 (α) dα
 
Pr {Event 2} = Γ3 (α)dα =
2π 0 2π 0
(40)

E.4 Case 4
If xend1 < xend2 , and yend1 < yend2 , which implies sin α > 0 and cos α < 0, we have
the following:

π
π
1 1
Z 2
Z
Γa4 (α) + Γb4 (α) + Γc4 (α) + Γd4 (α) dα
 
Pr {Event 2} = Γ4 (α)dα =
2π 0 2π π
2

(41)

This concludes the proof.

References
1. https://www.comsoc.org/ctn/what-will-6g-be.
2. P. Hu, P. Zhang, M. Rostami, and D. Ganesan, “Braidio: An Integrated Active-Passive Radio for Mobile
Devices with Asymmetric Energy Budgets”, ACM SIGCOMM, Florianopolis, Brazil, Aug. 2016.
3. C. Liaskos, S. Nie, A. Tsioliaridou, A. Pitsillides, S. Ioannidis, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Realizing Wireless
Communication Through Software-Defined HyperSurface Environments”, IEEE International Symposium on a
World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, Crete, Greece, Jun. 2018.
4. 5GPPP Vision on Software Networks and 5G SN WG, Jan. 2017.
5. C. Liaskos, S. Nie, A. Tsioliaridou, A. Pitsillides, S. Ioannidis, and I. F. Akyildiz, “A New Wireless
Communication Paradigm Through Software-Controlled Metasurfaces”, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol.
56, No. 9, pp. 162-169, Sep. 2018.
6. L. Subrt and P. Pechac, “Controlling Propagation Environments Using Intelligent Walls”, European Conference
on Antennas and Propagation, Prague, Czech Republic, Mar. 2012.
7. L. Subrt and P. Pechac, “Intelligent Walls as Autonomous Parts of Smart Indoor Environments”, IET
Communications, Vol. 6, No. 8, pp. 1004-1010, May 2012.
8. X. Tan, Z. Sun, J. M. Jornet, and D. Pados, “Increasing Indoor Spectrum Sharing Capacity using Smart
Reflect-Array”, IEEE International Conference on Communications, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 2016.
9. O. Abari, D. Bharadia, A. Duffield, and D. Katabi, “Enabling High-Quality Untethered Virtual Reality”,
USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, Boston, USA, Mar. 2017.
10. A. Welkie, L. Shangguan, J. Gummeson, W. Hu, and K. Jamieson, “Programmable Radio Environments for
Smart Spaces”, ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, Palo Alto, USA, Nov. 30 - Dec. 1, 2017.
11. R. Chandra and K. Winstein, “Programmable Radio Environments for Smart Spaces - HotNets-XVI Dialogue”,
ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, Palo Alto, USA, Nov. 30 - Dec. 1, 2017.
12. S. Hu, F. Rusek, and O. Edfors, “Beyond Massive MIMO: The Potential of Data Transmission With Large
Intelligent Surfaces”, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol. 66, No. 10, pp. 2746-2758, May 2018.
13. X. Tan, Z. Sun, D. Koutsonikolas, and J. M. Jornet, “Enabling Indoor Mobile Millimeter-Wave Networks Based
on Smart Reflect-Arrays”, IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, Honolulu, USA, Apr. 2018.
14. C. Liaskos, A. Tsioliaridou, A. Pitsillides, S. Ioannidis, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Using any Surface to Realize a New
Paradigm for Wireless Communications”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 61 No. 11, pp. 30-33, Nov. 2018.
15. A. Tsioliaridou, C. Liaskos, and S. Ioannidis, “Towards a Circular Economy via Intelligent Metamaterials”, IEEE
International Conference on Computer-Aided Modeling Analysis and Design of Communication Links and
Networks, Barcelona, Spain, Sep. 2018.
16. N. Yu, P. Genevet, M. A. Kats, F. Aieta, J.-P. Tetienne, F. Capasso, and Z. Gaburro, “Light Propagation with
Phase Discontinuities: Generalized Laws of Reflection and Refraction”, Science, Vol. 334, No. 6054, pp.
333-337, Oct. 2011.
17. C. L. Holloway, E. F. Kuester, J. A. Gordon, J. O’Hara, J. Booth, and D. R. Smith, “An Overview of the
Theory and Applications of Metasurfaces: The Two-Dimensional Equivalents of Metamaterials”, IEEE
Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 10-35, Apr. 2012.
18. L. Spada, “Metamaterials for Advanced Sensing Platforms”, Research Journal on Optical Photonics, Vol. 1,
No. 1, Oct. 2017.
19. T. Nakanishi, T. Otani, Y. Tamayama, and M. Kitano, “Storage of Electromagnetic Waves in a Metamaterial
That Mimics Electromagnetically Induced Transparency”, Physical Review B, Vol. 87, No. 161110, Apr. 2013.
20. A. Silva, F. Monticone, G. Castaldi, V. Galdi, A. Alu, and N. Engheta, “Performing Mathematical Operations
with Metamaterials”, Vol. 343, No. 6167, pp. 160-163, Jan. 2014.
Di Renzo and Song Page 25 of 25

21. H2020 VISORSURF project, “A Hardware Platform for Software-Driven Functional Metasurfaces”,
http://www.visorsurf.eu/.
22. T. Bai, R. Vaze, and R. W. Heath Jr., “Analysis of Blockage Effects on Urban Cellular Networks”, IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 5070-5083, Sep. 2014.
23. J. Lee and F. Baccelli, “On the Effect of Shadowing Correlation on Wireless Network Performance”, IEEE
International Conference on Computer Communications, Honolulu, Hawaii, Apr. 2018.
24. 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, Nov. 2011.
25. M. Di Renzo, A. Guidotti, G. E. Corazza, “Average Rate of Downlink Heterogeneous Cellular Networks over
Generalized Fading Channels – A Stochastic Geometry Approach”, IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol.
61, No. 7, pp. 3050–3071, Jul. 2013.
26. M. Di Renzo, “Stochastic Geometry Modeling and Analysis of Multi-Tier Millimeter Wave Cellular Networks”,
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 5038-5057, Sep. 2015.
27. W. Lu and M. Di Renzo, “Stochastic Geometry Modeling of Cellular Networks: Analysis, Simulation and
Experimental Validation”, ACM International Conference on Modeling Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and
Mobile Systems, Nov. 2015.
28. M. Di Renzo, W. Lu, and P. Guan, “The Intensity Matching Approach: A tractable Stochastic Geometry
Approximation to System-Level Analysis of Cellular Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 5963-5983, Sep. 2016.
29. M. Di Renzo, A. Zappone, T. T. Lam, and M. Debbah, “System-Level Modeling and Optimization of the
Energy Efficiency in Cellular Networks - A Stochastic Geometry Framework”, IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 2539-2556, Apr. 2018.
30. M. Di Renzo, S. Wang, and X. Xi, “Modeling and Analysis of Cellular Networks by Using Inhomogeneous
Poisson Point Processes”, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 5162-5182, Aug.
2018.
31. M. Di Renzo, T. T. Lam, A. Zappone, and M. Debbah, “A Tractable Closed-Form Expression of the Coverage
Probability in Poisson Cellular Networks”, IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, to appear, 2018.
32. M. Di Renzo, A. Zappone, T. T. Lam, and M. Debbah, “Spectral-Energy Efficiency Pareto Front in Cellular
Networks: A Stochastic Geometry Framework”, IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, to appear, 2018.
33. A. Narayanan, S. T. Veetil, and R. K. Ganti, “Coverage Analysis in Millimeter Wave Cellular Networks with
Reflections”, IEEE Global Communications Conference, Singapore, Singapore, Dec. 2017.
34. M. Di Renzo and W. Lu, “System-level Analysis and Optimization of Cellular Networks With Simultaneous
Wireless Information and Power Transfer: Stochastic Geometry Modeling”, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 2251-2275, TBA.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy