## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Location** & **Bystander** & **Usage** & **N: 0** & **N: 10\%** & **N: 20\%** & **N: 40\%** & **N: 80\%** & **N: 100\%** \\ \hline rural-macro & \(r=25\) m & none & 0 & 0.6 & 1.0 & 0.8 & \(-\)0.8 & \(-\)3.0 \\ suburban-macro & \(r=10\) m & none & 0 & 0.6 & 2.0 & 2.4 & 2.2 & 2.0 \\ urban-macro & \(r=5\) m & none & 0 & 1.6 & 2.0 & 2.3 & 3.5 & 4.0 \\ urban-macro & \(r=1\) m & none & 0 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 0.8 & \(-\)0.4 & \(-\)1.3 \\ urban-mini & \(r=5\) m & none & 0 & 2.0 & 3.0 & 3.8 & 4.1 & 4.0 \\ urban-mini & \(r=1\) m & none & 0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.5 & 1.3 & 1.0 \\ urban-micro & \(r=5\) m & none & 0 & 5.1 & 7.0 & 8.8 & 10.1 & 11.0 \\ urban-micro & \(r=1\) m & none & 0 & 4.1 & 5.4 & 8.0 & 10.0 & 10.0 \\ \hline rural-macro & \(r=25\) m & 10 GByte/d & 0 & \(-\)0.5 & \(-\)0.9 & \(-\)2.3 & \(-\)6.8 & \(-\)25.8 \\ suburban-macro & \(r=10\) m & 10 GByte/d & 0 & \(-\)0.5 & \(-\)1.1 & \(-\)2.4 & \(-\)7.0 & \(-\)25.5 \\ urban-macro & \(r=5\) m & 10 GByte/d & 0 & \(-\)0.7 & \(-\)1.2 & \(-\)2.2 & \(-\)7.1 & \(-\)27.7 \\ urban-macro & \(r=1\) m & 10 GByte/d & 0 & \(-\)0.4 & \(-\)1.0 & \(-\)2.1 & \(-\)7.0 & \(-\)27.6 \\ urban-mini & \(r=5\) m & 10 GByte/d & 0 & \(-\)0.5 & \(-\)0.9 & \(-\)2.1 & \(-\)7.0 & \(-\)22.0 \\ urban-mini & \(r=1\) m & 10 GByte/d & 0 & \(-\)0.6 & \(-\)1.0 & \(-\)2.1 & \(-\)7.0 & \(-\)22.2 \\ urban-micro & \(r=5\) m & 10 GByte/d & 0 & \(-\)0.5 & \(-\)1.1 & \(-\)2.1 & \(-\)6.3 & \(-\)11.0 \\ urban-micro & \(r=1\) m & 10 GByte/d & 0 & \(-\)0.4 & \(-\)0.9 & \(-\)2.1 & \(-\)6.0 & \(-\)10.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Relative effect (in dB) of increased indoor coverage (increasing N) without cell edge reduction for non-users and heavy users in different environments and bystander conditions. Shown are the 95 th percentiles relative to the case for \(N\) = 0 in each row. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Location** & **N** & **Cell Edge Red (dB)** & **Usage** & \(r=5\) m** & \(r=1\) m** \\ \hline urban-macro & [0] & [0] & 0 MB/d & 0 & 5.4 \\ urban-macro & [0] & [0] & 100 MB/d & 15.8 & 16.0 \\ urban-mini & [0] & [0] & 0 MB/d & 0 & 2.1 \\ urban-mini & [0] & [0] & 100 MB/d & 9.9 & 10.0 \\ urban-micro & [0] & [0] & 0 MB/d & 0 & 1.0 \\ urban-micro & [0] & [0] & 100 MB/d & 7.0 & 7.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Total dose change (in dB) as a function of bystander distance \(r\). Shown are the 95 th percentile values for non-users and light data users (100 MBbyte/day) relative to the dose value of the non-user with a bystander 5 m away, for each urban exposure scenario. We performed a sensitivity analysis of the model output on the 95 th percentile total dose for the input parameters: data usage, cell edge reduction, and indoor coverage. We analyzed the sensitivities one at a time, i.e., one input parameter was varied while the dose was averaged and varied over all other parameters sampled randomly. For indoor coverage of \(N=1\), the effect is a decrease of 24 dB compared to no indoor coverage. However, the sensitivity of this factor decreased sharply and non-linearly to only 4 dB for \(N=0.5\). It should be noted that, in this analysis, non-users are weighted at 25%, which is unrealistically high. The reason for this fast decrease is that we are analyzing for the 95 th percentile or peak dose. With this metric, only if all locations can benefit from indoor coverage will the peak dose be lowered. When reducing the cell edge by 6 dB, the average dose is reduced by 3.5 dB and by 8.5 dB for a 12-dB size reduction. The effect here is, again, governed by the fact that non-users are weighted at 25%. In particular, non-users experience an increase in exposure by reducing the cell edge. For the factor usage, we find a dose increase from no usage of 7 dB for 100 MB/d to 20 dB for 1 GB/d, and 32 dB for 10 GB/d. In summary, the sensitivity analysis shows that the users' own usage behavior has the strongest effect on the personal peak dose, followed by indoor coverage.