Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Maximum Tone Grouping Size for ax Feedback

Published byLeony Ratna Iskandar Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Maximum Tone Grouping Size for ax Feedback"β€” Presentation transcript:

1 Maximum Tone Grouping Size for 802.11ax Feedback
Month Year doc.: IEEE /0xxxr0 November 2015 Maximum Tone Grouping Size for ax Feedback Date: Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital) Interdigital

2 Maximum Tone Grouping in 802.11ax Overhead Calculations
November 2015 Outline Introduction Maximum Tone Grouping in ax Overhead Calculations Link Level Simulation assumptions and results SU-MIMO OFDM/OFDMA Conclusion Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

3 November 2015 Introduction The performance of SU-MIMO-OFDMA and MU-MIMO-OFDMA are a function of the grouping {Ng} and CSI quantization 𝑏 πœ™ , 𝑏 πœ“ of the feedback. In the spec framework document [2] , the minimum value of Ng has been set: 802.11ax spec shall not support Ng = 1 for sounding feedback. NOTEβ€”The tone grouping factor, Ng is defined with respect to data tones of the HE PPDU. [PHY Motion 38, September 17, 2015, see [2]] This implies that the minimum tone grouping is Ng = 2. We will investigate the largest value of Ng for Channel State Information (CSI) feedback in ax. We quantify through analysis the significant reduction in feedback overhead that occurs with larger Ng We show through simulations that minimal performance loss is seen with larger Ng for some scenarios in SU/MU-MIMO-OFDMA. Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

4 Maximum Tone Grouping in 802.11ax
November 2015 Maximum Tone Grouping in ax Tone grouping in ac Ng = 1 (312.5 kHz), 2 (625 kHz) and 4 (1250 kHz) Current tone grouping in ax Ng = 2 ( kHz), and 4 (312.5 kHz) There are two options to increasing the maximum value of Ng Option 1: keep number of grouping parameters the same as 11ac (three values): 2 ( kHz), 4 (312.5 kHz), 8 (625 kHz) Option 2: keep maximum frequency spacing the same as 11ac (four values): 2 ( kHz), 4 (312.5 kHz), 8 (625 kHz), 16 (1250 kHz) Note: The grouping subfield in the VHT MIMO control field uses 2 bits to signal Ng with 1 value reserved. Thus, we may use up to 4 values without any changes in the field size. Goal: All we need to demonstrate is that there are substantial overhead savings and there are some scenarios in which either Ng =8 or 16 is beneficial. Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

5 Overhead Calculation Details
November 2015 Overhead Calculation Details VHT Compressed Beamforming frame is utilized for CSI feedback. Frame Size = MAC Header size + VHT Compressed BF frame Action field size VHT Compressed Beamforming frame action field format VHT Compressed BF Report Average SNR per stream Angles {πœ™,πœ“} compressed from V matrices per Ng subcarriers Number of angles reported depend on the size of V matrices. Number of bits for πœ™ and πœ“, 𝑏 πœ™ and 𝑏 πœ“ , are determined by VHT MIMO Control field. MU Exclusive BF Report delta_SNR of every 2Ng subcarrier from average SNR per stream Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

6 SU-MIMO-OFDMA Overhead Savings
November 2015 SU-MIMO-OFDMA Overhead Savings Assume maximum quantization allowed for single user beamforming (6,4) up to 73 % savings when comparing Ng = 16 to Ng = 4 for 8 x 4 transmission and 242 tone RUs. Overhead savings increases with increase in RU feedback size If feedback is RU specific CSI, feedback savings may not be as significant. Ng = 2, 4 : existing design; Ng = 8, 16 : investigated values Overhead comparison between Ng = 4 and Ng = 16 𝒃 𝝓 =πŸ”, 𝒃 𝝍 =πŸ’ Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

7 MU-MIMO-OFDMA Overhead Savings
November 2015 MU-MIMO-OFDMA Overhead Savings Assume maximum quantization allowed for multiuser MIMO (9,7), up to 73 % savings per user when comparing Ng = 16 to Ng = 4 for 8 x 2 transmission with 242 tone RUs. Higher savings due to increased quantization. Same conclusions for per user feedback as SU feedback. *The above table represents antenna setting and BF feedback overhead for each user in the case of a MU-MIMO scenario Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

8 Simulation Assumptions: SU-MIMO
November 2015 Simulation Assumptions: SU-MIMO 20 MHz DL SU-MIMO/SU-MIMO-OFDMA system with 8 Tx AP, 1 Rx STA and 1 streams 8 Tx AP, 2 Rx STA and 2 streams 8 Tx AP, 4 Rx STA and 4 streams Plot PER for realizations Feedback Model Feedback derived from real channel estimates based on sounding. Feedback delay = 200 milliseconds Compressed Feedback for SU-MIMO with 𝑏 πœ™ =6, and 𝑏 πœ“ =4 Precoding SVD precoding based on feedback [4] Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

9 November 2015 Detailed Assumptions Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

10 Results for Channel B, D (MCS7, 242 Tones)
November 2015 Results for Channel B, D (MCS7, 242 Tones) Channel B/Channel D: No PER difference for 8 x 1, 1 stream and 8 x 2, 2 stream < 0.4 dB PER difference between Ng = 1 and Ng = 2, 4, 8, 16 for 8 x 4, 4 stream PER difference between Ng = 16 and Ng = 4 is negligible Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

11 Results for Channel E (MCS 7, Ch E)
November 2015 Results for Channel E (MCS 7, Ch E) Channel E: < 1dB difference between Ng = 16 and all others for all cases PER difference between Ng = 8 and Ng = 4 is negligible We may want to keep Ng = 8 for highly frequency selective channels Conclusion: Scenarios exist in which CSI feedback of Ng = 16 results in no loss in performance for SU-MIMO and SU-MIMO-OFDMA (see results in appendix). Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

12 November 2015 Conclusions We investigate the maximum tone grouping parameter {Ng} for ax We show that setting the maximum tone grouping parameter {Ng} to 16 results in a large savings in feedback overhead. up to 70 % savings when comparing Ng = 16 to Ng = 4 for 8 x 4 transmission and 242 tone RUs. We show that that minimal PER performance differences are seen with Ng = 16 compared with Ng = 4 for channel B/D scenario in SU-MIMO-OFDMA We show that that minimal PER performance differences are seen with Ng = 8 compared with Ng = 4 for channel B/D scenario in SU-MIMO-OFDMA We should allow Ng = 2, 4, 8, or 16 Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

13 Straw Poll #1 Do you agree with the following?
November 2015 Straw Poll #1 Do you agree with the following? 802.11ax spec shall support Ng = 2, 4, 8 or 16 for sounding feedback. NOTEβ€”The tone grouping factor, Ng is defined with respect to data tones of the HE PPDU. Y/N/A Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

14 References November 2015 11-15-0132-09-00ax-spec-framework
ax-tone-grouping-factors-and-ndp-format-for ax ax-ofdma-numerology-and-structure Eldad Perahia, Robert Stacey; Next Generation Wireless LANs, n and ac,, Cambridge University Press, 2013, Online ISBN: , ISBN: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

15 November 2015 Additional Results Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

16 Channel B/D/E for 52 tone RUs
November 2015 Channel B/D/E for 52 tone RUs Same trend seen as in MIMO-OFDM i.e tone size = 242 Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

Download ppt "Maximum Tone Grouping Size for ax Feedback"

Similar presentations

Beamformed HE PPDU Date: Authors: May 2015 Month Year

Beamformed HE PPDU Date: Authors: May 2015 Month Year
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/569r0 Submission Performance of 1x, 2x, and 4x HE-LTF May 2015 Slide 1 Date: 2015-05-11 Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

Doc.: IEEE /569r0 Submission Performance of 1x, 2x, and 4x HE-LTF May 2015 Slide 1 Date: Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/568r0 Submission Frequency Selective Scheduling (FSS) for TGax OFDMA May 2015 Slide 1 Date: 2015-05-11 Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

Doc.: IEEE /568r0 Submission Frequency Selective Scheduling (FSS) for TGax OFDMA May 2015 Slide 1 Date: Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)
Submission doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0333r0 March 2015 Oghenekome Oteri (InterDigital)Slide 1 Throughput Comparison of Some Multi-user Schemes in 802.11ax Date:

Submission doc.: IEEE /0333r0 March 2015 Oghenekome Oteri (InterDigital)Slide 1 Throughput Comparison of Some Multi-user Schemes in ax Date:
CSI Feedback for MIMO-OFDM Transmission in IEEE aj (45 GHz)

CSI Feedback for MIMO-OFDM Transmission in IEEE aj (45 GHz)
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/1056r1 Submission Clarifying Link Level Simulator Assumptions Sept 2015 1 Date: 2015-09-13 Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

Doc.: IEEE /1056r1 Submission Clarifying Link Level Simulator Assumptions Sept Date: Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)
Submission doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/1097r1 September 2015 Narendar Madhavan, ToshibaSlide 1 Reducing Channel Sounding Protocol Overhead for 11ax Date: 2015-09-14.

Submission doc.: IEEE /1097r1 September 2015 Narendar Madhavan, ToshibaSlide 1 Reducing Channel Sounding Protocol Overhead for 11ax Date:
Submission doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/1129r1 September 2015 Filippo Tosato, ToshibaSlide 1 Feedback overhead in DL-MU-MIMO Date: 2015-09-14 Authors:

Submission doc.: IEEE /1129r1 September 2015 Filippo Tosato, ToshibaSlide 1 Feedback overhead in DL-MU-MIMO Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/1321r0 Submission Reducing Explicit MIMO Compressed Beamforming Feedback Overhead for 802.11ax November 2015 Slide 1 Date: 2015-11-08.

Doc.: IEEE /1321r0 Submission Reducing Explicit MIMO Compressed Beamforming Feedback Overhead for ax November 2015 Slide 1 Date:
Submission September 2015 doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/1327r0 November 2015 Yujin Noh, Newracom Slide 1 Diversity Mode in OFDMA Date: 2015-11-09 Authors:

Submission September 2015 doc.: IEEE /1327r0 November 2015 Yujin Noh, Newracom Slide 1 Diversity Mode in OFDMA Date: Authors:
Doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/1227r0 Submission Nov, 2010 Joonsuk Kim, et al Slide 1 11ac Explicit Feedback Format Authors: Date: 2010-11-11.

Doc.:IEEE /1227r0 Submission Nov, 2010 Joonsuk Kim, et al Slide 1 11ac Explicit Feedback Format Authors: Date:
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0818r1 Submission Further Analysis of Feedback and Frequency Selective Scheduling (FSS) for TGax OFDMA July 2015 Slide 1 Date: 2015-07-12.

Doc.: IEEE /0818r1 Submission Further Analysis of Feedback and Frequency Selective Scheduling (FSS) for TGax OFDMA July 2015 Slide 1 Date:
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/1057r0 Submission Multiple Resource Unit Allocation for TGax OFDMA Sept 2015 Slide 1 Date: 2015-09-12 Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

Doc.: IEEE /1057r0 Submission Multiple Resource Unit Allocation for TGax OFDMA Sept 2015 Slide 1 Date: Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)
Doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/1105r0 Submission Sept 14, 2010 Hongyuan Zhang, et al Slide 1 11ac Explicit Sounding and Feedback Authors: Date: 2010-09-14.

Doc.:IEEE /1105r0 Submission Sept 14, 2010 Hongyuan Zhang, et al Slide 1 11ac Explicit Sounding and Feedback Authors: Date:
Submission doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/0854r2 July 2015 Tomoko Adachi, ToshibaSlide 1 DL OFDMA Signalling Date: 2015-07-13 Authors:

Submission doc.: IEEE /0854r2 July 2015 Tomoko Adachi, ToshibaSlide 1 DL OFDMA Signalling Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/1340r2 November 2015 Narendar Madhavan, ToshibaSlide 1 NDP Announcement for HE Sequence Date: 2015-11-11 Authors:

Submission doc.: IEEE /1340r2 November 2015 Narendar Madhavan, ToshibaSlide 1 NDP Announcement for HE Sequence Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE 802.11-16/0626r1 Submission Feedback Element Compression for 802.11ax May 2016 Slide 1 Date: 2016-05-11 Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)

Doc.: IEEE /0626r1 Submission Feedback Element Compression for ax May 2016 Slide 1 Date: Authors: Kome Oteri (InterDigital)
Submission doc.: IEEE 802.11-16/0331r1 March 2016 Kome Oteri (InterDigital)Slide 1 Power Control for Multi-User Transmission in 802.11ax Date: 2016-03-13.

Submission doc.: IEEE /0331r1 March 2016 Kome Oteri (InterDigital)Slide 1 Power Control for Multi-User Transmission in ax Date:
Submission doc.: IEEE 802.11-15/1340r0 November 2015 Narendar Madhavan, ToshibaSlide 1 NDP Announcement for HE Sequence Date: 2015-11-09 Authors:

Submission doc.: IEEE /1340r0 November 2015 Narendar Madhavan, ToshibaSlide 1 NDP Announcement for HE Sequence Date: Authors:
Inefficiency of 256-FFT per 20MHz

Inefficiency of 256-FFT per 20MHz

Similar presentations

Ads by Google