Identify the high-level aspects which impact on the 6GR sync signal structure and associated periodicity.

Study and identify the lessons learned from NR BWP framework

For harmonized 6GR design for TN and NTN, RAN1 studies to identify the technical aspects affected by NTN characteristics, as well as lessons learned from NR/IoT NTN

Identify the high-level aspects which impact on the NR-6GR MRSS support

• Including the lessons learned from LTE-NR DSS

Study and identify the lessons learned from NR duplex modes On 6GR duplexing study, RAN1 considers at least following duplex types

• FD-FDD
• Semi-static TDD
• gNB semi-static SBFD
• HD-FDD on UE side
• Dynamic TDD

Study whether to consider following duplexing types

• gNB dynamic SBFD
• UE SBFD
• gNB FD
• Note: Other duplex modes are not precluded

Study the device types from physical layer perspective to be supported by 6GR, subject to further discussion and confirmation in RAN

For the study of RAN1 6GR design, consider the minimum spectrum allocation in which 6G can operate, subject to further discussion and confirmation in RAN.

• Note: RAN4 involvement is necessary.

Study a scalable 6GR design for diverse device types, considering aspects:

• What should be commonly applicable to all 6G device types
• FFS: add-on features dedicated to specific device types, if any

Study the following smallest maximum supported RF and BB UE BW without spectrum aggregation for at least one low-tier device type supported by 6GR framework from physical layer perspective, subject to further discussion and confirmation in RAN

• Opt1: 3MHz
• Opt2: 5MHz
• Opt3: 10MHz
• Opt4: 20MHz
• FFS: the UL bandwidth may be different to the DL bandwidth
• FFS: the bandwidth value may be different for different SCS, duplex modes, and bands.
• FFS: whether RF and BB UE BW are same or different

Study and identify the lessons learned from NR spectrum utilization and aggregation framework

• DC is subject to RANP decision in June 2026
• Note: MRSS aspects are separate discussion

On enhanced overall coverage, identify coverage target(s) considering diverse use cases and device types

RAN1 provides methodology and corresponding initial analysis of potentially achievable coverage to RAN#110 to determine the coverage target(s)

Note: High-level aspects to consider to enable lower CAPEX/OPEX with respect to current networks include, but not limited to

• UE/NW implementation complexity
• UE/NW energy efficiency
• MRSS
• Spectrum efficiency

The aspects to consider for supporting NTN include, but not limited to

• Initial access, including cell search and SSB periodicity
• Coverage
• Duplexing
• Capacity
• Signalling overhead
• GNSS-less/resilient/based operation
• Large/varying doppler and propagation delay
• Beamforming / beam management / beam hopping

High-level aspects to consider for the 6GR sync signal structure include, but not limited to

• Sync raster design
• Spectrum allocation
• smallest maximum supported RF and BB UE BW without spectrum aggregation
• mobile broadband service requirements as high priority
• Energy efficiency for both BS and UE
• Detection/tracking performance, latency, and complexity
  • Including initial cell search
• Coverage target
• Common design for diverse device types
• Consideration of the supported deployment
• Consideration on whether the single sync signal structure is sufficient
• Note: Aspects impacting on the periodicity is to be discussed under AI11.5

For scalable 6GR design for diverse device types, RAN1 can at least consider the following, targeting applicable to all 6G device types,

• Basic initial access procedures from RAN1 perspective
• Other PHY features after initial access procedure, e.g., Other DL/UL control, scheduling/HARQ
• Coverage features to meet the identified coverage target
• Energy saving both at BS and UE sides
• MRSS
• Note: whether these features are supported, mandatory or optional is separate discussion

For the smallest maximum supported RF and BB UE BW without spectrum aggregation for at least one low-tier device type supported by 6GR framework, from physical layer perspective, RAN1 to consider at least

• Overall device complexity
• Overall system performance impact
• Energy efficiency for both BS and UE
• Aim at a single common signals/channels design in idle mode and initial access for diverse device types, as well as meeting mobile broadband service requirements as high priority

For the RAN1 study of “Re-use of existing 5G mid-band (~3.5GHz) site grid for 6G deployments in at least around 7 GHz and targeting comparable coverage to 5G mid-band”,

• The link budget template candidates 1 and 2 are used to calculate the metric(s) as starting point to compare existing 5G mid-band and 6G deployments in at least around 7 GHz, with potential future update.
• During initial access/random access
  • Coverage target is referring the bottleneck channel (i.e. Rel-15 NR Msg3) during initial access/random access for existing 5G mid-band
  • FFS target value(s) of data rate for data channels relative to 5G mid-band
• Following deployment scenarios are considered
  • Urban macro (both O2I and outdoor)
  • Sub-urban macro (both O2I and outdoor)
• Following carrier frequencies are considered to calculate the metric(s)
  • [4 GHz] as the existing 5G mid-band
  • 7 GHz as 6G deployment
• Template in R1-2509615 is to be used for collecting inputs on the values from companies.

Skeleton for TR 38.760-1 “Study on 6G Radio RAN1 aspects” v0.0.3 in R1-2509569 is endorsed.

If the minimum spectrum allocation is 3MHz with 15kHz SCS for 6GR,

• Opt1: Design of the common signals/channels (at least for SSB) for initial access by assuming bandwidth larger than 3MHz, which is applicable to any spectrum allocations with adjustment, if applicable
• Opt2: A single design of the common signals/channels (at least for SSB) for initial access by assuming minimum spectrum allocation as target bandwidth 3MHz, which is applicable to any spectrum allocations

Conclusion

• Template in R1-2506582 is to be used for collecting inputs from companies.
• Additional NTN or TN assumptions, if any, or any necessary change of the parameters, are to be incorporated into the updated one of R1-2506582.

Study which of the following traffic models are to be used for 6G evaluations, e.g.,

• Full buffer
• FTP Model 1 (in TR 36.814)
• FTP Model 2 (in TR 36.814)
• FTP Model 3 (in TR 36.872)
• XR Traffic models (in TR 38.838)
• VoIP model (as in TR 36.814)

Study whether to introduce the following traffic models for 6G evaluations considering, e.g.,

• FTP-3 variant with packet delay budget requirement
  • Details FFS
• New traffic model considering a mixed/variable packet size and the associated time domain behaviors (e.g., time between adjacent packet arrivals, packet delay budget)
  • Details FFS
• New traffic model(s) considering the new use cases or services, e.g., AI/ML services, immersive communication services, etc.
  • Details FFS

• The deployment scenarios in TR38.914 should be considered for evaluation assumption
• The common evaluation assumptions including the antenna modelling, general system-level simulation assumptions (including the carrier frequency, bandwidth and subcarrier spacing used for link-level simulation) for the deployment scenarios in TR38.914, link budget and traffic models will be discussed in AI 11.2
  • Other assumptions including for link-level simulation specific to each technical topic will be separately discussed under each individual agenda.
  • Note: Subcarrier spacing decision is up to AI 11.3.2.

Draft LS R1-2508183 is endorsed in principle.

The following configurations for system-level simulations could be used for 6GR evaluation:

Note: other simulation BW could be considered. Note: The layout for each scenario will be separately discussed, including the carrier frequency combination for single layer and/or two layers.

Conclusion The following existing traffic models could be used for 6GR performance evaluations,

• Full buffer
• FTP Model 1 (in TR 36.814)
• FTP Model 3 (in TR 36.872)
• XR Traffic models (in TR 38.838)
• VoIP model (as in TR 36.814)
• Instant message (as in TR 38.840)
• Note that which model(s) will be used can be further decided when performing simulations in each individual topic.

For around 700MHz, for TXRU mapping at base station, it is adopted as mandatory option for simulation campaign that a single TXRU is mapped per panel per subarray per polarization. Note: Companies can provide results optionally, assuming fully connected TXRU mapping within a panel per polarization.

For around 2GHz carrier frequency, for BS antenna modelling

Note1: A single TXRU is mapped per panel per subarray per polarization as mandatory option. Companies can provide results optionally, assuming fully connected TXRU mapping within a panel per polarization. Note2: Other combinations used in the simulation results are up to company to report.

• For around 700MHz, 32 for total number of antenna element at base station, 4 for total number of TXRU at base station, (8, 2, 2, 1, 1; 1, 2) for (M,N,P,Mg,Ng; Mp, Np), and (0.5, 0.5)λ for (dH,dV) are assumed as the baseline combination.
• For around 700MHz, 64 for total number of antenna element at base station, 8 for total number of TXRU at base station, (8, 4, 2, 1, 1; x, y) for (M,N,P,Mg,Ng; Mp, Np), and (0.5, 0.5)λ for (dH,dV) are assumed as the optional combination. Note: Other values/combinations are up to company to report

At least the following carrier frequencies could be considered (from RAN1 perspective) for 6GR NTN evaluations:

• L-band (i.e., 1.5GHz)
• S-band (i.e. 2 GHz)
• Ku-band (FFS detailed frequency range)
• Ka-band (i.e. 30 GHz for UL, 20GHz for DL)

The attached templates for NTN in R1-2507956 are endorsed in principle.

Study extensions to FTP Model 1/FTP Model 3 to incorporate the following:

• Multiple packet sizes and associated time-domain behaviors (e.g., inter arrival time)
  • FFS number of packet sizes (e.g., 2 or 3).
  • FFS whether to have fixed or variable packet size and packet arrival rate for a given UE.
  • FFS applicability of multiple packet sizes to only one or both of FTP Model 1/FTP Model 3.
  • FFS packet size and arrival rate characteristics.
• Packet delay budget (PDB) related parameters
  • FFS PDB applicability to packets (e.g., one PDB parameter for only one traffic flow or different PDB parameters for different traffic flows).
  • FFS how to consider the PDB, e.g., whether to drop packets when exceeding the budget, PDB aware metric.
• Note consider the following for PDB:
  • Applicability to the extension to FTP Model 1/ FTP Model 3 with one packet size.
  • Applicability or not to the extension to FTP Model 1/ FTP Model 3 with multiple packet sizes.

For around 4GHz carrier frequency:

Note1: A single TXRU is mapped per panel per subarray per polarization as mandatory option. Companies can provide results optionally, assuming fully connected TXRU mapping within a panel per polarization. Note2: Other combinations used in the simulation results are up to company to report.

For around 7GHz carrier frequency:

Note1: A single TXRU is mapped per panel per subarray per polarization as mandatory option. Companies can provide results optionally, assuming fully connected TXRU mapping within a panel per polarization. Note2: Other combinations used in the simulation results are up to company to report.

For around 30GHz carrier frequency:

Note1: A single TXRU is mapped per panel per polarization as mandatory option. Companies can provide results optionally, assuming a single TXRU is mapped per panel per subarray per polarization as mandatory option. Note2: Other combinations used in the simulation results are up to company to report.

Study traffic modelling for evaluations related to immersive communication services including but not limited to advanced XR [e.g., TR22.870] and haptics services,

• XR traffic models (in TR 38.838) are considered as starting point.
  • FFS the detailed modifications on the parameters to the XR traffic model, e.g., higher packet size, higher packet arrival rate, higher packet size deviation, PDB, etc.
• FFS how many models need to be defined and the corresponding representative use cases.
• FFS how to incorporate haptics traffic (TR26.854).

Send LS to SA4 requesting input if any on the relevant traffic characteristics, RAN1 can continue the study before SA4 potential response.

For link budget template, consider the following candidates:

• Candidate 1: Reusing the link budget template from TR38.830, i.e., the following table with notes as follows:
  • The values of the parameters are TBD.
  • MCL in row (22bis) is TBD.
  • FFS: whether/how/why to update

• Candidate 2: Template as Table 7.10.1-1 from TR38.913.
  • FFS: whether/how/why to update.

Final LS R1-2508184 is endorsed.

For the study traffic model(s) for 6GR AI/ML services:

• A representative AI/ML service is the generative AI, e.g., as defined in TR22.870. Send LS to SA4 (cc RAN2, SA1, SA2) requesting input if any on traffic characteristics for AI/ML services.

Note: RAN1 is discussing the following options for the model:

• Option-1a: The model is parameterized by Token, e.g., Token size, Token arrival rate, and Token delay budget.
  • Token is the minimum unit of data generated in the application layer.
  • How to associate Tokens to PHY layer packets.
  • How to reflect the variable importance of tokens.
  • Whether other parameters are additionally needed when tokens are encapsulated together into a packet, e.g., packet arrival rate, packet success rate, and packet delay.
• Option-1b: The model is characterized by the parameters of PHY layer packet, including e.g., packet size, arrival rates, latency requirement, reliability requirement, etc.
• Option-1c: reusing or extending the FTP-3/XR traffic model.
• FFS other models/options need to be defined for other AI/ML services.

For 6GR NTN evaluations, the carrier frequency for Ku-band is 14GHz for UL and 11GHz for DL.

Draft LS R1-2509595 is endorsed in principle by adding TSG SA for CC.

For 6GR evaluation, the UE distribution and UE speed for system-level simulation is assumed as follows:

• UE number per TRxP will be dependent on the used traffic model. Other values can also be considered in the future evaluations.
• Other velocities and/or other outdoor/indoor ratio will be dependent on the used traffic model or use cases. Other values can also be considered in each of other topics.

For 6GR evaluations related to Massive Communication (IoT),

• For comparability with 5G results and verify that 6G can meet the IMT-2030 connection density requirements, the mMTC traffic model from IMT-2020 (TR 37.910) may be used as a starting point. This traffic model can be applied in UL or DL.
• FFS: necessity of new traffic model(s) for 6GR evaluation in RAN1, e.g., for the following traffic types.
  • Triggered/polled reporting
  • Autonomous reporting (event-driven or periodic)
  • Remote actuation
  • Firmware/software upgrade

For 6GR evaluation, the UE power class for system-level simulation is assumed as follows:

• FFS: 29dBm for 1 Tx..
• FFS: 31dBm, or 35 dBm or 43dBm with EIRP <55 dBm

For FTP Model 3, the packet delay budget (PDB) can be additionally considered,

• The latency characteristic of the traffic in RAN side (i.e., air interface) is modelled as packet delay budget (PDB). The PDB is a limited time budget for a packet to be transmitted over the air from a BS to a UE for DL, or from a UE to a BS for UL.
• For a given packet, the delay of the packet incurred in air interface is measured from the time that the packet arrives at the BS to the time that it is successfully transferred to the UE for DL, or from a UE to a BS for UL. If the delay is larger than a given PDB for the packet, the packet is said to violate PDB, otherwise the packet is said to be successfully delivered.
• Values for PDB, e.g., {10ms, 20ms, 30ms, 50ms, 100ms, 200ms, 300ms, 1000ms, 2000ms} can be considered.
• Which values will be used will consider the use case for the evaluations.

For 6GR evaluation, the total transmit power per BS for system-level simulation is assumed as follows:

Note: The values defined in option1 refer to the Report ITU-R M. [IMT-2030. EVAL]. The values defined in option2 is calculated based on the proportional scaling with simulation bandwidth under the limitation of the maximum BS Tx power of 56dBm.

For 6GR evaluation, the layout for system-level simulation is assumed as follows:

• Note: Single layer will be prioritized for the evaluations.
• Note: The carrier frequency for the corresponding layout for the two layers will be reported by companies for the evaluations.
• FFS the minimum distance for random drop in two layers.
• Note: for system-level simulation of MIMO schemes, specific assumptions could be discussed under MIMO discussion

Updating the BS antenna modelling agreed in the last meeting as follows:

• For around 700MHz carrier frequency, for BS antenna modelling,
  • update the (8, 4, 2, 1, 1; x, y) to be (8, 4, 2, 1, 1; 1, 4).
• For around 2GHz carrier frequency, for BS antenna modelling,
  • for outdoor combination 1 (i.e., 32AE/4TXRU), update the (M,N,P,Mg,Ng; Mp,Np) to be (8, 2, 2, 1, 1; 1, 2)
• For around 7GHz carrier frequency, for BS antenna modelling,
  • for outdoor combination 1 (i.e., 768AE/128TXRU), update the (M,N,P,Mg,Ng; Mp,Np) to be (24, 16, 2, 1, 1; 4, 16).
  • for outdoor combination 3 (i.e., 1536AE/256TXRU), update the (M,N,P,Mg,Ng; Mp,Np) to be (48, 16 ,2, 1, 1; 8, 16).

For 6GR evaluations, RAN1 to consider BS antenna modelling for around 15GHz carrier frequency as follows:

Note1: A single TXRU is mapped per panel per subarray per polarization for Indoor combination 1 and Outdoor combination 1 and combination 2. A single TXRU is mapped per panel per polarization for Indoor combination 2 and outdoor combination 3. Note2: Other combinations used in the simulation results are up to company to report.

For traffic model(s) for AI/ML services, the following can be considered:

• Packet size:
  • How to model the packet size, a fixed one or multiple values, or modelled as a random variable.
• Packet arrival:
  • FFS the details to determine the packet arrival rate, e.g.,
    • N multiple packets arrive together as a burst. The burst interval time is modelled as a random variable.
      • Within the burst, the N packets arrive according to a statistical distribution.
    • Packets arrive separately.
  • FFS whether/how to model the Jitter and the relation with the packet arrival.
• FFS: Whether the packet importance is known. Whether/how to reflect the packet importance.
• Whether/How to consider the PDB, e.g., Packet delay budget: The latency characteristic of the traffic in RAN side (i.e., air interface) is modelled as packet delay budget (PDB). The PDB is a limited time budget for a packet to be transmitted over the air from a base station to a UE, or from a UE to a base station
• FFS Whether/how to consider the Packet success rate requirement: [xx%] and the relation with the PDB.
• FFS how to model different cases, e.g., image-based GenAI, video-based GenAI, and chatbot, etc.
• FFS: Whether/how other traffic models (e.g., XR, FTP1/3) can be used to reflect above characteristics.

Note: input from SA4 if any will be considered.

• For FTP3 extension with multiple packet sizes (the number of packet size X =FFS: 2 or 3), FTP 3-extension 1
  • For each packet size S_i, the packets arrive according to Poisson distribution (as FTP 3) with mean inter-arrival time T_i (or arrival rate λ_i where T_i = 1/ λ_i)
  • Y packet sizes are simulated for each UE
• Down-select one from following
• Alt1: Y=1; X=e.g., 2 or 3
• Alt2: Y=X; X=e.g., 2 or 3
• Alt3: Either Alt1 or Alt2 can be used depending on the evaluation purpose
  • FFS: values of S_i and T_i, and their inter-relation (if any)
  • FFS: change “packet size” to “File size” (terminology)
  • FFS timing relationship for different packet sizes if Y=X.
  • FFS the number of UEs for each of X different sizes in a drop if Y=1.
• Note: PDB can be considered separately if needed
• Note: modeling sessions with multiple packets in each session can be discussed separately if needed.
• Down-selection between X=2 and 3.

For 6GR evaluation, the following are assumed for system-level simulation:

For 6GR evaluations related to immersive communications services, the following two amended XR models based on the existing XR traffic model (in TR 38.838) can be considered:

• Model-1: eXR model without Haptics
  • Regarding the statistical parameters for single stream CG traffic model defined in Table 5.4.1-1 TR 38.838, add values for immersive gaming regarding the data rate and the frame generation rate as in red:

- Regarding the statistical parameters for packet size following truncated Gaussian distribution in Table 5.1.1.1-1 TR 38.838, add values for immersive gaming regarding STD, Max, and Min values as in red:

- Regarding the statistical parameters for AR UL Model 1 defined in Table 5.5.2.1-1 TR 38.838, add values for UL-heavy video uploading regarding packet size, generate rate, data rate, and PDB values as in red:

- The jitter is modelled the same as XR traffic model.

• Model-2: eXR model with Haptics
  • Haptics traffic is defined as XR traffic packet generation with co-generated haptics packets.
    • FFS on how to generate the multi-channel haptics packet including how to handle silent periods of haptics and the haptics packet sizes.
    • FFS on how to co-generate haptics packets and the XR traffic packets.
  • Haptics packets has packet delay budget (PDB) of either 12 msec or 30 msec, which can be selected as a traffic model parameter.
• Send LS to SA4 to inform about the above agreement and check if SA4 has related inputs for the model.

Note: whether the working assumption can be confirmed relies on SA4’s response

Final LS R1-2509596 is endorsed.

For 6GR evaluations related to Massive Communication (IoT),

• In addition to the IMT-2030 L2 PDU message size of [32] bytes, evaluation of higher traffic loads can be used, e.g., evaluation with a larger L2 PDU message size of [320] bytes

For 6GR evaluation, RAN1 to model the UE antenna as follows for below 30GHz carrier frequency,

• Note: Each of other topics could further decide to use which combination(s) for the evaluations.
• Other combinations are not precluded for evaluations, e.g., 2T6R, 3T6R, 6T6R, 6T8R.
• Note: The antenna locations in Alt1 and Alt 2 in the following table are considered as examples and used for performance calibration.
• Any antenna array structures and/or antenna locations in section 7.3 in TR38.901 is possible for evaluations and up to companies to report.
• Note: The antenna locations in Alt 2 not included in section 7.3 in TR38.901 are up to companies to report.
• Note: The antenna element-wise power variation at the UE in TR 38.901 section 7.6.14.2 can be optionally considered for Alt2 for handheld devices.
• Note: The radiation power pattern of a single antenna element in Table 7.3-2 TR38.901 is assumed for Alt2.
• The isotropic radiation power pattern is assumed for Alt1 at least for handheld devices.
• Note: The antenna element/location of T is a subset of the element/locations for R.
• Note: The mapping between the combination and the device types might be separately discussed.

NOTE1: This combination is for IoT UE only. NOTE2: This combination is for CPE UE only. NOTE3: If number of TXRU and frequency combination is applicable.

For 6GR evaluation, RAN1 to model the UE antenna as follows for around 30GHz carrier frequency,

• UE antenna configuration follows Table 1 below.
• UE antenna radiation pattern follows Table 2 below.
• Other antenna configuration can be considered and up to companies to report.

Table 1: UE antenna configuration for around 30GHz

Table 2: UE antenna radiation pattern for around 30GHz [see Table A.2.1-8 TR38.802]

For 6GR evaluation, RAN1 to model the radiation pattern of a single antenna element for FWA/CPE including,

• Candidate1: Isotropic,
• Candidate2: Directional with different half power beamwidth and maximum directional gains as described in Table 1 below,
  • CPE can be equipped with 1 to 3 antenna panels, each following Alt 1 \(((M,N,P, M_g,N_g; M_p,N_p), (d_H, d_v))\) configuration.
• Candidate3: Omnidirectional as described in Table 2 below.
• Note: The orientation of the CPE panel can be optimized.

Table 1: Directional radiation power pattern of a single antenna element for CPE

Table 2: Omnidirectional radiation power pattern of a single antenna element for CPE

Define a 4 TXRU outdoor BS antenna configuration for about 4GHz carrier frequency as below.

Regarding the agreement on UE transmission power assumptions in system-level simulation, the further update is highlighted as follows in red:

• Transmission power of 35dBm is assumed for CPE only for below 30GHz.
  • Note: EIRP limit could be considered

NOTE1: It is up to company to report the simulated transmission power confined within the define peak EIRP range.

Regarding the gNB transmission power assumptions in the evaluations, update the second note of the agreement as follows:

• Note: For evaluation purpose, BS Tx power scales up with bandwidth proportionally under the limitation of the maximum BS Tx power is 56dBm for outdoor and 33dBm for indoor for the above carrier frequencies.
• Note: The values defined in option1 refer to the Report ITU-R M. [IMT-2030. EVAL]. T~~he values defined in option2 is calculated based on the proportional scaling with simulation bandwidth under the limitation of the maximum BS Tx power of 56dBm.~~

The agreed table for UE distribution and UE speed for system-level simulation, the further update is highlighted in cyan as follows:

~~FFS: Applicability for FWA~~ NOTE1: Regarding the number of UEs per TRXP, a smaller or the same number of UEs is assumed for each micro TRXPs compared to each macro TRXPs.

RAN1 to assume the UE antenna height and UE distribution for CPE for 6GR evaluations as follows: Note: Indoor and outdoor CPE pre-selection criterion or mechanism could be further discussed in the evaluation phase.

Conclusion: Evaluation assumptions for 6GR air interface (10.1)

The scenarios captured in TR38.914 but are not discussed in RAN1 are also candidate scenarios for RAN1 evaluations for 6GR.

Regarding FTP3 extension with multiple packet sizes:

• The number of packet sizes \(X=2\);
• For each packet size \(S_i\), the packets arrive according to Poisson distribution (as FTP 3) with mean inter-arrival time \(T_i\) (or arrival rate \(\lambda_i\) where \(T_i=1/\lambda_i\));
• For Alt1: \(Y=1\) packet size is simulated for each UE
  • For FTP3-extension with \(X=2\), \(K\) is the ratio between arrival rates of the packet sizes, i.e., \(\lambda_1 = K \cdot \lambda_2\), with \(K>=1\), assuming \(S_1 < S_2\),
  • \(G>=1\) is the ratio between the number of UEs with packet size \(S_1\) and \(S_2\), respectively.
  • Values of \(S_i\), \(\lambda_i\), \(i=1, 2\), and \(G\) can be decided in evaluation phase.
  • Note: The following table is an illustration of the traffic configurations.

• For Alt2: \(Y=X=2\) packet sizes are simulated for each UE
  • The packet of each size is generated following the independent Poisson Process \((S_i, \lambda_i)\) with \(i=1,2\).
  • \(K\) is the ratio between arrival rates of the packet sizes, i.e., \(\lambda_1 = K \cdot \lambda_2\), with \(K>=1\) assuming \(S_1 < S_2\).
  • Values of \((S_i, \lambda_i)\) with \(i=1,2\) can be decided in evaluation phase.
  • Note: The following table is an illustration of the traffic configurations.

CP-OFDM and DFT-s-OFDM waveforms as defined in 5G NR are supported as the basis for 6GR for uplink

• Enhancements/modifications on CP-OFDM/DFT-s-OFDM will be studied as potential additions
• Other OFDM based waveforms are not precluded.

CP-OFDM waveform as defined in 5G NR is supported as the basis for 6GR for downlink

• Enhancements/modifications on CP-OFDM will be studied as potential additions
• DFT-s-OFDM or any other OFDM-based waveform will be studied as a potential additional waveform for downlink

Note: proponents to identify at least the target use cases, signals/channels to use the waveform, and how the proposal is intended (if applicable) to support multiplexing with CP-OFDM, including MRSS, and how multi-user multiplexing is supported, etc.

Note: Proponents are encouraged to provide more detailed information on their proposals for the next meeting, e.g.:

Proponents to characterize the main motivation for modification/additional waveform proposals:

• Targeted link direction, i.e. DL, UL or both
• Targeted use case (e.g. NTN, specific frequency range, etc.), if any
• Potential motivations metrics used, and quantified gains for a proposal, e.g.
  • Coverage
  • Network energy efficiency
  • UE energy efficiency
  • Spectral efficiency
  • High speed tolerance
  • Scheduling flexibility
  • Integration with ISAC

Proponents provide information on the following aspects, if applicable

• MRSS compatibility
• Target channels/signals, e.g. all channels, PxSCH only, etc.
• MIMO (SU and MU-MIMO) compatibility
• Target modulations, and impact to other modulations, if applicable
• Multi-user multiplexing/scheduling flexibility
• Multiplexing/coexistence with baseline waveforms
• Impact on synchronization and initial access
• Expected specification impact
• Transmitter/receiver complexity and impact to power consumption.

Final LS R1-2508069 is endorsed.

• For uplink low-PAPR proposals, the link level performance evaluation criterion is Net Gain assuming same spectrum efficiency as the reference
  • Net Gain [dB] = Tx power gain relative to the reference – SNR degradation relative to the reference @10% BLER
    • A realistic PA model should be used
    • When calculating the Tx power gain, the RAN4 metrics on the Tx power should be taken into account.
    • For SNR degradation, fading channel and non-ideal channel estimation, including DMRS configuration, and equalization is encouraged.
    • FFS: Other evaluation metrics
    • Note: Companies to report how to calculate the Tx power gain, modulation and coding

Draft LS R1-2508068 is endorsed with following revision:

1. removing “Additionally, if time permits, any feedback for CP-OFDM PAPR reduction/MPR values achievable by implementation is also appreciated.”

• Study the evaluation method for evaluating DFT-s-OFDM for UL with number of layers > 1.

Add the following metrics for UL PAPR reduction to the existing agreement (made in RAN1#122b)

• Net gain@10% BLER assuming similar spectral efficiency and same occupied bandwidth for each compared method
• ACLR, EVM, IBE

General evaluation assumptions for UL low-PAPR proposals

General evaluation assumptions for UL low-PAPR proposals

For single user evaluation assumption for MCS and subcarriers UL low-PAPR proposals with spectrum extension

For single user evaluation assumption for MCS and subcarriers UL low-PAPR proposals with spectrum truncation

Note: other values for extension or truncation are not precluded.

For both CP-OFDM and DFT-S-OFDM, for single user evaluation assumption for MCS and subcarriers UL low-PAPR proposals with tone reservation.

Table is endorsed to characterize each proposal as a potential RAN1 observation. Characterization of each waveform proposal 

Table: System level configuration for multi-layer UL CP-OFDM/DFT-s-OFDM study: 

For UL PAPR reduction, values for occupied BW B: - {2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 30, 32, 64, 128, 240, 256} PRBs. - Other PRB allocations are not precluded. - Edge, outer and inner PRB allocations as defined in TS 38.101 should be considered. ## Agreement: Waveform (11.3.1) - Performance benefit to be evaluated using both link level and system level simulation. - FFS: metrics - Link level configuration for multi-layer UL waveforms study. 

For the evaluations of spectrum extension and spectrum truncation for UL low-PAPR solutions, the number of subcarriers A before extension / truncation is

• Option 1: \(12 * 2^x * 3^y * 5^z\) subcarriers
• Option 2: \(2^x * 3^y * 5^z\) subcarriers
• FFS: whether the maximum value for A is needed Note: Companies are encouraged to investigate above options and bring inputs to RAN1#124bis. Note: the occupied bandwidth B is given in terms of number of RBs.

For 2-layer/2Tx UL DFT-s-OFDM and CP-OFDM studies, following two cases are considered.

• UE capable of only non-coherent precoder
  • For UL CP-OFDM and DFT-s-OFDM rank-2 transmission, only non-coherent precoder option is allowed.
• UE capable of fully-coherent precoder
  • For UL CP-OFDM rank-2 transmission, all NR precoder options are allowed.
  • For UL DFT-s-OFDM rank-2 transmission, only non-coherent precoder option is allowed.

Following metrics are used for LLS evaluation for multi-layer UL DFT-s-OFDM and CP-OFDM studies.

• BLER curves (for a subset of NR MCS (covering whole range with spanning), HARQ re-transmissions disabled) for same transmission rank, for same resource allocation and same transmission power for DFT-s-OFDM and CP-OFDM
  • Companies may derive Link-level throughput vs SNR based on BLER curves
• Netgain

R1-2601512 Session Notes of AI 10.2.1 Ad-Hoc Chair (NTT DOCOMO, INC.) Session notes are endorsed and incorporated the session notes below.

Following metrics are used for SLS evaluations for multi-layer UL DFT-s-OFDM and CP-OFDM studies.

• User perceived throughput (UPT), including:
  • High percentile (90%)
  • mean
  • median
  • cell edge (5 & 10-percentile)
• Optional for full buffer traffic only: cell average throughput
• Companies are encouraged to report the CDF of instantaneous UL TX power across all UEs
• Companies are encouraged to report the statistics on the UL TX rank.
• Companies are encouraged to report the statistics on the applied MCS.

NR Rel-15 DFT-s-OFDM should be used as the baseline reference when evaluating the gains of UL low-PAPR proposals.

For UL DFT-s-OFDM rank-2 transmission, only non-coherent precoder option is allowed. For the multi-layer UL DFT-s-OFDM and CP-OFDM studies, the NR reference should be evaluated assuming the Release 16 full power mode 1 to be enabled.

The following UL low-PAPR proposals for DFT-s-OFDM are for further consideration:

• Non-AI-ML-based
  • FDSS (R1-2601092, R1-2600751, R1-2600801, R1-2600823, R1-2600914, R1-2601156)
  • FDSS - spectrum extension (R1-2600027, R1-2601092, R1-2600823, R1-2600751, R1-2600914, R1-2601156, R1-2600261)
  • FDSS - spectrum truncation for \(\pi/2\) BPSK (R1-2601268, R1-2601212, R1-2601092, R1-2601156)
  • Tone Reservation (R1-2600261, R1-2600716, R1-2601268)
    • For \(\pi/2\) BPSK or other modulation orders
  • GMSK-Approximation based FDSS (R1-2600823)
  • 3-tap filter based FDSS (R1-2508684)
  • CFR-SE (R1-2600499)
  • Offset-QAM or \(\pi/2\)-PAM with FDSS-spectrum truncation (R1-2600909, R1-2600138, R1-2601268, R1-2600751)
  • Offset-QAM or \(\pi/2\)-PAM with FDSS-spectrum extension (R1-2600909, R1-2600138, R1-2600751, R1-2600823)
  • Interpolation-based modulation (R1-2600261)
  • AFDM based on DFT-s-OFDM (R1-2600999, R1-2601019)
• AI-ML-based
  • AI/ML-based waveform (R1-2600499, R1-2600751)

Note: tdoc numbers described in each proposal provide information on the proposal for further consideration, and it does not mean these tdocs support the proposal.

Conclusion: Waveform (10.2.1)

Further clarifications on evaluations of UL low-PAPR proposals for DFT-s-OFDM:

• In the evaluation assumptions, companies should disclose the necessary knowledge (e.g., filter coefficients, extention scheme, ...) of the waveform at the receiver to process if any.

Extend the RAN1#123 endorsed table to characterize each (waveform) proposal as a potential RAN1 observation as follows to cover also impacts to transmitter and receiver processing operation:

Conclusion: Waveform (10.2.1)

DFT-s-OFDM waveform including related enhancements for 6GR Downlink will be no further discussed as part of AI 10.2.1.

• Note: for DL signal (e.g., SS, WUS, sensing), it may or may not be separately discussed in corresponding AI.

Conclusion: Waveform (10.2.1)

Studies on UL coverage improvements through low UL PAPR enhancement for DFT-s-OFDM are to be handled with high priority in AI 10.2.1.

Conclusion: Waveform (10.2.1)

Studies on DFT-s-OFDM for multi-rank UL MIMO are to be handled with high priority in AI 10.2.1.

Prioritize the following cases in the RAN1 study on UL coverage improvements through low UL PAPR enhancement for DFT-s-OFDM, based on Table in 5.3.1 of R1-2603312:

FDSS [for π/2 BPSK, QPSK, 16QAM]

• Opt1: Transparent filter
  • Filter defined through transmitter requirement such as spectrum flatness by RAN4
• Opt2: non-transparent filter
  • Filter coefficients specified in RAN1
  • Note: This includes all the listed FDSS filtering variants

FDSS for [π/2 BPSK, QPSK, 16QAM] with spectral extension

• For FDSS part,
  • Opt1: Transparent filter
    • Filter defined through transmitter requirement such as spectrum flatness by RAN4
  • Opt2: non-transparent filter
    • Filter coefficients specified in RAN1
    • Note: This includes all the listed variants of the spectrum extension

FDSS for π/2 BPSK with spectral truncation

• For FDSS part,
  • Opt1: Transparent filter
    • Filter defined through transmitter requirement such as spectrum flatness by RAN4
  • Opt2: non-transparent filter
    • Filter coefficients specified in RAN1
    • Note: This includes all the listed variants of the spectrum truncation
• Note: At least one variant of spectral extension, offset-QPSK with smaller DFT size can result in the same signal as the FDSS for π/2 BPSK-ST
• Note: companies are encouraged to report whether transparent CFR is used or not

Conclusion: Waveform (10.2.1)

The study on the following listed proposals is noted. Further discussion on these is not planned under the waveform agenda item in RAN1 unless tasked by RAN at or after RAN#112.

Observations:

• Max-rank = 2 for UL DFT-s-OFDM
• Companies report negligible SNR loss from DFT-s-OFDM with larger number of aNB Rx antenna elements, such as at least 16 or 32. Link level loss with 4 layers has not been studied. A lower number of aNB antenna elements may result with SNR loss at the receiver
• All companies acknowledge that when the UE is Tx power limited, there is a Tx power gain from DFT-s-OFDM, highest reported gain of around 2.5 dB.
• The system level impact depends on scenario and scheduling strategy due to vastly differing probabilities for UE to be power limited and use rank=2, as well as the used traffic model and the assumed number of aNB Rx antenna elements. The reference setup to compare with varied and had also an impact to the findings, including also system loading, link adaptation, scheduling strategy, the used UE antenna model and the number of aNB Rx antenna elements.
• Two companies reported cases with average system level throughput loss [R1-2601827, R1-2602177], of which one company indicated cell edge throughput loss [R1-2602177]. One company reported no average and cell-edge system level throughput gain [R1-2602254], while 6 companies reported cases with average system level throughput gains and/or cell edge throughput gains [R1-2602004, R1-2603056, R1-2602468, R1-2603008, R1-2603286, R1-2601921].
• Codebook for multi-layer UL DFT-s-OFDM
  • The lower PAPR property of DFT-s-OFDM is diminished with coherent precoders due to mixing of two (or more) layers for each power amplifier.
  • RAN1#124 agreed to focus the DFT-s-OFDM studies to non-coherent CB only (with the exception of lower number of layers than Tx antennas) for 2Tx UE for waveform evaluation purposes.
  • Four companies report moderate system level gains for DFT-s-OFDM non-coherent codebook only relative to CP-OFDM non-coherent codebook [R1-2603056, R1-2602468, R1-2603008, R1-2603286], while two companies report system level loss for DFT-s-OFDM non-coherent codebook only relative to CP-OFDM non-coherent codebook [R1-2601827, R1-2602177].
  • One company reports system level gains also for DFT-s-OFDM with coherent codebook relative to CP-OFDM with coherent codebook [R1-2602468].
  • Six companies report system level gains for DFT-s-OFDM with non-coherent multi-layer codebook and coherent single-layer codebook relative to CP-OFDM with coherent single/multi-layer codebook [R1-2602426, R1-2602468, R1-2602004, R1-2603008, R1-2603286, R1-2601921], while one company reports no system level gain for DFT-s-OFDM with non-coherent multi-layer codebook and coherent single-layer codebook relative to CP-OFDM with coherent single/multi-layer codebook [R1-2602254].
• Dynamic waveform switching
  • One company observes comparable system level performance for DWS among DFT-s-OFDM for both 1- and 2-layer and CP-OFDM with both 1-layer and 2-layer compared to DWS among DFT-s-OFDM for only 1-layer and CP-OFDM for both 1- and 2-layer for full buffer traffic only and observes gain for non-full buffer traffic [R1-2603286].
  • One company observes system level loss of DFT-s-OFDM for both 1- and 2-layer compared to DFT-s-OFDM for only 1-layer and CP-OFDM for both 1- and 2-layer with waveform switching [R1-2601827].
  • One company observes comparable system level performance for DWS among DFT-s-OFDM for both 1- and 2-layer and CP-OFDM with both 1-layer and 2-layer compared to DWS among DFT-s-OFDM for only 1-layer and CP-OFDM for both 1- and 2-layer [R1-2602254].
  • One company observes system level performance loss of DFT-s-OFDM for 1-layer and DFT-s-OFDM/CP-OFDM for 2-layer compared to DFT-s-OFDM for only 1-layer and CP-OFDM for both 1-layer and 2-layer with waveform switching [R1-2602177].
  • Note: this observation is not intended to be captured as it is in TR.

• 6GR supports normal cyclic prefix, i.e., same as the normal CP defined in NR.
  • FFS potential need for other CP

Conclusion

• Numerologies for sensing is up to sensing agenda discussion.

• 6GR takes the following SCS as start point for discussion for all the signals/channels except PRACH.
• For sub 6GHz
  • The following subcarrier spacing is at least supported
  • 15kHz SCS for FDD, 30kHz SCS for TDD
  • FFS: 30kHz SCS for FDD for around e.g., 1-2.5GHz
  • FFS: 7.5kHz SCS for sub1GHz (FDD)
  • Whether to discuss the FFS will be subject to RANP decision.
• For around 7GHz
  • The following subcarrier spacing options can be studied
  • 30kHz, 60kHz
• FFS: For around 15GHz
  • The following subcarrier spacing options can be studied
  • 30kHz, 60kHz, 120kHz
  • Whether to discuss it will be subject to RANP decision
• For between 24.25GHz - 52.6GHz
  • Subcarrier spacing 120kHz is supported
  • FFS whether to allow using additional subcarrier spacing for SSB
• FFS subcarrier spacing for PRACH and up to initial access discussion.

• RAN1 assumes 400MHz maximum channel bandwidth at network side and 30kHz SCS around 7GHz
  • Study whether and how to enable UE to support 400MHz bandwidth

For communication, 6GR considers NR frame structure used as a starting point for the study item,

• Resource defined by one subcarrier and one symbol is called as resource element (RE).
• Resource block (RB) is defined where the number of consecutive subcarriers per RB is the same for all numerologies and the number of subcarriers per RB is 12
• Radio Frame length is 10ms
• Each radio frame is split into 10 subframes, each with a duration of 1 ms
• For given SCS and for given symbol, the symbol duration, normal CP length and boundary is same as NR design.
• A slot is defined as supporting 14 consecutive symbols for normal CP case and all subcarrier spacings.

6GR study assumes same SCS between 6GR Sync signals and other channels/signals (except PRACH) for a given band.

• FFS: same/different SCS between 6GR sync signal and other channels/signals (except PRACH) for FR2- 1.
• Note: ISAC is separately discussed in ISAC session.

Draft LS R1-2509577 is endorsed in principle

Final LS R1-2509578 is endorsed.

For how to enable UE to support 400MHz bandwidth when a network supports 400 MHz Channel Bandwidth (CBW), the following options 1/2/3/4/5 are considered from RAN1 understanding for studying

6G HOW NOTE: IMAGES ARE NOT SUPPORTED YET. CHECK THE NOTES.

• Option 5: Variance of Option 3 by assuming single FFT and 2 RF chain.
• FFS which aspects of the BB processor in option 3 and 4 should be separated/parallelled.
• Note: DL and UL design options may be considered independently.
• To provide potential specification impact of each option.
• To provide investigations on performance/energy efficiency/cost/complexity for the above options.
• Inform RAN4 about the above information.

• RAN1 assumes maximum channel bandwidth 800MHz or 400MHz at network side for FR2-1
  • 800MHz or 400MHz, to be down-selected in the future
• FFS: 800MHz or 400MHz at UE side.

Chairman Guidance For 6GR control channel coding,

• Evaluations can be provided in form of BLER and FAR results.
• Evaluations/analysis can be provided for complexity, decoding latency,
  • Other metrics are not precluded.
• Proponent companies to provide evaluation assumptions and methodologies for respective evaluation.
• Proponent companies to provide details of channel coding extension compared with NR channel coding
• Proponent companies to provide justification for the channel coding extension, compared with control channel codes as defined in 5G NR.

Chairman Guidance For 6GR data channel coding,

• Evaluations can be provided in form of BLER results.
• Evaluation/analysis on throughput, complexity, and decoding latency can be provided
  • Other metrics are not precluded.
• Proponent companies to provide their target scenarios and requirements, evaluation assumptions and methodologies for respective evaluation/analysis, e.g., decoding algorithm and details, information sizes, code rates, HARQ scheme, channel type, modulation order, target BLER, etc.
• Proponent companies to provide details of channel coding extension compared with NR channel coding.
• Proponent companies to provide justification for the channel coding extension, and how to satisfy 6G requirements and characteristics with acceptable performance/complexity trade-off, compared with data channel codes as defined in 5G NR.

• Study 6G data channel coding for higher throughput than 5G with acceptable performance-complexity tradeoff for both NW side and UE side,
  • Target peak data rate is assumed to be 2 times of the target peak data rate defined in TR38.913 Note: The other target throughput is up to company to report. Note: Applicability of the potential channel code will be further discussed.

• For 6G channel coding, LDPC is used for data (including SIBs) and Polar code is used for L1 control information (larger than 11 bits, including PBCH)
• For 6G LDPC
  • Working assumption: For data rate within NR range, reuse of NR LDPC design is supported
  • For data rate beyond NR range, study LDPC extension with acceptable performance-complexity tradeoff for both NW side and UE side
    • Note: Applicability of the potential LDPC extension to data rate within NR range will be further discussed
• For 6G Polar code
  • Working assumption: For control information within NR range (larger than 11 bits), reuse of NR Polar code design is supported
  • For control information beyond NR range, study Polar code extension with acceptable performance-complexity tradeoff for both NW side and UE side
    • Note: Necessity for control information beyond NR range is to be further discussed
    • Polar code maximum mother code length is kept as 1024.
• FFS: further motivation(s) for potential extension/enhancement until RAN1#123

• For the study of channel coding for small UCI with payload size of 3~11bits, at least considering:
  • 5G RM code
• Identify the justifiable drawbacks of 5G RM code, if exists, study potential solution(s).

For the study of LDPC extension for data rate beyond NR range with acceptable performance-complexity tradeoff,

• To provide the initial version of LDPC BG(s) and PCM(s) in the excel spreadsheet by RAN1#124
• To provide the required SNR and complexity for target BLER, and the evaluation assumptions of the decoding algorithm
  • The definition of complexity will be further discussed
• FFS: other metrics

For Polar code design for UCI with payload size larger than NR range (i.e., larger than 1706 bits), at least the following option is identified for further study

• More than 2 segments Note: The necessity of UCI payload size larger than NR range needs to be confirmed by other agenda(s)

For the study of BG(s) and PCM(s) for LDPC extension for data rate beyond NR range, at least the following evaluation assumptions will be considered.

• Computation complexity is defined as (the number of iteration times for required BLER) *(the number of ones in the lifted parity check matrix)/ (CB size)

Conclusion: No consensus on motivation(s) for potential extension/enhancement for Polar code design with payload size within NR range (larger than 11bits).

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, the maximum lifting size is not larger than 384

• FFS: the exact value of the maximum lifting size

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, the following options of the maximum code block size are identified in RAN1#124 for further study

• Option 1: 8448
• Option 2: 8448 * 2

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, the following options of the number of information columns in BG are identified in RAN1#124 for further study

• Option 1: 22
• Option 2: 44
• Option 3: 33

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, the following options of puncturing before rate matching are identified in RAN1#124 for further study

• Option 1: no puncturing
• Option 2: puncture 1 column
• Option 3: puncture 2 columns

For performance evaluation purposes, the corresponding evaluation assumptions for study the Polar code segmentation enhancement used for L1 uplink control information with payload size beyond NR range and larger than 1706 bits, following evaluation assumptions are considered.

Note: 11 bits CRC per segment, rate matching, channel interleaver and code-block concatenation follow NR. Note: Companies to report other values that are used in their evaluations.

For the base graph of LDPC extension beyond NR range, the following is identified in RAN1#124 for further study:

• The LDPC extension is quasi-cyclic LDPC codes, the parity check matrix of quasi-cyclic LDPC Codes is defined at least by a matrix \(H\) of size \((mb \times z) \times (nb \times z)\), which consists of sub-block matrices of size \(z \times z\), where each sub-block matrix is composed by circularly shifted matrices or zero matrices. Wherein, \(mb\), \(nb\) and \(z\) are integers larger than 1.
  • The values of \(mb\), \(nb\) and \(z\) are FFS.
• The row weight of circularly shifted matrices is less than or equal to 2.
  • FFS: Whether row weight of all circularly shifted matrices is 1, or the row weight of some circularly shifted matrices is 1 and the row weight of some circularly shifted matrices is 2.

For study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, at least the following metrics are considered for the performance comparison among BG1 and \(BG(s)/PCM(s)\) proposed by companies

• Computational complexity difference to achieve the same BLER performance as BG1 under the reference maximum number of iterations of BG1.
• SNR performance difference with the same computation complexity as BG1 under the reference maximum number of iterations of BG1.
• The reference maximum number of iterations is 5, 7, 10, 15 based on BG1.
• Other values can be also reported by companies Note: Companies can report the average number of iterations difference to achieve the same performance as BG1 under the reference maximum number of iterations of BG1.

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, the maximum code block size of 8448 is assumed for further study with the following two options:

• Option 1: 44 information columns in BG and a maximum lifting size of 192
• Option 2: 22 information columns in BG and a maximum lifting size of 384

Note: Aim to decide between option 1 and option 2 during this week.

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, for study of the new BG, consider a single edge BG with 44 information columns and a maximum lifting size of 192, with the following options identified for further study, and strive for down-selection among the options in RAN1#125:

• Option 1: Row splitting, wherein one or more rows outside the core matrix (i.e., sub matrix A and sub matrix B) are split from at least some rows inside the core matrix, and the core column indices of the non-zero entries of the original row are a superset of those of the corresponding split row.
  • The core matrix contains Y1 rows, and all elements of Y2 rows in sub-matrix A are ones.
  • Y1 = 3 or 4
  • Y1 ≥ Y2 ≥ 1
  • Sub-option 1-1: With at least the first row in sub-matrix A included in the Y2 rows
  • Sub-option 1-2: The first row in sub-matrix A is not included in the Y2 rows.
  • No puncturing before rate matching
• Option 2: The single edge BG with 44 information columns and a maximum lifting size of 192 can be convertible to a BG with 22 information columns and a maximum lifting size of 384. More specifically, each 2x2 submatrix at column 2j, 2j+1, and row 2k, 2k+1 of the BG can only take one of the following forms:
  • No puncturing or puncturing one or two columns before rate matching, wherein the puncturing (if any) is applied within the first two information columns and/or any core parity columns
• Option 3: Quasi-row orthogonality in core matrix (i.e., sub matrix A and sub matrix B) and/or sub matrix D, i.e., in which except for certain columns, the row 2k, 2k+1 do not share non-zero entries in the same column in the sub-matrix A and/or sub-matrix D
  • No puncturing or puncturing one or two columns before rate matching, wherein the puncturing (if any) is applied within the first two information columns and/or any core parity columns
• The options above are not mutually exclusive and can be combined.
• Other options that have a single edge BG with 44 information columns and a maximum lifting size of 192 are not precluded.

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, for the study of new BG, assume the parity check matrix for encoder consists of five sub-matrices (A, B, C, D, E) for further study, wherein:

• Sub-matrix A contains columns that correspond to information bits.
• Sub-matrix C is a zero matrix.
• Sub-matrix D: the number of columns of sub-matrix D equals to (the number of columns of Sub-matrix A) + (the number of columns of Sub-matrix B).
• Sub-matrix B contains columns that correspond to core parity check bits.
• For sub-matrix B, consider the following options for further study, and strive for down-selection in RAN1#125:
  • Option B1: A weight-3 column with corresponding shifting values of [0, X, 0] or [X, 0, X], followed by a dual-diagonal structure with corresponding shifting values of [0,0]
  • Option B2: At most 2 weight-3 columns and dual-diagonal structure(s) with comparable number of XOR and cyclic shift operations with Option B1, e.g.,
    • Option B2-1: Sub-matrix B has a weight-3 column with corresponding shifting values of [a, b, c], followed by a dual-diagonal structure
    • Option B2-2: Sub-matrix B can be decomposed into two sets: set 1 and set 2. Each set follows Option B1/Option B2-1, with additional pair-wise orthogonality across sets
• For sub-matrix E, the following options are identified for further study, and strive for down-selection in RAN1#125:
  • Option E1: An identity matrix
  • Option E2: A lower triangular matrix

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, for the maximum information block size of 8448 bits, the total number of ones in the lifted parity check matrix under mother code rate is no larger than N, where N is determined by the total number of ones in the lifted parity check matrix of BG1 under the code rate of X.

• X is not lower than 1/2.
• FFS: Value of X.

For the study of LDPC extension beyond NR range, the mother code rate of approximately 2/3 is assumed for further study.

• The above agreement is only applicable for study of the new BG.

• For 6GR DL, 5G NR uniform QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, 256QAM and 1024QAM are supported as basis for study for data channel
  • FFS: Enhancements and other modulation schemes
• For 6GR UL, 5G NR uniform QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM are supported as basis for study for CP-OFDM for data channel
  • FFS: Enhancements and other modulation schemes
• For 6GR UL, 5G NR pi/2 BPSK, uniform QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM are supported as basis for study for DFT-s-OFDM for data channel
  • FFS: Enhancements and other modulation schemes

For the study of uniform 4096QAM for DL and uniform 1024QAM for UL, need to study performance (assuming realistic channel estimation, time/freq synchronization assumption, phase noise assumption, etc), complexity/power consumption, requirements, benefit/necessity under applicable scenarios, associated restrictions, and challenges (such as EVM requirement, PAPR increase, MPR or A-MPR increase under realistic PA model).

• FFS: How to involve RAN4 early
• FFS: Shaping of higher order modulation
• System level evaluation can be done after link level evaluation.

For 6GR constellation shaping evaluation for DFT-s-OFDM, and improved MCS table, the proposed scheme will be compared with non-shaping with NR MCS table. In addition to what has been agreed for CP-OFDM in earlier agreement, the evaluation and comparison should further consider at least the following:

• PAPR/CM of the resulting waveform
• EVM, MPR/A-MPR

For 6GR constellation shaping evaluation for CP-OFDM, and improved MCS table, the proposed scheme will be compared with non-shaping with NR MCS table. The evaluation and comparison should consider at least the following:

• BLER performance under AWGN channel (at least for performance calibration)
  • 1st transmission (baseline) and with HARQ re-transmission
• BLER performance under fading channel with fixed MCS
  • 1st transmission (baseline) and with HARQ re-transmission
• Throughput performance with link adaptation (adaptive MCS and rank) under fading channel
  • Needs to provide assumptions on rate adaptation (e.g., target BLER for 1st transmission, maximum # of retransmissions)
• Transmitter and receiver complexity (e.g., shaping/deshaping, demapper), latency, parallelism implementation, and storage requirements,
• Other KPI not excluded, such as PAPR, EVM, MPR/A-MPR
• Expected spec impact
• FFS detailed assumption of constellation shaping and improved MCS table
• System level evaluation can be done after link level evaluation.

For 6GR constellation shaping study, proponent is encouraged to provide details for the PS/GS schemes considered for evaluation and comparison, including at least the following

• Probabilistic shaping for CP-OFDM and DFT-s-OFDM
  • Use the list of spectrum efficiencies in NR MCS table as starting point, and provide constellation (including normalization), coding rate and target probabilistic distribution for each SE
    • If multiple coding rate and target probabilistic distribution pairs are provided for each SE, how to switch between them
  • Relationship between shaping and FEC, coded bits to modulation symbol mapping, and other modules (such as scrambling, interleaving), in transmit and receive chains. How to handle HARQ retransmission
    • PS algorithm details (for example, source coding based, channel coding based, etc) and parameters (such as block length, rate loss)
• Geometric shaping for CP-OFDM and DFT-s-OFDM
  • Use the list of spectrum efficiencies in NR MCS table as starting point, and provide target constellation shape (including normalization) (1D-NUC, 2D-NUC, QAM-CS, etc) for each SE
    • If multiple constellation shapes are provided for each SE, how to switch between them
  • GS mapping details, such as bit to constellation point mapping and shape
  • Relationship with other blocks (such as scrambling, interleaving). How to handle HARQ retransmission

For link level simulation for modulation evaluation, companies are encouraged to evaluate with the following assumptions and should report the exact scheme evaluated.

• channel configuration, including Channel profiles,Tx/RX antenna settings
• For MIMO scenario: SU-MIMO or MU-MIMO, follow agenda item 11.2 for MIMO when available.
• Precoder assumption
  • Close loop MIMO (reciprocal beamforming (e.g., SVD, SLR/RZF, etc.), codebook based)
    • Realistic CSI/SRS/AP-SRS periodicity and delay, and SRS chanEst assumptions,
    • or genie beamforming
  • Open loop MIMO
• Receiver assumption (for MIMO): LMMSE (baseline) for UL, rML or LMMSE for DL
• LLR demapper: Max-log (baseline) or Log-MAP
• Channel estimation: Realistic (baseline) or ideal
• Other assumptions: Channel coding NR-LDPC (baseline), PxSCH bandwidth, SCS, FD interleaver used or not, 5GNR BICM interleaver usage
• Note: For MIMO, SIMO, MISO and SISO are included when possible

On how to evaluate complexity, storage requirement, delay and parallelism/serialism for PS and GS compared with uniform QAM.

• For PS
  • The demapper complexity is compared with uniform QAM demapper complexity
    • Can report the demapper complexity with PS and the demapper complexity of NR MCS with the same spectrum efficiency, and the ratio of the complexities
      • Also report the number of spatial layers, dm-algorithm used and the receiver type (e.g., LMMSE or rML), and fixed point assumed or floating point assumed.
  • The Distribution Matcher (DM)/Distribution De-Matcher (DDM) complexity and/or storage requirement as a function of the DM algorithm used (ESS, CCDM, etc), precision of fixed point implementation, block length, and the number of bit levels shaped per symbol
    • For complexity, can report the complexity normalized by the number of information bits
      • As a reference, can also report the computation complexity of LDPC decoding with 10 iterations.
    • For storage requirement, can report the overall storage needed for DM/DDM for supporting all MCS in the MCS table and all shaping related parameters
    • DM and DDM complexity and storage will be counted separately
  • The DM/DDM processing delay, parallelism/serialism, as a function of DM design and block length, and their impact to throughput
• For GS,
  • The demapper complexity is compared with uniform QAM demapper complexity
    • Can report the ratio of GS demapper complexity over the uniform QAM demapper complexity
      • Also report if 1D-NUC or 2D-NUC is used, # of spatial layers, and the receiver type (e.g., LMMSE or rML)
    • Also need to report the assumption on complexity counting, e.g, fixed point assumed or floating point assumed
  • The storage requirement for storing all the constellations corresponding to the MCS indices in the MCS table, as a function of precision of constellation point storage
  • Processing delay and parallelism/serialism, if applicable, and their impact to throughput

Note: the complexity is represented by the numbers of comparison, addition/subtraction, and multiplication/division operations, normalized by the number of information bits. Note: For complexity as a function of SE point, will add a column in the already agreed performance reporting table. Note: For complexity/storage not as a function of SE point, will add a row in the already agreed performance reporting table. Note: Spec impact will be separately evaluated, include BICM, scrambling, etc

Note: For 4K uniform QAM DL and 1K uniform QAM UL link level performance study, the following format can be used for performance reporting.

• For assumed TX/RX EVM, before we receive any concrete numbers from RAN4, companies can provide their assumptions. One example can be 6dB tighter than the EVM of 1K QAM for DL and 256QAM for UL.
• Other parameters include: Channel estimation assumption (genie or realistic), channel configurations (AWGN, SISO, SIMO, MIMO and TX/RX antenna configurations, channel types, number of spatial layers,), assumed residual freq offset range, number of allocated RBs, etc
• Two highest MCS points in DL 1K QAM and UL 256QAM in NR added in the table for comparison.
• This is preliminary result and not intended for TR

Note: For high order uniform QAM for DL 4K QAM and UL 1K QAM, to provide the UPT with the high order QAM (DL 4K QAM and UL 1K QAM) over the UPT without the high order QAM under the assumed deployment scenario.

For DFT-s-OFDM, further study how/whether Net Gain over uniform QAM can be achieved by PS/GS.

To evaluate the proposal to allow a single spectrum efficiency point to be supported by multiple MCS entries (with different modulation order and coding rate combinations with uniform QAM or with different shaping parameters, coding rate, and constellation size combinations for PS and different coding rate and constellation combinations for GS).

• When providing results, to provide the following information
  • Details on the design of MCS table with overlapping MCS entries and expected size of MCS table, including performance comparison of designs with the same expected size of MCS table
  • Performance benefit under different channel and rank assumptions
    • As baseline, provide performance with legacy MCS table up to 256 QAM
      • Can additionally provide performance with legacy MCS table up to 1K QAM
    • For PS/GS, provide performance allowing each SE point to be mapped to one or more MCS entries
      • For PS/GS, provide performance allowing each SE point to be mapped to only one MCS entry (from the set of one or more MCS entries)
    • For uniform QAM, provide performance allowing each SE point to be mapped to one or more MCS entries
  • MCS selection mechanism across multiple MCS corresponding to the same spectrum efficiency.
    • If UE feedback is needed for gNB to select between multiple MCS entries corresponding to the same SE, provide details on what is to be fed back
• FFS: How different MPR for different modulation order is captured in the simulation for uplink
• FFS: How different EVM for different modulation order is captured in the simulation
• For the purpose of this study, the same set of SE points as in legacy uniform QAM table will be used as starting point.
• When reporting performance, also report other assumptions, including channel type (AWGN, SISO, SIMO, MIMO) and antenna configuration, number of spatial layers, number of RB allocated, TB size, shaping algorithm used (including block length), freq domain interleaver applied or not, receiver assumption, precoding assumption, realistic channel estimation, etc
• To propose how to align shaping parameters or how to align coding rate for facilitating comparison.

For PS/GS fixed MCS performance reporting for 10% BLER (other target x% BLER can also be reported), adopt the following format for simulation as a starting point for result reporting.

Note: For NR MCS reference, since NR has multiple MCS tables, it is not enough to provide the MCS index. Instead, need to provide the (modulation order, coding rate) pair for the simulated SE Note: For SE point specific parameters:

• For GS, this can be a pointer to the constellation used for this SE point
• For PS, this can be a constellation size, coding rate and shaping parameter used for this SE point Note: Other metrics (at least complexity) will be merged into the same table with other columns, if details of the metrics are agreeable. Note: For AMC study, if possible, we can use the same table format

For PS/GS fixed MCS performance reporting for 10% BLER (other target x% BLER can also be reported), adopt the following format for simulation as a starting point for result reporting.

Note: For NR MCS reference, since NR has multiple MCS tables, it is not enough to provide the MCS index. Instead, need to provide the (modulation order, coding rate) pair for the simulated SE Note: For SE point specific parameters:

• For GS, this can be a pointer to the constellation used for this SE point
• For PS, this can be a constellation size, coding rate and shaping parameter used for this SE point Note: Other metrics (at least complexity) will be merged into the same table with other columns, if details of the metrics are agreeable. Note: For AMC study, if possible, we can use the same table format

For PS, potential impact to the TX/RX chain functionality blocks are identified as follows:

• TX chain
  • (Modified) TBS calculation
  • (Modified) CB segmentation
  • (New) DM functionalities
    • Bit splitting: Split to shaped bits and unshaped bits
    • DM
    • Bit concatenation/multiplexing: Concatenate/multiplex DM output and unshaped bits
  • (Modified) Bit interleaver and Bit selection
  • (Modified) Scrambling: shaped bits should not be scrambled to keep the target distribution
  • (Modified) Modulation: Power normalization needed for shaped constellation
• RX chain
  • (Modified) TBS calculation
  • (New) DM functionalities
    • Bit splitting: Split to shaped bits and unshaped bits
    • DDM
    • Bit concatenation/demultiplexing: Concatenate/demultiplex DDM output with unshaped bits
  • (Modified) Bit de-interleaver and Bit selection
  • (Modified) Descrambling:
  • (Modified) Demodulation: Prior probability used in demodulation
  • (Modified) CB concatenation

Companies are encouraged to provide design details for the modification needed for above functionalities. Companies are encouraged to explain the reason if a functionality block is not impacted.

For GS, potential impact to the TX/RX chain functionality blocks compared to NR are identified as follows:

• TX chain
  • Mapper
    • Bit to constellation symbol mapping
    • Modulation symbol generation
• RX chain
  • Demodulation of received symbols
  • Demapper

Companies are encouraged to identify potential impact on TX, RX chains if both NUC and uniform QAM are supported. Companies are encouraged to provide design details for the modification needed for above functionalities. Companies are encouraged to explain the reason if a functionality block is not impacted.

The draft LS in R1-2601663 is endorsed. The final LS in R1-2601664 is endorsed.

R1-2601514 Session Notes of AI 10.3.2 Ad-Hoc Chair (Ericsson) Session notes are endorsed and incorporated the session notes below.

Parameters affect the PS complexity/storage/latency and BLER and throughput performance trade-off are at least:

• DM output length in unit of I/Q symbol,
• /# of bits shaped per I/Q,
• /# of shaping parameters
• /# of DM blocks needed to support the target throughput of 6GR
• DM algorithm and bit-width of variables in the DM algorithm
• Impact of mismatch on the quantization bitwidth between DM and DDM.

Parameters affect the GS complexity/storage/latency and BLER and throughput performance trade-off are at least:

• 1D-NUC or 2D-NUC
• Constellations and # of constellations
• Bitwidth for describing the constellation
• Bits to constellation mapping

The values of these parameters used in evaluations shall be submitted together with performance results. Companies are encouraged to provide evaluations for different combination parameters to study different performance and complexity/storage/latency trade-offs to provide proper assessment including feasibility.

For the study of introducing DL 4K uniform QAM and UL 1K uniform QAM, focus on the following use cases:

• FWA deployed outdoor
• FWA deployed indoor
• FFS: In-door hot-spot.

For SLS of DL 4K uniform QAM and UL 1K uniform QAM for CPE under FWA scenarios, assume the following:

• For layout
  • Dense Urban
  • UMA
• FFS: Other SLS parameters

Send LS to RAN4 to kindly provide the EVM and MPR values for DL 4K uniform QAM without shaping and UL 1K uniform QAM without shaping.

For SLS study for DL 4K uniform QAM without shaping and UL 1K uniform QAM without shaping for CPE in FWA scenario, focus on the following subset of parameters for Dense Urban and Urban Macro:

• Layout: Single layer
• Frequency: Around 4GHz and/or Around 7GHz
• BS antenna model: Outdoor Combination 2 for around 4GHz and Outdoor Combination 2 for around 7GHz
• BS power: 44dBm/20MHz for around 4GHz, and 43dBm/20MHz for around 7GHz
• O2I penetration loss: Option 2: 50% low loss, 50% high loss
• Traffic model: FTP3
• UE distribution and UE speed:
  • Profile 1 (mixed deployment): 80% Indoor CPE: (0, 0.3] km/h; 20% Outdoor rooftop mounted CPE: (0, 0.3]km/h.
  • Profile 3 (Outdoor mounted CPE only): Roof-top mounted, 100% outdoor (0,0.3] km/h
  • For outdoor rooftop mounted CPE, consider uniform distributed in 4-8 floors for building height.
• UE antenna panel: Combination 3 Alt 1 for around 4GHz, combination 4 for around 7GHz
• Tx configuration of UE antenna panel for UL 1024QAM
  • Companies to report antenna orientation
• UE power class: 31dBm, 35dBm (Other values can be reported by companies)
• Simulation BW: 100MHz, 20MHz
• Maximum rank per CPE UE: 2, 4, 8 (optional)
• Channel estimation: Realistic channel estimation
• Assume MU-MIMO capability is available at gNB
• MCS table including the additional MCS entries for DL 4K QAM and UL 1K QAM provided by company
• Other parameter setting not precluded and company can report

For SLS result reporting, also include:

• Rank distribution (for indoor CPE and outdoor LOS CPE and outdoor non-LOS CPE separately and jointly)
• Rank distribution when 4KQAM DL and 1KQAM UL is selected.
• Modulation order (MCS) distribution (for indoor CPE and outdoor LOS CPE and outdoor non-LOS CPE separately and jointly)
• Note: RAN4 input is needed for the following parameters:
  • EVM assumption and modelling
  • MPR assumption

At least support 5G NR equal probability uniform QAM constellation for 6G:

• For 6GR DL, 5G NR equal probability uniform QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, 256QAM and 1024QAM are supported for CP-OFDM for data channel
• For 6GR UL, 5G NR equal probability uniform QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM are supported for CP-OFDM for data channel
• For 6GR UL, 5G NR pi/2 BPSK, equal probability uniform QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM are supported for DFT-s-OFDM for data channel
  • Note: Further enhancements for low PAPR are being discussed in waveform agenda, and will be decided there

Note: The support of equal probability uniform QAM does not have any implication to the study and potential inclusion of shaping based schemes and the study of waveform discussions. Note: Other equal probability uniform modulation schemes and modulation orders, including but not limited to DL 4kQAM and UL 1k QAM, can be separately discussed and can be additionally supported if justified. FFS: Impact on modulation if the waveform agenda item concludes on any waveform enhancements.

For the evaluation of PS/GS schemes under fading channel, companies are encouraged to provide evaluation results for the following:

• SIMO 1x4: CDL-A 100ns, CDL-B 30ns, CDL-C 300ns, TDL-C 100ns
• MIMO: Open loop for high speed UE with identity precoding, at least 200 Hz Doppler
• MIMO: Closed loop precoding, Rank 4
• MIMO 4x4 CDL-A 100ns, MIMO 4x4 CDL-B 30ns, MIMO 4x4 CDL-C 300ns,
• MIMO 32x4 CDL-A 100ns, MIMO 32x4 CDL-B 30ns, MIMO 32x4 CDL-C 300ns

Observations: Modulation, Joint channel coding and modulation (10.3.2)

For GS schemes, at least the following are observed:

• For 1D-NUC, if MMSE receiver is used, the demodulation/demapper complexity is [1 to 1.6] times that of uniform QAM assuming [6 to 10] quantization bit-width per I/Q for 1D-NUC.
  • Further observations will be worked on demodulation/demapper complexity of 1D-NUC with rML receiver
• For 1D-NUC, if MMSE receiver is used, the demodulation/demapper complexity is [6.45] times that of uniform QAM assuming [14] quantization bit-width per I/Q for 1D-NUC.
  • Further observations will be worked on demodulation/demapper complexity of 1D-NUC with rML receiver
• For 2D-NUC (except for QAM-CS), if MMSE receiver is used, the demodulation/demapper complexity is [20 to 947] times that of uniform QAM.
  • Further observations will be worked on demodulation/demapper complexity of QAM-CS based 2D-NUC
  • Further observations will be worked on demodulation/demapper complexity of 2D-NUC with rML receiver
• For NP-NUC, the same demodulation/demapper as uniform QAM is used
• Further observations are required to be provided for RAN plenary checkpoint to compare the complexity and storage requirements for GS with respect to uniform QAM
• Further observations of linkage between performance gain/loss under agreed fading channels with the complexity/storage are required for RAN plenary checkpoint

Observations: Modulation, Joint channel coding and modulation (10.3.2)

For PS schemes, at least the following are observed:

• For ESS based PS, the storage requirement increases approximately quadratically with increasing DM block length, the storage requirement increases exponentially with increasing number of shaped bits per I/Q symbol, and processing delay increases linearly with increasing DM block length
• For CCDM based PS, the processing delay increases linearly as DM block length increases.
• Further observations are required to be provided for RAN plenary checkpoint to compare the complexity and storage requirements of different DM algorithm/parameters for PS with respect to uniform QAM
• Further observations of linkage between performance gain/loss under agreed fading channels with the complexity/storage are required for RAN plenary checkpoint

Study how to reuse and update reference configurations in TR 38.864 for 6G BS.

Study metric(s) for UE energy efficiency. Study metric(s) for BS energy efficiency.

Study how/whether to reuse or update the power model in TR 38.864 for evaluating BS power consumption for 6G BS.

Study reference configurations and power consumption model for 6G UE, considering but not restricted to the following:

• TR 38.840 (UEPS), TR38.875 (RedCap), TR38.865 (eRedCap), and TR38.869 (LP-WUS/WUR) for reference configurations
• TR 38.840 (UEPS), TR38.875 (RedCap), and TR38.869 (LP-WUS/WUR) for power consumption models

Study baseline BS setting(s) for evaluating 6G BS EE improvement/impact, considering NR features and 6G BS reference configuration(s) Study baseline UE setting(s) for evaluating 6G UE EE improvement/impact, considering NR features and 6G UE reference configuration(s)Agreement

For 6GR energy efficiency evaluation purposes, reuse the existing UE power consumption model FR1 and FR2 reference configurations in TR 38.840 for operation up to around 7GHz and within 24.25 GHz – 52.6 GHz, respectively.

• Scaling rules can be updated, including additional rule(s) for scaling UE power consumption, and including around 7GHz specific update
  • FFS: details.
• Power value and transition time update, if necessary, including around 7GHz specific update
• No implication on supported BW, SCS, modulation and antenna setting for 6GR
• Revisit if SCS for around 7GHz is different with respect to the reference configuration

For evaluation purposes, study extending NR UE power consumption scaling w.r.t. at least BW and/or antenna setting, considering at least the different characteristics in RF/BB power consumption and static/dynamic power consumption.

Study and evaluate multi-carrier/cells/TRPs mechanisms for 6GR NES, considering, e.g.,:

• Sync signal-less carriers/cells/TRPs for at least intra-band and collocated inter-band multi-carrier/cell/TRPs, including potential extensions to additional deployments and scenarios,
• RRC states,
• UE energy consumption and complexity,
• Other mechanisms/aspects/signals/channels are not precluded.

Study and evaluate DL WUS of OFDM based sequence and corresponding mechanisms for 6GR EE improvement, regarding at least the following aspects:

• Coverage target for DL WUS (e.g., same as PDCCH, common sync signal, or other)
• Measurements and/or synchronization.
• System overhead and network energy consumption/UE energy saving for UE operation with the DL WUS.
• RRC states
• Other functionalities

Study and evaluate on-demand sync signal(s) mechanisms for 6GR energy efficiency, considering, e.g.,:

• On-demand sync signal(s) for single cell/carrier, multi-carrier/cell, multi-TRP,
• Network-triggered and UE-triggered on-demand sync signal(s),
• Idle and/or connected modes,
• Other mechanisms/aspects/signals/channels are not precluded.

For evaluation purposes, study extending NR UE power consumption model for UE operation with DL WUS of OFDM-based sequence, regarding the following aspects:

• Power state(s), sleep and non-sleep, and corresponding characteristics and power value(s)
• Transition energy and time for each of sleep state(s)
• Companies to report the assumption(s) for achieving the proposed power value(s), e.g., time/frequency domain detection, noise figure assumption(s), synchronization assumption(s), BW/antenna assumption(s), etc.

Study and evaluate on-demand and/or periodic SIB-1 transmission with respect to

• NW energy savings potential and UE power consumption impact,
• SIB-1 acquisition delay,
• NW and UE complexity,
• Coverage,
• Applicable deployment scenarios, e.g.,:
  • Standalone cell/carrier,
  • Multiple TRPs/cells/carriers.

Study and evaluate NW energy savings and the impact on UE performance and user experience with respect to 20ms and longer periodicities of sync signal(s) at least for initial access with the following consideration, but not limited to: BS assumptions:

• Cell-common signaling (e.g., sync signal(s), broadcast PDCCH, SIB-1, SIB, paging, PRACH), e.g.,
  • Clustered provisioning of different cell-common signaling,
  • On-demand provisioning of different cell-common signaling,

• UE-specific signaling (for low, light, medium loads), e.g.,

  • Clustered provisioning with cell-common signaling,
  • Unclustered provisioning with cell-common signaling, UE impact:

• Cell search complexity and latency, including frequency search latency,

• UE Power consumption,
• Sync signal detection, coverage and tracking performance,
• RRM, mobility,
• Beam management,
• Other properties are not precluded,
• Improvements to address identified impact, e.g.,
  • Additional sync signal needs,
  • Adaptation of sync signal transmission periodicity,
  • Sparser synch raster.

Study whether/how to further update the BS model considering the following aspects, e.g.,

• Whether to downselect between Cat.1 and Cat.2,
• Updates of parameter values (including defining a new Cat),
• Updates of power scaling, power states (including additional PSs)
• Etc. Note: The defined BS power models does not preclude use case-specific enhancements regarding, e.g., multi-TRP, SBFD, multi-carrier etc

For evaluation purposes, expand the existing BS power model reference configuration with a set for ~7 GHz operation with the following parameters:

Note: Bracketed values to be confirmed. Other values are not precluded. The above configuration has no implication on supported BW, SCS for 6GR.

Apply the following evaluation methodology framework for Quantitative analysis,

• For NW unloaded/empty load case or UE idle/inactive mode:
  • For energy saving: analytical calculation
  • For performance impact: analytical calculation, LLS
• For loaded cases and connected-mode UEs
  • For energy saving: SLS
  • For performance impact: LLS, SLS

At least the following NR metrics,

• Network energy saving gain relative to baseline for BS
• UE energy saving gain relative to baseline for UE
• Impact to UPT (User-Perceived Throughput), if applicable, as well as the metrics
• Impact to latency, if applicable
• Impact to QoS/delay budget satisfaction rate, if applicable are used for 6G energy efficiency evaluation.

For evaluation purposes and relative comparison over different candidate energy saving schemes for 6GR, define the following baseline power saving configurations for UE for evaluation purpose for FR1 (including around 7GHz):

• 5G NR I-DRX (1.28s cycle) for idle mode
  • Group paging rate (for a PO): TBD
• 5G NR C-DRX settings of (cycle, on-duration timer, inactivity timer) are assumed for the following 6GR traffic models for connected mode:
  • VoIP: (40 ms, 8 ms, 10 ms)
  • FTP3: (160 ms, 8 ms, 100 ms)
  • Instant message: (320 ms, 8 ms, 100 ms)
  • XR: (16 ms, 10 ms, 4 ms)
• Companies can evaluate and report other traffic(s) and/or configuration(s) with justification Note: The corresponding evaluation is not intended for energy efficiency comparison with 5G/NR.

Include the following non-sleep states as 6G UE power consumption model.

• Other power state(s) is not precluded
• FFS: Configuration and relative power value(s) for EE processing in FR2 (including 24.25 GHz – 52.6 GHz)
• Note: Pending agreement in 11.2 whether to evaluate 15 GHz

Add the following as one of reference configurations for BS power consumption

**Pending agreement in 11.2 whether to evaluate 15 GHz.

6GHOW NOTE: SOME FORMULAS IN THESE AGREEMENT IS INCORRECT. NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

For the UE power model, assume:

• \(\Gamma_B\): The ratio of active bandwidth to the bandwidth of reference configuration (\(B_{ref}\))
• \(\Gamma_{Tput}\): The ratio of the maximum schedulable PDSCH throughput w.r.t. that of current active bandwidth,
  • FFS: How the maximum schedulable PDSCH throughput ratio \(\Gamma_{Tput}\) is ensured by NW
  • Companies to report the assumed technique to achieve the reduction in the maximum schedulable PDSCH throughput. Current techniques include at least: reduced scheduled maximum bandwidth, reduced scheduled maximum rank, and reduced scheduled duty cycle.
  • No antenna adaptation is assumed simultaneously
• For evaluation purpose,
  • Company to report \(d\) value for the evaluation
• \(D > d\) is another relaxed adaptation delay. Company to report \(D\) value for the evaluation.
• The adaptation delay is applied when adapting \(\Gamma_B\) and/or \(\Gamma_{Tput}\)
• Companies to report \(S_{offset}\) from one of the two options:
  • Option 1: \(S_{offset} = 0 / Z_1 / Z_2\) for Maximum BW (MaxBW) assumed for the evaluation \(\in {100 \text{ MHz}, 200 \text{ MHz}, 400 \text{ MHz}}\)
  • Option 2: \(S_{offset} = 0\)
• Note: No implication on which configuration(s) and what adaptation(s) to be supported by 6GR

Include the following scaling for DL bandwidth adaptation for 6GR UE power consumption model:

• For PDCCH+PDSCH:

• For PDCCH-only:

• Other DL signal/channel processing:

• Not applicable to sleep states and EE processing state
• Further consolidate the table for cases of a same scaling factor

• FFS: Scaling factor for other value(s) of \(\Gamma_{Tput}\)

• For UL bandwidth adaptation,

  • No scaling for FR1 and around 7GHz
  • In case scaling is needed for FR2 (including 24.25 GHz – 52.6 GHz), companies can report the assumed scaling factor
• Note: The term “bandwidth” used here is reusing the definition as 5GNR, which will be updated according to 6GR discussion
• Note: All columns and rows of the above tables will be further checked, and corresponding values will be checked and confirmed/extended.

Include the following sleep states for 6G UE power consumption model. Note: Ultra Deep Sleep is not intended for connected mode

• Y value equals to 0.1, if EE processing is assumed for the evaluation; zero, otherwise.

• Immediate transition is assumed for power saving study purpose from or to a non-sleep state ** Ramp-up time is no less than half of the total transition time *** Time for sync/re-sync is not included

Total DL power level for Set 4 is 56 dBm. The following relative power levels applies to Set 4 for a CAT 1 BS and a CAT 2 BS:

BS model CAT 2.1 is introduced. All BS models CAT 1, CAT 2 and CAT 2.1 may be used for evaluations in 6GR SI.

Include the following DL antenna scaling factors in 6GR UE power consumption model: Note: Applicable for FR1 (including around 7GHz) and FR2 (including 24.25 GHz - 52.6 GHz), where, for FR2, number of DL antenna assumed is up to [4] FFS: Scaling for 8Rx

Adopt the following cross-slot scheduling scaling for evaluation for 6GR UE power consumption model:

Include the following UL long PUCCH/PUSCH/PRACH power values in the UE power model: Note: UE reference configuration is 1TX chain

IF a BS model CAT 2.1 (2-plus) is introduced, it has the following transition energy characteristics for Set 1-3. FFS: Set 4:

The following relative transition energies are adopted for BS models CAT1 and CAT2, if supported, for BS reference configuration Set 4:

FFS: whether delta value is needed due to larger number of TXRU

The following transition times are adopted for BS models CAT1 and CAT2, if supported, for BS reference configuration Set 4:

FFS: whether delta value is needed due to larger number of TXRU

In EE evaluations, to adapt a BS's number of active antenna TXRU to \({1/2 \text{ and } 1/4}\) of the total number of antenna TXRU and to adapt the associated circuitry. FFS:

• Power model for BS
  • Power states
  • State transitions
  • Application of scaling of BS for static and/or dynamic parts
• Coverage, throughput aspects in UL and DL
• BS models and reference configuration compatibility
• Applicable signals and channels, related procedures and RRC states
• Latency aspects
• UE power consumption and complexity aspects
• BS complexity
• Use cases (e.g., UE-initiated on-demand SIB1)

For NES evaluation purposes and relative comparison of different candidate energy saving schemes for 6GR, define the following baseline network configurations

• SSB with 20 ms periodicity, at least for single cell
• SIB1, if available, company to report assumed periodicity from {20 ms, 160 ms}

• RO, if available, with 10/20 ms periodicity Furthermore, to assist comparisons

• Companies to report \(s_{tx}\), \(s_{rx}\) and \(s_{f}\) values for BS processing of the above signal(s)/channel(s)

• Companies to report the average network load in %
• Companies can evaluate and report other configuration(s) with justification Note: The corresponding evaluation is not intended for energy efficiency comparison with 5G/NR.

Update PDCCH+PDSCH bandwidth scaling table in the 6GR UE power model with the following values

• Subject to adaptation delay \(= T_{min}\) no larger than NR BWP switch delay (Type 2)
  • \(S_{MaxBW}\) can be zero, or the other option: 0.15 and 0.5 for \(MaxBW=200\%\) and 400%, respectively. Company to report which option is assumed in their evaluation.

• If adaptation delay \([5ms] \le T \le [10 \text{ ms}]\) is allowed, scaling factor for \(\Gamma_B \le 25\%\) can be 0.4 or the other option: 0.3. Company to report which option is assumed in their evaluation.

RAN1 to further define reference configuration for UEs with 20MHz or smaller bandwidth.

• FFS: Same scaling rules (without SMaxBW) are applied to both reference configurations.
• FFS: Reuse/extend the reference configuration and power values from NR TR 38.875

Update PDCCH-only bandwidth scaling table in the 6GR UE power model with the following values:

• Subject to adaptation delay \(= T_{min}\), no larger than NR BWP switch delay (Type 2)
  • \(S_{MaxBW}\) can be zero, or the other option: 0.3 and 1.0 for \(MaxBW=200\%\) and 400%, respectively. Company to report which option assumed in their evaluation.

• If adaptation delay \([5ms] \le T \le [10 \text{ ms}]\) is allowed, scaling factor for \(\Gamma_B \le 25\%\) can be 0.8 or the other option: 0.6. Company to report which option is assumed in their evaluation.

Include the following bandwidth scaling table for micro sleep in the 6GR UE power model:

• Subject to adaptation delay \(= T_{min}\), no larger than NR BWP switch delay (Type 2)
  • \(S_{MaxBW}\) can be zero, or the other option: 0.3 and 1.0 for \(MaxBW=200\%\) and 400%, respectively. Company to report which option assumed in their evaluation.

• If adaptation delay \([5ms] \le T \le [10 \text{ ms}]\) is allowed, scaling factor for \(\Gamma_B \le 25\%\) can be 0.8 or the other option: 0.6. Company to report which option is assumed in their evaluation.

The following scaling w.r.t. DL antenna number is also applied to micro sleep:

FFS: Whether the above scaling rules is applicable to light sleep

For CA reception based on one RF chain, power scaling factor is same as that of bandwidth scaling with the same total bandwidth.

• Scaling on power consumption assuming all CCs are activated, and no implication on carrier activation/deactivation delay.
• FFS: Separated scaling for slots with PDCCH-only
• FFS: Scaling for CA reception based on more than one RF receive chains.

Adopt the following UL scaling for 6GR UE power consumption model:

FFS: Scaling for different symbol numbers

For EE Processing 2-RX in FR1, adopt the following values:

If EE processing reception time is X symbols within a slot, the power value is scaled by \((X/14)\).

• FFS: whether to scale additional energy overhead
• FFS: Values for 10MHz BW

Relative transition energy values for CAT 2.1 in Set 4 are:

• Light sleep: 210
• Deep sleep: 6300

Include UE power consumption values for the RRM measurements without EE processing as follows:

• Serving cell RRM: 100
• Serving & Neighbor cell RRM:

• The above power values are based on 100MHz reference configuration. BW scaling for other DL signal/channel processing is applied if the active BW is different from the reference.
• BW and antenna scaling rules can be applied
• Note: FR1 includes ~7GHz, and FR2 includes 24.25 GHz – 52.6 GHz

For evaluation purpose, EE processing power values for 10 MHz BW is 1.2x of the corresponding power values of 5MHz BW.

For CA reception based on multiple RF chains, overall power scaling factor is defined as:

(Power scaling factor for CA reception based on one RF chain) + Y × (CC number - 1)

where:

• Y models additional power scaling factor with each extra RF chain
• Y = [0.3] for reception of PDCCH + PDSCH, PDCCH-only and other signals/channels
• FFS: Same or different Y value for CC BW different from the reference configuration

The scaling factor assumes the same number of RF chains as the CC number and that all CCs are activated. There is no implication on carrier activation/deactivation delay.

For CA reception based on one RF chain, power scaling factor for PDCCH-only is defined as:

(Bandwidth scaling factor for single CC reception with the same total bandwidth) + X × (CC number - 1)

• X = [0.2] if the above assumes PDCCH monitoring per CC
• X = 0 if PDCCH monitoring only on one CC
• FFS: other cases

The scaling factor assumes all CCs are activated. There is no implication on carrier activation/deactivation delay.

Power scaling for UL BW with 200% BW ratio factor is 1.2 for 0 dBm TX power level.

The power consumption of SBFD operation in BS, using a factor of its antennas \(\alpha_{DL}\) and \(\alpha_{UL}\), and a fraction of the spectrum \(\beta_{DL}\) and \(\beta_{UL}\) for DL and UL operation, respectively, is modelled according to:

where \(P_{static,SBFD}\) is the static power in SBFD operation in BS, \(\delta_{DL}\) and \(\delta_{UL}\) are factors due to DL and UL SBFD operation.

Transition times for CAT 2.1 in Set 4 are aligned with the agreed values for Sets 1, 2, and 3, i.e.,

• Light sleep: 100 milliseconds
• Deep sleep: 2 seconds

The relative power values for CAT 2.1 are the same as the relative power values for CAT 2 across all reference configuration sets 1-4.

Power scaling factor for UL 2Tx antennas w.r.t. 1TX is 1.5

• Note: 2TX antennas are in the same frequency band

Adopt UL CA scaling for 2CC as:

• For inter-band CA (assuming 2 RFs), power scaling factor w.r.t. 1CC is 1.5
• For intra-band CA (assuming Single RF), at least the following power scaling factor is applied:

Scaling on power consumption assuming all CCs are activated, and no implication on carrier activation/deactivation delay.

Adopt the following column of PDCCH-only BW scaling table for all other DL signal/channel processing:

For S_MaxBW value, companies to report which option assumed (Option A: S_MaxBW=0; Option B: S_MaxBW={0.3 for MaxBW = 200%, 1.0 for MaxBW = 400%}).

For the RAN1 study of "Re-use of existing 5G mid-band (3.5GHz) site grid for 6G deployments in at least around 7 GHz and targeting comparable coverage to 5G mid-band", the following assumptions are assumed for link budget template candidates 1 for signals/channels in around 7GHz

Note: Companies to provide updated link budget results before April 3rd, to be triggered by email thread (March 30th).

6GR shall at least be capable of configuring the same TDD slot configurations as TDD slot configurations deployed in 5G NR.

Study link direction determination for dynamic TDD, considering at least

• UE PDCCH monitoring efforts and power consumption
• Signaling overhead
• Scheduling flexibility
• Avoid duplicated functionalities
• Collision handling

For the RAN1 study of "Re-use of existing 5G mid-band (~3.5 GHz) site grid for 6G deployments in at least around 7 GHz and targeting comparable to same coverage to 5G mid-band",

• For the link budget evaluation for coverage gap identification in around 7 GHz
  • For initial access, Rel-15 NR signals/channels during initial access are used for identifying the gap of individual signal/channel compared to Rel-15 NR msg3 in 5G mid-band, respectively Note: The candidate coverage enhancement techniques will be separately discussed.

For 6GR spectrum aggregation operation, study the following methods and their associated application scenarios:

• Method 1: Multiple physical carriers can be aggregated into single "Gothia cell"
  • Note: the term 'Gothia cell' is for RAN1 discussion purposes, and whether/how to specify the feature / refer to the feature is separate RAN1 discussion.
• Method 2: "Carrier aggregation" where multiple physical carriers can be aggregated into separate cells For both methods, study them under idle mode and connected mode, and study their pros and cons at both NW and UE side

For the 6GR smallest maximum UE bandwidth for at least one lower-tier device, RAN1 to further study the following alternatives:

• Alt 1: 20MHz RF and BB bandwidth for both UL and DL with 15kHz SCS for FDD, and with 30kHz SCS for TDD
• Alt 2: 5MHz RF and BB bandwidth for FDD with 15kHz SCS for both UL and DL, 10 or 20 MHz RF and BB bandwidth for TDD with 30kHz SCS for both UL and DL
• Alt 3: 20MHz RF bandwidth for both UL and DL with 15kHz SCS for FDD, and with 30kHz SCS for TDD
  • Narrower bandwidth for BB in UL, and/or Narrower bandwidth for BB in DL

For the RAN1 study of "Re-use of existing 5G mid-band (~3.5GHz) site grid for 6G deployments in at least around 7 GHz and targeting comparable coverage to 5G mid-band", the following assumptions are assumed for link budget template candidates 1 for Msg3 PUSCH in 5G mid-band

For the RAN1 study of "Re-use of existing 5G mid-band (~3.5GHz) site grid for 6G deployments in at least around 7 GHz and targeting comparable coverage to 5G mid-band", if link budget template candidates 1 is used to calculate the metric(s), the coverage gap between ~7GHz and 5G mid-band is calculated as follows:

Coverage gap = MPL1 – MPL2 – PL_diff [– additional margin]

• [FFS: detailed value of additional margin]

Note:

• MPL1: MPL of the evaluated signal/channel in ~7GHz
• MPL2: MPL of the bottleneck channel in 5G mid-band (e.g., Rel-15 NR Msg3 for initial/random access procedure)
• PL_diff = 20\(\times\)log10(f1 / f2), where f1 and f2 are the carrier frequency for ~7GHz and 5G mid-band, respectively

For the study of link direction determination for dynamic TDD, consider the following options:

• Option 1:
  • TDD pattern is based on DL, UL and flexible symbols
  • TDD pattern is semi-statically configured
  • No dynamic slot format indication as in NR
  • For dynamically scheduled single transmission/reception in flexible symbols, UE link direction is determined only based on scheduling DCI
  • Study transmissions/receptions without associated DCI in flexible symbols (if configured)
• Option 2:
  • Semi-statically configured TDD pattern is based on DL, UL and flexible symbols
  • Dynamically indicated TDD pattern is based on DL, UL and guard symbols
  • Dynamically indicated TDD pattern indicates DL, UL or guard symbols for flexible symbols according to semi-statically configured TDD pattern
  • The TDD pattern should be provided to the UE with sufficient processing time to apply the TDD pattern change
  • UE link direction is determined based on TDD pattern
• Option 3:
  • TDD pattern, based on DL, UL and guard symbols (i.e. no flexible symbols)
  • UE is dynamically indicated with a TDD pattern out of predefined/preconfigured TDD pattern
  • The TDD pattern should be provided to the UE with sufficient processing time to apply the TDD pattern change
• Other options are not precluded

For the 6GR smallest maximum UE bandwidth for at least one lower-tier device, RAN1 agrees the following observations for the alternatives agreed in RAN1#124:

• According to NR Rel-18 eRedCap study for a device supporting a single FDD band with spectrum allocation no smaller than 20MHz, when comparing on the basis of same PHY peak rate (~10 Mbps), the additional UE modem complexity reduction of Alt 2 compared with Alt 1 is ~10%, and the additional UE modem complexity reduction of Alt 3 compared with Alt 1 is ~5%.

HD-FDD 1-Rx UE modem complexity reduction estimates from the eRedCap SI:

FD-FDD 1-Rx UE modem complexity reduction estimates from the eRedCap SI:

Placeholder for companies to provide more UE complexity analysis based on inputs to RAN1#125, e.g., multi-band devices.

Conclusion: General aspects and frameworks (10.5.0)

For the RAN1 study of "Re-use of existing 5G mid-band (~3.5GHz) site grid for 6G deployments in at least around 7 GHz and targeting comparable coverage to 5G mid-band", to align the usage of the correction factors of BS antenna gain of common beams in co-site deployment evaluation, the following are observed as the common understanding:

• The total antenna gain of common beam is assumed to be unchanged/comparable if the beamwidth of SSB beams is unchanged, regardless of whether the number of BS antenna elements or BS TxRUs increases or not.
• The total BS antenna gain above refers to the sum value of entry (4)+(5)+(11bis) in the link budget table.
• The total antenna gain of BS UL common beam is expected not to be smaller than that of BS DL common beam if the beamwidth of SSB beams is unchanged.

Note:

• (4) Total antenna gain at antenna gain component 3 & antenna gain component 4 of transmitter = (4a) – (4b) (dB)
• (5) Total antenna gain at antenna gain component 2 of transmitter = (5a) - (5b) (dB) Note: zero for uplink
• (11bis) Total antenna gain at antenna gain component 2 of receiver = (11bis-a) - (11bis-b) (dB) Note: zero for downlink

RAN1 to discuss beamforming gain for DL broadcast channel and UL channel and to align the interpretation of the following parameters in link budget template candidate 1:

• (4b) Antenna gain correction factor at antenna gain component 3 & antenna gain component 4 of transmitter (dB)
• (5b) Antenna gain correction factor at antenna gain component 2 of transmitter (dB)
• (11b) Antenna gain correction factor at antenna gain component 3 & antenna gain component 4 of receiver (dB)
• (11bis-b) Antenna gain correction factor at antenna gain component 2 of receiver (dB)
• (15) Receiver interference density
• (27) Penetration margin (dB): Whether account for the indoor distance in the pathloss calculation in O2I scenarios
• (25) Shadow fading margin (function of the cell area reliability and lognormal shadow fading std deviation) (dB): Function definition and whether handoff gain is accounted

For the RAN1 study of "Re-use of existing 5G mid-band (~3.5GHz) site grid for 6G deployments in at least around 7 GHz and targeting comparable coverage to 5G mid-band", companies are encouraged to at least provide the link budget results for the following signals/channels during initial access in around 7GHz:

• DL: NR PSS/SSS, SSB, Common PDCCH, SIB1 PDSCH, Msg2/4 PDSCH
• UL: NR PRACH format C2/B4/0, MSG3 PUSCH, MSG5 PUSCH (companies to report assumption of the payload of actual transmission), MSG4 PUCCH Format 1
• The simulation assumptions in section A.1 in TR38.830 are used as a starting point.
• The payload for NR SIB1 PDSCH is 1200 bits.
• FFS: other parameters

From frequency domain resource mapping perspective, study TB/CB/CBG mapping within a PDSCH with frequency domain resource allocation between 200MHz and 400MHz considering the following options:

• Option A: A TB can span up to 400MHz
• Option B: A TB can span up to 200MHz
• FFS details

Note: For both options, whether multiple TBs are time domain multiplexed within a PDSCH due to other restrictions will be separately discussed in agenda item 10.5.2.2.

For initial access and mobility in 6GR, study the following deployment scenarios

• Single beam and multi-beam based deployments
• Single TRP and multi-TRP based deployments
• Single carrier and multi-carrier deployments
• Other deployment scenarios

For 6GR paging transmission/reception, study at least the following aspects:

• Study paging transmission scheme(s) to facilitate network energy savings
• Study paging scheme(s) to facilitate UE energy savings
• Study necessity of paging capacity enhancement
• Study necessity of paging coverage enhancement

Study 6GR signals, channels and procedures for initial access and idle mobility, considering at least

• Cell/Initial Cell search and cell ID identification
• Time/frequency synchronization/tracking
• Beam measurement
• System information acquisition
• Whether TRP is transparent/non-transparent to UE during above procedures

Study 6GR signals, channels and procedures for idle mobility, considering at least

• Cell search and cell ID identification
• Time/frequency synchronization/tracking
• Beam measurement
• System information acquisition
• Whether TRP is transparent/non-transparent to UE during above procedures

For 6GR measurements in initial access and for mobility, study measurement resource, measurement quantity, measurement functionality and measurement procedure, at least including:

• L1 measurements
• Cell-level/[TRP-level] and beam-level measurement

Study beam operation during 6GR initial access, including:

• Beam acquisition during initial access
• Beam report/refinement during initial access
• Feasibility and performance of spatial/temporal beam prediction during initial access

Basic 6GR sync signal structure is defined as 6GR SSB, which consists of primary synchronization signal(s), secondary synchronization signal(s) and physical broadcast channel(s)

• FFS: Other types of 6GR sync signal/channel structure or reference signal and their structure

For discussion purpose, the following terminologies are defined:

• 6GR SSB burst: one 6GR SSB or multiple 6GR SSBs each with a different index compose a 6GR SSB burst
• 6GR SSB burst set: one or multiple 6GR SSB burst(s) compose a 6GR SSB burst set
  • Note: Whether and how to use the '6GR SSB burst set' is up to companies to report.
• 6GR SSB periodicity: The time interval at which an SSB within a given SSB burst repeats in time
  • Note: "index" is only for illustration purpose to identify a 6GR SSB within a 6GR SSB burst, whether and how to specify the terminologies will be further discussed.
  • Note: all below examples are only used for improving understanding about above terminologies

Examples:

• Example 1: 4 SSBs within a SSB burst (no repetition), 1 SSB burst within 1 SSB burst set
• Example 2: 4 SSBs within a SSB burst (4 consecutive repetitions), 1 SSB burst within 1 SSB burst set
• Example 3-1: 16 SSBs within a SSB burst (4 consecutive repetitions), 1 SSB burst within 1 SSB burst set
• Example 3-2: 16 SSBs within a SSB burst (4 consecutive repetitions), 4 SSB bursts within 1 SSB burst set
• Example 4-1: 16 SSBs within a SSB burst (4 interleaved repetitions), 1 SSB burst within 1 SSB burst set
• Example 4-2: 4 SSBs within a SSB burst (4 interleaved repetitions), 4 SSB bursts within 1 SSB burst set

Study random access framework with the following aspects:

• Enablement of energy efficient random access procedures (supporting SID objective 1b);
  • Including both network and UE power saving
• Coverage improvement (supporting SID objective 1d);
• Support of random access for diverse device types and capabilities (supporting SID objective 1g);
• System performance improvement from overhead reduction, simplification of signaling/configurations (supporting SID objective 1k);
• Additionally consider following aspects
  • random access latency;
  • capacity
  • detection reliability;
  • high speed mobility;
• Note: Other aspects identified during future discussions are not excluded.

The following scenarios and assumptions beyond single carrier/TRP are considered for the study of above random access framework:

• NTN
• SBFD
• multi-carrier
• multi-TRP
• Note: whether/how to support one or more of the scenarios/assumptions, including whether any special handling or functionality needs to be introduced in support of the scenarios/assumptions is part of the study.

Adopt the following link level simulation assumption for random access evaluations: Link Level Assumption Parameters for Random Access

Note: additional parameter tables are evaluation parameters specific to the evaluation of PRACH or Msg 3 that would override the general link level assumption parameters for random access if fields were duplicate

Additional Parameters for PRACH Evaluations

NOTE 1: The CDL table is translated so that the strongest cluster's AoD and AoA occur at a random angle for both the antenna panels of TRP and UE in the local coordinate systems. ZoD and ZoA is assumed to be unchanged. The value of the random angle is selected to be uniformly distributed from +30 to -30 degree. The random value is chosen independently for both AoD and AoA. CDL angle scaling is based on Clause 7.7.5.1 of TR38.901 v19.1.0.

Additional Parameters for PUSCH of Msg.3

Adopt the following parameters for MsgA of 2-step RACH:

Replace the working assumption and agree on evaluation parameters for random access as follows:

Link Level Assumption Parameters for Random Access:

Additional Link Level Assumption Parameters for PRACH Evaluations:

NOTE 1: The CDL table is translated so that the strongest cluster's AoD and AoA occur at a random angle for both the antenna panels of TRP and UE in the local coordinate systems. ZoD and ZoA is assumed to be unchanged. The value of the random angle is selected to be uniformly distributed from +30 to -30 degree. CDL angle scaling is based on Clause 7.7.5.1 of TR38.901 v19.1.0.

Link Level Parameters for PUSCH of Msg.3 or Msg.5 for FR1:

Adopt the following definition for miss detection probability and false alarm probability for RAN1 study (not intended for 6GR requirements):

• Note: Definition of evaluation metrics are for the purpose of alignment of definition among companies. Companies are encouraged to provide information on evaluation metrics reported and the implication and importance of the evaluation metric in the contributions with evaluations.
• Miss detection probability
  • Total probability of following events (for a preamble transmission):
    • Not detecting the preamble for a RO that was sent among the target preambles of the detecting BS
    • Correct preamble detection but with the wrong timing estimation
    • For correct preamble detection, the (residual) timing estimation error should be less than CP/2 of data symbol, e.g., SCS = 30kHz, CP/2 = 1.2 us
• False alarm probability
  • Probability of detecting any target preamble for a RO when no transmission has occurred (only noise)

Adopt the following definition for metrics for evaluations for RAN1 study (not intended for 6GR requirements):

• Note: Not all metrics may be applicable for all evaluation scenarios, and it is up to companies to provide appropriate metric(s) for information.
• Miss detection probability considering frequency estimation
  • Total probability of following events (for a preamble transmission):
    • Not detecting the preamble for a RO that was sent among the target preambles of the detecting BS
    • Correct preamble detection but with the wrong timing estimation and/or frequency estimation
    • For correct preamble detection:
      • the (residual) timing estimation error should be less than CP/2 of data symbol, e.g., SCS = 30kHz, CP/2 = 1.2 us, and
      • the (residual) frequency estimation error of PRACH detection should be less than some target value. Target value to be reported by company.
• Type 1 false detection probability (intra-cell)
  • Probability of detecting different preamble(s) for a RO than the one that was sent among the target preambles of the detecting BS.
• Type 1 false detection rate (intra-cell)
  • A = number of preamble(s) for a RO detected other than the one that was sent among the target preambles of the detecting BS
  • B = Sum of A for all ROs that contain preamble transmission
  • C = Total number of preamble transmission across all ROs
  • Type 1 false detection rate = B divided by C
• Type 2 false detection probability (inter-cell)
  • Probability of detecting any target preamble for a RO when no transmission has occurred in the cell of detecting BS and transmission has occurred in another cell
• Mixed false detection probability
  • Probability of detecting multiple preambles (two or more) of which one of the detected preamble is correctly detected (multiple preamble detection for the detecting BS) for a RO when only one preamble among the target preambles of the detection BS was sent.

Study base sequences and preamble sequence generation/construction methods for 6GR PRACH taking into account one or more of the following aspects:

• detection performance (possibly including TA estimation performance, handling of frequency offset, miss-detection, false alarm, false detection, auto-correlation/cross correlation properties, etc)
• detection complexity for BS
• implementation complexity for UE
• Cubic metric/PAPR
• supported sequence lengths & associated SCS of a sequence
• [Preambles per random access occasion (RO)]
• Inter-cell interference
• Coexistence with 5G NR PRACH sequences
• Note 1: Benchmark various performance metric(s) and considerations against 5G NR PRACH design as baseline
• Note 2: base sequences for 5G NR PRACH are ZC sequence, and preamble sequence generation is done via (time domain) cyclic shift of a ZC root sequence (base sequence) to create a specific preamble sequence.
• Note 3: companies are encouraged to provide the following information:
  • detailed information for the sequence generation and construction of a preamble for PRACH
  • correlation properties (compared to NR PRACH sequences, including correlation with NR PRACH sequences)
  • Cubic metric/PAPR (at least compared to NR PRACH sequences)
  • Applicable scenarios

Study and Identify at least the following set of deployment scenario characteristics for 6GR RACH preamble format design:

• target round trip time (RTT)/maximum cell radius
• target time duration of preamble
• target doppler/UE mobility
• target duplex scheme, PRACH SCS, and frequency ranges
• Study and identify required preamble formats that correspond to the identified use cases.

Observation: PRACH and RACH procedure (10.5.1.2)

• Simplification of preamble formats compared to NR PRACH preamble formats is generally desired.

For basic initial access procedures considering UEs with different bandwidth capabilities, study the determination of frequency location(s) and bandwidth(s) for UE to receive/monitor the downlink signals/channels during initial access and idle mode for at least the following:

• System information
• Random access procedure
• Paging
• FFS: Relation to frequency location of 6G synchronization signals

For basic initial access procedures considering UEs with different bandwidth capabilities, study the determination of the frequency location(s) and bandwidth(s) for UE to transmit uplink signals/channels during initial access and idle mode:

• FFS: Relation to the DL frequency location(s) and bandwidth(s) in TDD
• FFS: Relation to frequency location of 6G synchronization signals

For discussions on frequency location and bandwidth for UEs during initial access and idle mode, "frequency location" is defined as the starting position of the bandwidth.

Study for idle mode:

• Whether and how to define a common resource block grid in single-carrier operation

For 6G PDCCH study, consider at least the following aspects:

• Control-channel blocking
• Coverage
• UE energy consumption
• UE complexity
• Coexistence of different device types
• Reliability of PDCCH transmission
• NW complexity and scheduling
• Resource efficiency and overhead
• Latency
• MRSS

6G PDCCH study will consider at least the following concepts:

• CORESET
• CCE
• REG as the minimum resource unit
• REG bundle
• CCE to REG mapping
• Search Space
• PDCCH candidate and CCE aggregation levels
• Blind decoding
• DMRS for PDCCH
• Hash function FFS the details of the concepts above FFS the relation among CCE, REG, REG bundle, and PDCCH candidates

• REG consists of multiple REs.
• CCE consists of a set of REGs.
• PDCCH candidate corresponds to one or multiple CCE(s).
• REG bundle consists of a set of REGs.

Hash function to be defined for 6GR PDCCH.

• Hash function can be used to determine the CCE index of a 6GR PDCCH candidate associated with a SS set.
• FFS hash function design for 6GR PDCCH.

Study the necessity, feasibility, and ways of dynamic sharing and/or semi-static assignment of time-frequency resources of 5G and 6G PDCCH transmission for MRSS, ensuring 6GR performance.

• The above is considered from the NW perspective in a way transparent to the UE.

• Common Search Space (CSS) set and UE-Specific Search Space (USS) set to be defined for 6GR PDCCH.
• A SS set is associated with at least one CORESET

Conclusion: Downlink transmission scheme(s) for downlink control channels (10.5.2.1)

NR and 6GR CORESETs are RAT-specific and configured independently. A 6GR UE operating in 6G network is only configured with 6GR CORESET(s).

• Study CRC scrambling, e.g., by an RNTI, for 6GR PDCCH.
• Study PDCCH payload bit-level scrambling before modulation for 6GR PDCCH.

Study details of frequency-domain resource allocation for both contiguous and non-contiguous frequency-domain resource allocation for 6GR CORESET.

Study CCE aggregation mechanism for 6GR PDCCH:

• Consider ALs 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 as baseline
• Study the necessity, feasibility, and use-cases for supporting of higher and other ALs, e.g., 32.
• It is necessary to consider at least the number of REGs within one CCE, and the number of REs within one REG.
• Study the necessity and use-cases of PDCCH repetition for 6GR PDCCH, considering at least the following:
  • Intra-slot repetitions
  • Inter-slot repetitions
• Study the duration of CORESET in OFDM symbols
  • Consider 1, 2, 3 symbols as baseline
  • Study the necessity, feasibility and use-cases for supporting the CORESET durations longer than 3.
• Study the trade-offs/relation among PDCCH repetition, CORESET duration, and the usage of Aggregation Levels.

At least QPSK modulation is used for 6GR PDCCH.

• FFS necessity and feasibility of additional modulation(s) other than QPSK to be used for 6GR PDCCH

Study both non-interleaved and interleaved CCE-to-REG mapping for 6GR PDCCH.

REG bundle consists of a set of REGs.

• REG consists of multiple REs.
• REG occupies one OFDM symbol in the time domain.
• FFS for the REG allocation in frequency domain.
• CCE consists of a set of REGs.
• FFS how to map a set of REGs to the CCE including the number of REGs per CCE.
• FFS REG indexing
• PDCCH candidate corresponds to one or multiple CCE(s).
• The exact number of CCEs used for a single PDCCH candidate equals the Aggregation Level (AL) at least for PDCCH without repetition.

Working Assumption from RAN1#124 is not necessarily to be confirmed.

• 6GR Control Resource Set (CORESET) to be defined for 6GR PDCCH
• CORESET defines at least duration in time and frequency resources used for PDCCH
• 6GR Search Space (SS) set to be defined for 6GR PDCCH.
• A 6GR search space set defines at least a set of PDCCH candidates for a UE to monitor

For 6GR PDCCH DMRS, study at least:

• How to define DMRS resource mapping.
• How to define DMRS sequence generation and initialization.

Support at least slot-level PDCCH monitoring with minimum periodicity of 1 slot for 6GR.

• The details of the slot-level PDCCH monitoring are FFS
• Study whether and how to support PDCCH monitoring other than slot-level

For the study of 6GR PDCCH transmit diversity consider at least the following:

• Single-port DMRS-based PDCCH transmission as a baseline
• The necessity and feasibility of the UE non-transparent transmission scheme compared to the transparent
• Precoder granularity, e.g., REG bundle.

Study the PT-RS for PDSCH including at least the following aspects

• The necessity of PT-RS in different bands

Study PDSCH and RS for PDSCH based on the following SLS EVM assumptions

• Note: Additional EVM assumptions for AI/ML based DMRS overhead reduction can be further discussed.
• Note: EVM assumption for HST scenarios will be treated separately

Study PDSCH and RS for PDSCH based on the following LLS EVM assumptions Note: Additional EVM assumptions for AI/ML based DMRS overhead reduction can be further discussed.

Study the following options regarding the spec impact on the maximum number of orthogonal DMRS ports for PDSCH

• Option 1: Up to 24 orthogonal DMRS ports
• Option 2: Up to 32 orthogonal DMRS ports
• Option 3: Up to 48 orthogonal DMRS ports
• Option 4: Up to 64 orthogonal DMRS ports
• Option 5: Up to 96 orthogonal DMRS ports Study Non-orthogonal DMRS on top of the options above to achieve the target number of MIMO layers (from network side) Note: To provide link/system level simulation results for this study

The phase noise model defined in TR38.803 is used for further evaluation unless further update from RAN4.

• Send an LS to RAN4 to check if RAN4 has plan to update it and when it will be updated

Study codeword-to-layer mapping for PDSCH:

• Consider the following aspects:
  • The number of codewords for each rank
  • The maximum number of codewords
  • The maximum rank per codeword
  • The modulation order per layer(s)
  • Including identifying and evaluating important aspects affecting performance and complexity that are impacted by codeword-to-layer mapping
• NR spatial first, frequency second, time third mapping as baseline for evaluation
• NR codeword-to-layer mapping as baseline for evaluation
• Further study whether/how to map one or more transport block(s) to time/frequency resources and its impact on codeword-to-layer mapping
• Further study aspects related to modulation order and code rate and its impact on codeword-to-layer mapping

Study PDSCH and RS for PDSCH based on the following LLS EVM assumptions.

Note: Additional EVM assumptions for AI/ML based DMRS overhead reduction can be further discussed.

For LLS EVM for non-HST scenario: Revise the RAN1#124 agreement as follows.

Study PDSCH and RS for PDSCH based on the following SLS EVM assumptions

Note: Additional EVM assumptions for AI/ML based DMRS overhead reduction can be further discussed. Note: EVM assumption for HST scenarios will be treated separately.

For SLS EVM for non-HST scenario: Revise the RAN1#124 agreement as follows.

For evaluation of DMRS for PDSCH, the following aspects are considered for further study:

• Candidates for FD-OCC length: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, x
• Candidates for TD-OCC length: 1 (i.e., single-symbol DMRS), 2, 4, x
• Candidate for number of CDM groups: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, x
• CDM group structure, e.g., comb-based, block-based, etc.

For low overhead DMRS with AI/ML receiver for PDSCH reception, link level simulation is used for further study.

• The performance comparison is based on the following metrics:
  • Eventual KPI: BLER/SE/throughput
  • Complexity KPI: FLOPs, the number of parameters

Study the sequence of DMRS for PDSCH considering at least the following aspects:

• PAPR
• Inter-sequence interference
• Scrambling ID indication

Final LS R1-2603453 is endorsed.

Draft LS R1-2603413 is endorsed in principle.

For channel parameter estimation for LLS EVM:

• Practical channel parameter estimation (baseline)
• Companies to report channel parameter estimation, e.g., delay spread, Doppler spread, delay, SNR, etc. (optional)

For TDRA for PDSCH:

• Support a single mapping type, at least for PDSCH within a single slot
• Support flexible starting symbol
  • Study which symbol(s) can be the starting symbol
  • Study number of symbols
  • Granularity is 1 symbol
  • Further study DMRS position(s)
• Study time offset from the scheduling PDCCH, considering UE processing capabilities
• Study whether/how to support a single PDSCH transmission crossing slot boundary
  • Including the maximum PDSCH duration
  • Including whether the single PDSCH transmission can occupy contiguous or non-contiguous symbols
  • Including impact on performance and complexity
  • Including maximum TB size limit
  • Note: If cross-slot boundary PDSCH transmission is supported, a single mapping type is supported also for cross-slot PDSCH transmission
• Study whether/how to support PDSCH repetition
  • Note: Whether/how to schedule multiple PDSCH transmissions using a single DCI is up to DCI content discussion

Study PDSCH and RS for PDSCH based on the following additional SLS EVM assumptions for HST scenario:

Note: Other parameters follow agreements on SLS EVM for non-HST scenario. Note: LLS EVM parameters for HST scenario are separately discussed.

For traffic model for SLS EVM, support:

• NFB FTP model 1/3 with:
  • 500 kB packet size
  • 20%, 50%, and 70% resource utilization
  • FTP 3-extension 1 model can be optionally considered
  • 10 or 30 UEs per cell for applicable models
• FB model can be optionally considered, for technical performance requirements (TPR)
• Other traffic models and packet sizes are not precluded (companies to report)

For CPE configuration, details follow corresponding agreements in Agenda 10.1 and 10.5.2.3.

Study the DMRS assumption for MU-MIMO considering at least the following aspects:

• Network indication or UE assumption of DMRS CDM group/ports/density/pattern/symbol(s) for co-scheduled UE(s)
• Network indication of number of CDM groups without data as in NR
• Network indication to assist the UE's OCC despreading
• Network indication or UE assumption of the DMRS sequence for the co-scheduled UE(s)
• Network indication or UE assumption of the modulation order(s) for the co-scheduled UE(s)
• Network indication or UE assumption of the QCL/TCI information for the co-scheduled UE(s)
• Network indication or UE assumption of PRG allocation for the co-scheduled UE(s)

For FDRA for PDSCH on a single physical carrier:

• Support both bitmap-based ("Type 0") and RIV-based ("Type 1") mapping
• Support dynamic switching between bitmap-based mapping and RIV-based mapping
• Further study, at least, the following aspects:
  • Granularity for bitmap-based and RIV-based mapping, considering support for wider bandwidth (more than 275 PRBs)
  • Whether there are restrictions for 400 MHz CBW in case of two RF chains at the UE
• Note: Decision to study scheduling across multiple physical carriers is subject to agreements in other agenda items

Support PT-RS for PDSCH at least for FR2.

• Study whether PT-RS is necessary for FR1 and around 7GHz
• If PT-RS for FR1/around 7GHz is supported, strive to have a unified design for all bands

If 6GR supports to define uplink control information (UCI) in Layer 1, study how to define the method(s) to convey the UCI over physical channel, at least (but not limited to) the following aspects:

• Option 1: Define a UCI dedicated physical channel, i.e., Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH)
• Option 2: UCI carried on PUSCH
• Option 3: Other method(s) Note: Whether UCI is carried in L1 or L2 to be discussed in agenda item 10.5.3.1 and 10.5.4.3

Support following table as the basic assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH transmission scheme. Note: Additional EVM assumptions for AI/ML based evaluation can be further discussed.

Note: EVM assumption for HST scenarios will be treated separately

In addition to the agreement on the basic assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH transmission scheme in RAN1#124, for SLS assumption for PUSCH DMRS, support the followings:

• Deployment: other deployment is not precluded, and can be reported by company.
• Link adaptation & HARQ retransmission are modelled
• Number of HARQ retransmissions is reported by company
• Note: this is also applicable to assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH transmission scheme.
• DMRS specific assumptions: reuse the assumption of LLS for evaluation of PUSCH and DMRS
• Reported by company, if additionally needed
• This is also applicable with HST scenario.

For the assumption of LLS for evaluation of AI based receiver for PUSCH DMRS overhead reduction:

• Support to reuse the assumption of LLS for evaluation of PUSCH and DMRS in RAN1#124b.
• In addition, in RAN1#125, the following template is used as starting point for collecting related parameter values:

Further discuss on detail of values.

Support codebook based PUSCH transmission for 6GR, and study at least the following aspects:

• UL precoder is selected from an UL codebook, based on UL CSI acquisition in NW to schedule UE
• As baseline, SRS is used for UL CSI acquisition
• FFS: Which RS/method can be used to obtain UL CSI, other than SRS
• UL codebook design, at least considering:
  • Fixed codebook which is pre-defined in specification
  • Configurable codebook which can be configured by NW
  • Hybrid approach of fixed and configurable codebook
  • performance, resolution, overhead, codebook size comparing to 5G NR
  • Diverse UE coherency capabilities
  • Diverse UE Tx antenna structures

For PUSCH transmission scheme and PUSCH DMRS in HST scenario, in addition to the agreement on the basic assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH transmission scheme in RAN1#124, support the followings:

For 6GR PUSCH transmission:

• The supported number of UE antenna ports are {1, 2, 3, 4, 8}
• FFS: Other number of UE antenna ports
• The maximum number of SU-MIMO layers is assumed same as the given number of UE antenna ports for CP-OFDM
• Separate discussion on the number of antenna ports of UE device(s)

For frequency domain resource allocation for a PUSCH:

• Support physically contiguous allocation in a single physical carrier
• Study frequency domain resource allocation granularity/unit(s)
• FFS physically non-contiguous allocation in a single physical carrier
• Note: Scheduling across multiple physical carriers is subject to agreements in other agenda items
• Note: Frequency hopping, interleaving, UL muting, potential impact of SBFD are separately discussed

Support the following table as the assumption of LLS for evaluation of PUSCH and DMRS:

In addition to the agreement on the basic assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH transmission scheme in RAN1#124, for traffic model, support the followings:

• FTP Model 1/3, 0.5 Mbyte packet size
• FTP 3-extension 1 (optional)
• Resource Utilization (RU): 20%, 50%, 70%
• Full buffer traffic model (optional, for 6G TPR evaluation)
• 10 or 30 UEs per cell, other values are not precluded (companies to report)
• Other traffic models and packet sizes are not precluded (companies to report)

Note: This is also applicable to assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH DMRS.

For time domain resource allocation for a PUSCH within a slot, consider at least the following aspects:

• Support flexible starting symbol
• Study which symbol(s) can be the starting symbol
• Study number of symbols
• Granularity is 1 symbol
• Study time offset from the scheduling PDCCH, considering UE processing capabilities.

Note: Time domain DMRS position is separately discussed.

In addition to the agreement on the basic assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH transmission scheme in RAN1#124, for CPE antenna configuration, support the followings:

• Details follow corresponding agreements in Agenda 10.1.
• Other antenna location/configuration are not precluded and can be considered (reported by company if considered), e.g.,
  • For Alt 1 in agreement of AI 10.1, Outdoor CPEs use horizontally directive antenna elements.
  • For Alt 1 and Alt 2 in agreement of AI 10.1, Single panel indoor and outdoor CPEs with horizontally directive antenna elements are oriented to point at the serving base station. Indoor CPEs whose antenna elements are omnidirectional in the horizontal plane are not constrained to be oriented to point at the serving base station.
• Note: This is also applicable for assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH DMRS.

In addition to the agreement on the basic assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH transmission scheme in RAN1#124, for CPE configuration, support the followings:

• Indoor and outdoor CPE pre-selection criterion or mechanism:
  • Approach 0. Random selection between indoor/outdoor CPE, as baseline
  • (optional) Approach 1. A pre-selection criterion is applied to ensure that the CPE/FWA devices experience sufficiently good link quality and the fraction of the cell over which service is sufficiently good is reported.
  • (optional) Approach 2. The approach first assumes CPEs are indoors. Then according to the criteria, a number of worst performing households are either rejected or reassigned as outdoor CPEs.
  • In cases where CPEs are 100% indoor or outdoor, prequalification can be used.
  • The criteria can be e.g. RSRP, minimum UL or DL data rate, etc.
  • Other approaches are not precluded
• Note 1: This is only for Profile 1 (mixed deployment of indoor and outdoor CPE).
• Note 2: This is also applicable for assumption of SLS for evaluation of PUSCH DMRS.

Regarding link-level evaluation of 6GR beam management, in RAN1#124b, to use the following template as starting point for collecting related parameters.

Regarding system-level evaluation of 6GR beam management, in RAN1#124b,, to use the following template as starting point for collecting related parameters.

Study of UE-initiated/event-driven beam management (UEIBM) mechanisms for 6GR, covering at least the following aspects:

• Event definition and the corresponding target use case.
• UL transmission, UE's behavior, and procedure for a triggered event, including the necessity and design of the associated network's response. Note 1: Both AI/ML and non-AI/ML related mechanism(s) for the above can be further studied. Note 2: UE-initiated/event-driven CSI reporting is not discussed in this agenda.

Study TCI/QCL-related aspects, e.g., definition of QCL/TCI-state, QCL property/chain On beam management for DL and UL of 6GR, at least the following aspects should be studied:

• Beam measurement(prediction)/report/indication within a same TRP, i.e., single-TRP, in a cell/carrier;
• Beam measurement(prediction)/report/indication among different TRPs, i.e., multi-TRP, in a cell/carrier;
• Beam measurement(prediction)/report/indication among different cells/carrier, i.e., inter-cell/carrier Note: Both AI/ML and non-AI/ML related mechanism(s) for the above can be further studied. Note-1: Which multi-TRP transmission scheme for study will be discussed under other agenda.

Support the following table as the assumption of LLS for evaluation of 6GR beam management (updated):

Support the following table as the assumption of SLS for evaluation of 6GR beam management (updated):

For the study on spatial/temporal/frequency domain beam measurement/prediction (relevant to AI/ML or non-AI/advanced schemes), the following is considered:

• Implementation complexity/overhead:
  • Model/computation complexity: FLOPs
  • Model size, if AI/ML is involved: Number of parameters
  • Note: The above complexity/overhead with the increase of TRP number should be clarified.
• Benchmark:
  • Benchmark-1: based on the measurement of Set-A
  • Benchmark-2: only based on the measurement of Set-B (non-prediction)
  • Other benchmarks are not precluded and up to companies to report
• Evaluation assumptions with the following clarifications:
  • Spatial/Temporal domain DL Tx beam prediction and management, scenarios of both single-TRP and multi-TRP (intra/inter-cell) can be considered.
  • For multi-TRP (intra/inter-cell), companies report whether the predicted beam(s) (Set-A) are from the same set of cells/TRPs corresponding to the measured beam(s) (Set-B) or not.
  • Note (Sample and Hold): Regarding temporal domain prediction, reuse the result of the latest measurement.
  • Regarding frequency domain beam measurement/prediction (cross-frequency), the scenario of co-located and non-colocated, intra-frequency-range (inter-/intra-band) and inter-frequency-range can be considered.
  • Note: the above assumptions can also apply for non-AI schemes, i.e., without training/inference/data collection, when applicable.