Hi Ron,
Thanks for your email and please find my answers inline as follows.
We can have an online discussion if needed.
Best wishes,
Rui Du
发件人: Ron Porat [mailto:ron.porat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2022年1月21日
2:32
收件人: durui (D) <ray.du@xxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [STDS-802-11-TGBF]
答复: Discussion for 20/1288 (TCIR) and the motion
Hi Rui Du,
Can you compare TCIR to decimated frequency domain with the
same total number of complex samples fed back?
[Rui Du] Attached please find the simulation results for the sensing performance of two different targets (a strong target and a weak target).
In the simulation, the legend ‘Full CSI’ represent TCIR and has the
same number of complex samples with the legend ‘grouping factor equals to 16’(which represent Ng-16 is adopted during the grouping).
Please note that the simulation is just an example and the feedback size of TCIR can be further reduced according to the applications. For example, only 1 tap (the tap with largest magnitude)
is used in the experimental validation for the finger tracking (the results can be find in DCN 0660/1288).
In the simulation the x-axis is SNR and y-axis is the range estimation accuracy (defined as the root mean square error between the estimated range and ground truth). Both results (sensing for
strong target and weak target) indicate that the estimation accuracy based on TICR (legend with ‘full CSI’) is better than the sensing performance based on
same numbers frequency CSI (legend with ‘grouping factor equals to 16’).
Also, why would the Rx work harder to generate TCIR if frequency domain is good enough? FYI already in 11ac (e.g 1131) time domain was discussed as channel feedback but was not accepted.
[Rui Du] This is a very good question and I think we need to discuss how can we define ‘good enough’.
First of all, the simulations have shown that the
sensing performance of TCIR is better than that of grouped CSI. This also can be explained by the CRLB I mentioned in previous email. Experimental validation of TCIR for finger
tracking also has been presented in my previous contributions. So, based on the above mentioned, I personally think that TCIR could achieve better sensing performance than grouped CSI.
Maybe another relevant question here is ‘if frequency domain CSI is good enough already’ ?
To be honest, I am not sure at this stage. In WLAN sensing, the most important information we want is the feature(s) of intended targets in a given environment. In different applications, the
target could be a human being , a pet or even a hand (i.e. hand gesture recognition). So the signal reflected from the target could be very small and also much smaller than LOS signal (this is quite different with communication which mainly relies on the LOS
signal in most cases). So, if we want to sense a unknown target (which may have very low SNR), definitely it is good to adopt a method that has ‘better performance’ rather than a method has ‘good performance’.
Also, many WLAN sensing academic papers has been published based on the CSI estimated at the receiver. To achieve better performance, the researchers always would like to use all the subcarriers
rather than part of the subcarriers.
Thanks for your information. But I think the advantages of TCIR in sensing is different with that in communication. If possible, could you please share
me more information about why it was not accepted in communication ?
Regards,
Ron
From: durui (D) <000017788cb650b9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:35 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: Discussion for 20/1288 (TCIR) and the motion
Hi Rui,
Sure, please take your time and also please find my answers inline as follows.
Best wishes,
Rui Du
发件人: Rui Yang [mailto:Rui.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2022年1月19日
7:44
收件人: durui (D) <ray.du@xxxxxxxxxx>
抄送:
STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: Discussion for 20/1288 (TCIR) and the motion
Dear Rui Du,
Thank you for your long responding email. If you don’t mind, I will try to address your comments/questions in a few days.
Meantime, may I ask if the result with “Full CSI” in Figure 2 corresponds to the full PDP or full CIR without truncation?
[Rui Du] The legend ‘Full CSI’ in the simulation in DCN 1288 represents truncated CIR (TCIR). In the simulation, two targets are located at 30m and 120m, respectively. The feedback size of TCIR
, corresponding to the range of interest
.
Please note that the parameter adopted in the simulation is just an example. According to the 11bf use case document, the maximum range for WLAN sensing is 20 meters
(i.e. store sensing). This means the feedback size of TCIR can be further reduced.
Do you have the results with different truncation length (different CIR feedback size)? Thanks.
[Rui Du] If the TCIR of can be
selected/truncated properly from
the ‘full CIR’, the increase of TCIR feedback size will not affect the sensing performance.
This is mainly because the sidelobe is affected by the number of subcarriers adopted during the transformation from frequency domain CSI to time domain CIR.
Since all the subcarriers are used by the IFFT to generate the ‘full CIR’, the ‘full CIR’ has low sidelobe levels, which will improve the sensing performance(as the simulations indicate). The only problem is that how the ‘full CIR’ can be truncated properly.
To select/truncate the TCIR properly, two criteria shall be met(as we described in the answer for Q3 in last email).
[1] The
index or position of the TCIR shall be selected properly. This can be solved by a good reference tap(e.g. the tap with largest amplitude).
[2] The
size of the TCIR shall be designed properly. As figure 3 in last email shows, the delay difference
Δt between the largest magnitude tap (reference tap) and the following tap represent the propagation delay difference between LOS path and reflected path. So, in different applications, the
size of the TICR is decided by the range of interest
in each application (the calculation method is also provided in my previous contribution).
For example, the range of interest can be set to 5 meters(or a little bit longer) if the information within 5 meters is need. The most important thing is that
the subset corresponding to 5 meters should be selected properly(as the criteria mentioned above), and any information beyond 5 meters is redundant in this case. If you want more information, you could adjust the range of interest according to your application.
In summary,
if the index/position of the TCIR is selected properly and the feedback size is enough to cover the range of interest, the increase of TCIR feedback size will not affect the sensing performance.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
Best regards,
Ray
From: durui (D) <000017788cb650b9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 9:12 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] 答复: Discussion for 20/1288 (TCIR) and the motion
Hi Rui,
Thanks for your comments and please find my answers inline as follows.
Best wishes,
Rui Du
发件人: Rui Yang [mailto:Rui.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2022年1月13日
22:39
收件人: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Discussion for 20/1288 (TCIR) and the motion
Hi Rui Du,
Thank you for reaching out for comments. I apologize for missing your comment collection before.
Regarding the motion (#49) you proposed, I have a few concerns:
1.
It is not clear to me why the frequency domain CSI is not sufficient for sensing? If the concern is about feedback overhead, it would be better to consider additional reduction
based on the existing compressed CSI feedback. To generate the time domain CSI, the sensing receiver may need additional processing power, which would not be desirable.
[Rui Du] I am not very sure if the ‘compressed CSI feedback’ you mentioned is the
compressed beamforming matrix(the precoding matrix) in the main stream of 802.11 or not. But if you mean
compressed beamforming matrix here, the conclusion from TGbf is that
it cannot
be adopted for WLAN sensing directly, and that is the main reason why TGbf want to reuse the CSI matrix as a feedback type. If you have some ideas about how can we use compressed beamforming matrix in WLAN sensing,
I think the group will be very happy to discuss it.
So, in this email, I am only focus on the evaluation of
frequency domain CSI (CSI matrix) and
CIR for sensing, and explain the reasons why we need the CIR.
It is true that the feedback overhead of frequency domain CSI can be reduced with greater grouping factor Ng, but
(T)CIR could provide more advantages than overhead reduction! Here is one example figure (assuming 5 subcarriers) describes the approach of frequency
domain CSI grouping.
Figure 1
[1]
It should be noted that
full subcarriers is better than grouped subcarriers for sensing
theoretically. This can be easily understood if we think about the CRLB (Cramér-Rao Lower Bound), which is the theoretical bound describes the lower bound of MSE in the parameter estimation. The CRLB of delay can be calculated
with the following equation.
For simplicity, we are discussing a single antenna case and the
in the above equation is the SNR level
at the receiving antenna.
is the root mean square bandwidth of the signal used for sensing
and can be calculated with equation 
. It is easy for us to know that the
of full subcarriers is greater than
of grouped subcarriers,
which means the CRLB of full subcarrier is lower than that of the grouped subcarriers. That is the
theoretical
reason why full subcarriers is better than grouped subcarrier in sensing.
[2]
Based on the feedback procedure of frequency domain CSI, the full subcarrier CSI is estimated and obtained at sensing receiver. Then the full subcarrier CSI will be grouped
and fed back to sensing transmitter, which means the sensing transmitter can perform sensing
only with the grouped subcarriers CSI.
In the simulation of DCN 21/1288, the (T)CIR we presented is generated with full subcarrier rather than grouped subcarrier.
The result indicates that the sidelobe generated with full subcarrier is lower than the sidelobe generated with grouped subcarrier. The sidelobe level is very important in sensing
for further detection and parameter estimation. One simulation result from 21/1288
is pasted here as figure 2.
Figure 2
In figure 2, the x-axis is the SNR level and y-axis is the estimation accuracy. The simulation
results show that the estimation accuracy
improves with the SNR increases. More important is that, the results clearly indicate that the
sensing performance decreases with grouping number Ng increases. The
simulation results are consistent with the theoretical analysis we mentioned above.
[3]
It is the
feedback overhead reduction. The feedback overhead of TICR is much smaller than the Ng can be used for now(Ng can be further increase for overhead reduction but the performance will
further reduced, as the analysis listed above).
Based on the advantages described above on, TCIR could achieve
better performance (and lower overhead) if the target is located in the feedback subset of the CIR. The problem that how the
subset of CIR should be selected is explained in the answer for Question 3.
2.
The first sub-bullet of the motion text (“Calculating the CIR (time domain) from frequency domain CSI through IDFT(usually, IFFT)” ) appears an implementation. Is your
intention to mandate this operation at sensing receivers?
[Rui Du] I am
not preventing any other methods or techniques
that can be used to generate CIR. If you have any potential suggestion, we could discuss it.
Based on my understanding,
FFT/IFFT is definitely a good choice based on two reasons.
[1]
FFT/IFFT is widely adopted in the wireless communication already due to its low complexity and some other advantages, it is a good choice that we can
reuse it.
[2]
FFT/IFFT is an linear integral transformation. The adoption of FFT/IFFT usually
won’t add any distortion to the signal and remain the information that is needed for further sensing processing. For example, angle information
can be estimated based on the multiple CIRs (generated from frequency domain CSI by IFFT) from multiple antennas.
3.
In the second sub-bullet of the motion, you have “complex samples corresponding to the range of interest of the entire CIR”. I am not sure how the “entire CIR” is defined
and if it can be defined consistently among different sensing receivers. In addition, from your early contributions, it clears to me that this set of complex numbers (i.e., PDP?) may vary a lot depending on the algorithm at the sensing receiver (e.g., grouping
size and timing relationship among those numbers). So, the question is how you can guarantee the consistency of the measurements from different sensing receivers.
[Rui Du] In
the contribution, the
entire CIR is
defined as the
output of IFFT of the full subcarrier CSI.
And as we stated in the contribution, CIR may
be affected by the synchronization offset. An example is
shown in figure 3, solid line is the amplitude of the 1st CIR and dash line is the amplitude of the 2nd CIR. The amplitude of the 1st CIR and 2nd CIR may be different because the time
synchronization is performed per PPDU. The important thing is that the relative delay Δt between the 1st peak and 2nd peak remain
constant in different CIRs in a sensing device within coherent time. Physically,
Δt represents the
propagation difference between LOS and reflection path (R1+R2) as figure 4 shows. So, with some ideas borrowed from 60GHz, the consistency of the measurements
((T)CIRs) from single device can be achieved by selecting the subset with a reference point (e.g. the tap with largest amplitude). That means, no matter how CIRs is affected by the synchronization offset,
the subset can be chosen around the tap with largest magnitude, and the
consistency can be achieved.
I am a little bit confused with the ‘consistency of measurements from different
receivers’ ? Can you explain
why we need the consistency from different receivers
? So I can do further clarifications.
If you mean ‘how can we fuse the results from different sensing receivers ?’
The answer is that this is another complicated problem which is not related to what I proposed.
But, please bear in mind that, If we have
multiple devices in the sensing, the
consistency of measurements per device can be achieved
by the method we mentioned above. The CIRs measured at
multiple receivers are different due to the different positions of receivers (e.g.
assuming on transmitter and multiple receiver in figure 5), because they are
coming from different
sensing links. The important thing is to make the measurement per device consistent.
Figure 3
Figure
Figure 4
Figure 5
In general, I believe we should not ask sensing receivers, which need to feedback sensing measurement results, to process CSI for a measurement
that we cannot ensure the consistency of its meaning and reference value over time and among different sensing devices.
[Rui Du] Based on my understanding, it is
easy for the measurements to achieve
consistency for each individual device
with some selection rules mentioned above. And what I proposed here is
trying to maximally utilize the signal for sensing with a very
simple
processing.
[Rui Du] Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions.
Best regards,
Ray
From: durui (D) <000017788cb650b9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:44 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBF] Discussion for 20/1288 (TCIR) and the motion
Dear all,
I am sending this email to initiate a discussion on the contribution 21/1288 Truncated Power Delay Profile(Truncated Channel Impulse Response) - follow up and motion 49 I ran
yesterday.
Actually, I already tried to collect as much opinions as possible from the group member before the motion, and I thought I’ve discussed thoroughly with the group members who
feedback their concerns or questions. I was surprised with the motion results.
Hence, I would like to discuss if there is any further concerns. Please feel free to let me know (by 11bf reflector or private email) your thoughts and any suggestions for the
contribution and the motion.
Best wishes,
Rui Du
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBF&A=1