Evaluation of DL subchannelization IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE C802.16m-09/0347 Date Submitted: Source: Taeyoung Kim, Hyunkyu Yu, Jaeweon Cho, Voice: Hokyu Choi, Heewon Kang Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 416 Maetan-3, Suwon, , Korea Venue: IEEE m Session#59, San Diego, US IEEE m-08/053r1, “Call for Comments and Contributions on Project m Amendment Working Document”. Target topic: “DL Physical Structure” Base Contribution: None Purpose: Discussion and Approval Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at th e IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and. Further information is located at and.

Motivation In the current IEEE m Amendment Working Document (IEEE80216m-08/050), –The detail permutation rules (e.g. subband partitioning, miniband permutation, secondary permutation, subcarrier permutation) are NOT determined yet. In the document C80216m-08_1508 or the latest version, there are several permutation rules proposed from many companies This contribution shows the several kinds of evaluation results to compare the permutation rules proposed from many companies 2/14

Performance Metric Emulation for estimating freq. diversity gain effect –Compare the number of subcarriers located in the different frequency band according to the different number of DRUs Link level simulation –Single cell environment –To see the frequency diversity gain Hitting ratio comparison –To verify the interference due to the tone-pair hits from different cells/sectors 3/14

Emulation for freq. diversity Frequency diversity gain is related with how many subcarriers having different channel statistics exist within data burst Performance Metric –Number of subcarriers located in the different frequency band Evaluation results 4/14

Link level simulation (1) Simulation Conditions –Working Scenarios –Single-cell Environment –MIMO configuration 2x2 SFBC Uncorrelated MIMO (4 lambda wavelength) –Channel: PedA, PedB –Channel estimator: 2D MMSE CH. Est. Freq. Partition# of subbands# of minibands# of PRUs in FP i Scenario #1 FP FP1 ~ FP Scenario #2 FP FP1 ~ FP3 088 Scenario #3 FP FP1 ~ FP3 000

Link level simulation (2) Evaluation Results –FER vs. SNR PedA, 3km/h # of LRUs = 1 –Cell_ID = 0 Working scenario #1 Working scenario #2 Working scenario #3

Link level simulation (3) Evaluation Results –FER vs. SNR PedB, 3km/h # of LRUs = 1 –Cell_ID = 0 Working scenario #1 Working scenario #2 Working scenario #3

Conclusion – LLS results For LGE’s proposal, the frequency diversity order can be different according to different Cell_ID, so the LLS performance can be different. In terms of frequency diversity gain from LLS results, proposal from Intel and Samsung have the best performance compared to LGE’s proposal.

Hitting Ratio Comparison (1) Evaluate the number of hits among different Cell_IDs for subcarrier permutation Evaluation methodology –To choose (512, 2)= cell pairs –For each cell pair, there are N DRU *N DRU sub-channel pairs, Number of hits : the number of same tone-pairs for each LRU pair Average Hit Number : Hit statistic over (130816*N DRU *N DRU )

Hitting Ratio Comparison (2) Results –k : number of tone-pairs hit within one LRU # of DRUs Avg. hitting No. Hitting ratio (k: 32~48) Hitting ratio (k: 24~48) Hitting ratio (k: 0~8) Hitting ratio (k: 0~12) 4 Samsung124.86%28.92%38.65%71.08% Intel126.21%31.26%43.69%68.74% LGE %3.14%14.25%66.91% 8 Samsung60.59%3.06%73.77%90.82% Intel61.54% 60.89%92.20% LGE %0.19%90.64%98.71% 12 Samsung40.18%0.63%84.67%93.96% Intel40.7%1.05%80.78%90.81% LGE %0.05%98.06%99.6% 24 Samsung20.02%0.09%97.13%99.11% Intel20.19% 94.16%98.59% LGE %0.01%99.78%99.96%

Conclusion – Hitting Ratio For average hit number, the proposal from Intel, Samsung and LGE have almost same number. For Intel’s proposal, the probability to collide all tone- pairs is higher than LGE and Samsung LGE’s subcarrier permutations have the best performance compared to Intel and Samsung in terms of Hitting Ratio

Recommendation Discuss and adopt the formulas proposed by Samsung in IEEE C802.16m-08/1508r1