Kyocera · 9.1.1

Kyocera proposes that for UE-side AI/ML models, Set A be virtually configured for reference mapping while Set B is explicitly configured for measurements, requiring a new IE to associate beams with these sets. They require the introduction of an 'associated ID' within the CSI framework (nzp-CSI-RS-ResourceSet/csi-SSB-ResourceSet) to ensure consistency of network-side additional conditions, arguing that this ID should be limited to small geographical areas or single cells to avoid revealing proprietary vendor information. For inference reporting, they support 4-bit probability precision and propose studying confidence intervals defined as statistical ranges for predicted RSRP. Regarding performance monitoring, Kyocera supports Type 1 Option 2 metrics including beam prediction accuracy and RSRP differences, but deprioritizes probability-based metrics (Alt 4) due to the lack of ground truth. They propose a 'BeamCorrespondence' IE to link monitoring resources to beam indices and argue that Type 2 monitoring and NW-side monitoring should be left to vendor implementation without specification impact.

Kyocera advocates for a comprehensive AI/ML beam management framework that leverages existing CSI infrastructure while introducing minimal new specifications. They strongly support virtual Set A configuration for UE-side models, flexible Set B definition through new IEs, and practical approaches like 4-bit probability quantization. They push against overly complex reporting mechanisms and favor implementation-based solutions for performance monitoring, particularly opposing probability-only performance metrics (Alt 4) that lack ground truth validation.