Ericsson · 9.1.2

Ericsson argues inapplicability of Rel-18 carrier phase positioning for AI/ML inputs, proposing to down-prioritize CIR model inputs due to high signaling overhead and difficulty aligning phase measurements between training and inference. They present a technical case against path-based measurements, demonstrating that sample-based measurements are robust to channel estimation algorithm mismatches and require lower receiver complexity. Ericsson requires the use of total-power PDP inputs summed over all receive antenna ports to balance accuracy and signaling size. They propose using an associated ID to verify consistency of network-side additional conditions between training and inference phases, rather than explicit signaling of all parameters. For model monitoring, they support self-monitoring by the model inference entity as a baseline, utilizing label-free methods or opportunistic LoS links for label-based monitoring.

Ericsson advocates FOR: (1) Supporting both sample-based and path-based measurements as compromise solution to enable progress, (2) Reusing existing legacy IEs and frameworks wherever possible to minimize specification impact, (3) LMF-centric functionality management with distributed model-level monitoring, (4) Label-free monitoring methods for practical deployment. Ericsson pushes AGAINST: (1) Supporting CIR/phase information due to transmitter/receiver implementation complexity, (2) Overly complex new signaling when legacy mechanisms suffice, (3) UE-autonomous functionality management without network oversight.

Ericsson advocates FOR: (1) supporting both sample-based and path-based measurements as a compromise solution to avoid blocking progress, (2) reusing existing legacy IEs and signaling frameworks wherever possible to minimize specification impact, (3) label-free monitoring methods for self-contained model performance assessment, and (4) explicit provision of assistance data from LMF to UE for consistency between training and inference. They are pushing AGAINST: (1) supporting CIR/phase information for model input due to implementation complexity and transmitter/receiver phase variations, (2) mandatory reporting of LOS/NLOS indicators when timing information is AI/ML generated, and (3) overly complex new signaling mechanisms when legacy procedures can be reused.

Ericsson as document moderator presents a balanced compromise approach, advocating FOR: (1) supporting both sample-based and path-based measurements to avoid blocking progress despite company divisions, (2) reusing existing signaling frameworks and IEs where possible to minimize specification impact, (3) label-free monitoring methods for implementation flexibility, and (4) explicit provision of assistance data rather than implicit associated IDs. They push AGAINST: (1) supporting CIR/phase information due to lack of consensus, (2) independent LOS/NLOS reporting without associated measurements, and (3) overly restrictive definitions that limit implementation freedom.

Ericsson advocates FOR sample-based measurements over path-based measurements, supporting flexible parameter configurations (Nt, Nt', k) while maintaining backward compatibility with legacy positioning methods. They push FOR reusing existing IEs and frameworks to minimize specification impact, and advocate AGAINST supporting CIR measurements due to complexity concerns. Ericsson supports UE-side monitoring (Option A) over LMF-side monitoring for Case 1, emphasizing implementation flexibility while ensuring consistency between training and inference phases.

Ericsson advocates FOR sample-based measurements as the primary approach for AI/ML positioning input (supporting majority view over compromise approaches), FOR reusing existing legacy signaling frameworks and IEs where possible to minimize specification impact, and FOR label-free monitoring methods with UE-side metric calculation. They push AGAINST supporting CIR/phase information for model input due to implementation complexity, AGAINST mandatory reporting of both sample-based and path-based measurements (preferring sample-based only), and AGAINST overly complex new signaling when legacy mechanisms can be enhanced.

Ericsson advocates FOR sample-based measurements as an enhancement to legacy path-based reporting, supporting both alternatives to avoid blocking progress while preferring sample-based for better AI/ML positioning performance. They push AGAINST requiring phase information (CIR) for model input due to implementation complexity and transmitter/receiver circuit variations, and oppose mandatory UTC time reporting. Ericsson supports functionality-level management by LMF while allowing UE-side model monitoring with minimal specification impact.

Ericsson strongly advocates for sample-based measurements over legacy path-based measurements, demonstrating superior performance with lower complexity and signaling overhead. They firmly oppose including phase information as model input due to complexity, deployment costs, and minimal accuracy gains. Ericsson pushes for self-contained model monitoring without external label assistance and emphasizes total-power PDP over multi-port complex measurements to reduce signaling overhead while maintaining positioning accuracy.