ZTE · 9.1.4.2

ZTE presents a technical case against MI-Option 2 (dataset transfer), citing huge resource overhead, large latency, and potential performance degradation due to backbone misalignment. They prefer MI-Option 4 (standardization of reference UE-part model) and MI-Option 3 (model transfer), specifically prioritizing Type B model identification and model transfer Case z4 (network-trained parameters for known structure) for two-sided models. ZTE proposes that the dataset ID serves as the model ID in MI-Option 2 and that dataset transfer mechanisms be handled by higher layer signaling under RAN2 scope. They argue that specification impacts for reference model structures should be studied within the CSI compression agenda item to avoid duplication. Finally, they propose studying the timeline for model readiness and the feasibility of partial parameter transfer for Case z4.

ZTE strongly advocates AGAINST MI-Option 2 (dataset transfer) due to feasibility concerns including huge resource overhead (1-10GB datasets vs 7-100MB models), large latency, and high UE power consumption. They strongly support MI-Option 3 (model transfer) and MI-Option 4 (standardized reference models) as more practical alternatives. ZTE pushes FOR prioritizing model transfer case z4 with known model structures and Type B model identification over Type A, while advocating for two-sided models over UE-side models for Rel-19 normative work.