1. Field
Certain embodiments of the present invention provide a method of reordering and pairing the set of Control Channel Elements (CCEs) coming out of the interleaver for the Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) in such a way that power balancing provides almost equal impact on all Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) symbols reserved for the control channel, while also taking the suggestions for the power balancing into account.
2. Description of the Related Art
Currently, the issues addressed by various embodiments of the present invention have not been addressed in 3GPP. Thus, there does not appear to be any directly related art.
One embodiment of the present invention is an apparatus. The apparatus includes a processor configured to sort a set of elements coming from an interleaver for a channel in a way that gives the minimum penalty in terms of power balancing. The processor is configured to determine which elements should be combined into pairs. The processor is configured to combine the pairs as determined.
Another embodiment of the present invention is a method. The method includes receiving a set of elements coming out of an interleaver for a channel. The method also includes sorting the elements coming from the interleaver in a way that gives the minimum penalty in terms of power balancing. The method further includes determining which elements should be combined into pairs. The method additionally includes combining the pairs as determined.
A further embodiment of the present invention is a computer program embodied on a computer readable medium, and configured to cause a hardware device to execute a method. The method includes receiving a set of elements coming out of an interleaver for a channel. The method also includes sorting the elements coming from the interleaver in a way that gives the minimum penalty in terms of power balancing. The method further includes determining which elements should be combined into pairs. The method additionally includes combining the pairs as determined.
Another embodiment of the present invention is an apparatus. The apparatus includes receiving means for receiving a set of elements coming out of an interleaver for a channel. The apparatus also includes sorting means for sorting the elements coming from the interleaver in a way that gives the minimum penalty in terms of power balancing. The apparatus further includes determining means for determining which elements should be combined into pairs. The apparatus additionally includes combining means for combining the pairs as determined.
For proper understanding of the invention, reference should be made to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
As discussed above, certain embodiments of the present invention are related to the concept creation of LTE of 3GPP. More specifically, embodiments can be related to the H-ARQ design for the downlink PHICH.
Yet more particularly, the present invention may relate to the control channel structure in the context of the Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) mode of 3GPP, but would easily be mapped to Time Division Duplex (TDD) mode as well, since the concept of creating control channels is based on the same thinking for both types of operational mode.
Related to the general control channel structure, it is such that there will be a division between control and data, such that these are using time domain multiplexing (meaning that a number of Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbols in each Transmission Time Interval (TTI) will carry the control channels for a number of the User Equipment (UE) (Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH), and a set of OFDM symbols will carry the shared channel for a number of users (Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)).
The general understanding if that the physical resources for the control part will be divided into a set of elements, which are all based on mini-Control Channel Elements (mini-CCEs), which are the smallest building block for the control channel. Each mini-CCE is constructed of four neighboring resource elements (RE—also known as subcarrier symbols, which each again will potentially carry two bits that are Quaternary Phase Shift Key (QPSK) modulated). These channels for the control part can be:
An example structure of the creation and allocation of the mini-CCEs is shown in
A second part that may be useful to understand the invention here is the concept of control channel aggregation. Here the principle is that it should be possible to combine (or aggregate) the physical resources from multiple CCEs to provide better coverage (more physical resources for the same PDCCH payload will give better channel coding and thus better coverage). One such example of control channel aggregation is shown in
Additionally, the decoding complexity can be reduced by only allowing certain parts of the CCEs and different parts of the aggregations to be used for actual allocations. One such principle is illustrated in
In order to provide a flexible and potentially optimum handling of the allocated users, one may use power balancing between the allocated users (that is, reducing the transmission power for good condition users, and transfer this power to users in poor conditions).
It may be useful to implement a method of reordering and pairing the set of CCEs coming out of the interleaver for the PDCCH in such a way that power balancing provides almost equal impact on all OFDM symbols reserved for the control channel, while also taking the suggestions for the power balancing into account.
Currently, considering the interleaver structures otherwise suggested for LTE, there may not be a good and fair division/balance between the number of mini-CCEs assigned to the different OFDM symbols for the control channels. To illustrate, some example calculations have been performed:
There are altogether 200 mini-CCEs in the three OFDM symbols (50+75+75) at BW=5 MHz.
PCFICH=[0, 48, 101, 149] (from the 1st OFDM symbol)
PHICH=[5, 72, 141] (from the 1st OFDM symbol)
PDCCH=[1×43 double] [1×75 double] [1×75 double] (=193=75+75+43)
Using 9 mini-CCEs per CCE, there are 21 full CCEs (21*9=189), so there remain 4 unused mini-CCEs.
We have randomized the mini-CCE indexes {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, . . . , 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21} with the Subblock interleaver (length=193) and then allocated them to RBs with time-first mapping shown in
Statistics of the number of mini-CCEs per OFDM symbols S1, S2, S3 is given below.
From this it is seen that some CCEs may not have any mini-CCEs in the first OFDM symbol (#11 ad 13), while others have an over-representation of mini-CCEs in the first OFDM symbol (#8 in this example). This can cause a problem in terms of utilizing the power balancing mechanisms (for instance lowering power for CCE number 11 will not free any power for OFDM symbol number 1). Certain embodiments of the present invention can handle/solve this problem, although there is no conventional solution to the problem.
In certain embodiments, the present invention provides a method of reordering and pairing the set of CCEs coming out of the interleaver for the PDCCH in such a way that power balancing provides almost equal impact on all OFDM symbols reserved for the control channel, while also taking the suggestions for the power balancing into account.
The scheme can base its numbering scheme on the following principles.
First, one can sort the CCEs coming from the interleaver in a way that gives the minimum penalty in terms of power balancing. One such approach for this could be to assign a weight for each CCE that reflects the distance between the amount of mini-CCEs in each OFDM symbol to the expected average amount of mini-CCE in each of these. The algorithm for calculating this could be:
W
—
i=sum((x—i,k−y—i)̂2),
where W_i is the weight for the i'th CCE, x_i,k it the number of mini-CCE for the i'th CCE and k'th OFDM symbol, and y_i is the average number of mini-CCE for each k OFDM symbol. In the example in section 2, y_i will take the following values: {43/21, 75/21, 71/21}. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that other metrics for calculating the weight could of course be envisioned, and that this example algorithm focuses on minimizing the squared error or distance.
When this ordering has been performed, one has the sequence of the CCEs that are required for the lower layer of the aggregation tree, and one can then calculate the entries for the second level of aggregation.
This leads us to a second part of the example algorithm. When determining which CCEs should be combined into pairs, one can look for the mini-CCE that have the worst weights and try to combine these, such that their combined weight gets low. The approach for this could be simple trial and error, but from an implementation point of view this may not be optimal, as the Node B (sometimes referred to as a base station or access point) and the User Equipment (UE) (sometimes referred to as a terminal or mobile station, though there is no requirement that the UE be mobile) might come to different preferred pairs and end up not having a common agreement on which CCEs are paired on the second aggregation level.
When it is stated that the weight “gets low” the measure of “low” can be “low” relative to the other weights under consideration. For example, something with a low weight would not provide a significant contribution.
As an alternative, the following algorithm may be used.
First, one can sort the CCEs in ascending order using the number of mini-CCE in the first OFDM symbol. If some CCE have the same number of mini-CCE, they can be sorted in ascending order according to the number of mini-CCE in the second OFDM symbol, and so on.
Following this, the CCEs can be paired from the outer elements of this sorted set, meaning that one can combine the CCEs with the fewest and most mini-CCE in the first OFDM symbol for the first aggregated CCE (outside the region for the single CCE, which were found in the first step). Using this approach, one can provide better power balancing for the aggregated CCEs.
A potential third step of the algorithm could be to repeat the exercise for aggregation levels 4 and 8, but the main gain should be may be able to be achieved simply from the two lower aggregation levels, without repeating the algorithm at the aggregation levels 4 and 8.
The sorting 420 the CCEs can include assigning 430 a weight for each CCE that reflects the distance between the amount of mini-CCEs in each OFDM symbol to the expected average amount of mini-CCE in each of the CCEs. The sorting 420 the CCEs can include using 440 the algorithm
W
—
i=sum((x—i,k−y—i)̂2),
where W_i is the weight for the i'th CCE, x_i,k it the number of mini-CCE for the i'th CCE and k'th OFDM symbol, and y_i is the average number of mini-CCE for each k OFDM symbol.
The determining 450 which CCEs should be combined into pairs can include looking 465 for the mini-CCE that have the worst weights and trying 475 to combine these, such that their combined weight gets low.
The determining 450 which CCEs should be combined into pairs can include a process 478 of trial and error.
The determining 450 which CCEs should be combined into pairs can include sorting 460 the CCEs in ascending order using the number of mini-CCE in the first OFDM symbol, wherein if some CCE have the same number of mini-CCE, they are sorted in ascending order according to the number of mini-CCE in the second OFDM symbol, and so on, and pairing 470 the CCEs from the outer elements of this sorted set.
The method can further including repeating 480 an aggregation accomplished by the sorting and the determining, for aggregation levels four and eight.
The method can be implemented using, for example, a computer program embodied on a computer readable medium, such as a computer-readable storage medium, and configured to cause a hardware device to execute the method for reordering and pairing the set of control channel elements (CCEs) coming out of an interleaver for a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) when the computer program is run on the hardware device.
As illustrated in
The processor 530 can be configured to sort the CCEs by assigning a weight for each CCE that reflects the distance between the amount of mini-CCEs in each OFDM symbol to the expected average amount of mini-CCE in each of the CCEs.
The processor 530 can be configured to sort the CCEs using the algorithm
W
—
i=sum((x—i,k−y—i)̂2),
where W_i is the weight for the i'th CCE, x_i,k it the number of mini-CCE for the i'th CCE and k'th OFDM symbol, and y_i is the average number of mini-CCE for each k OFDM symbol.
The processor 530 can be configured to determine which CCEs should be combined into pairs by looking for the mini-CCE that have the worst weights and by trying to combine these, such that their combined weight gets low.
The processor 530 can be configured to determine which CCEs should be combined into pairs by a process of trial and error.
The processor 530 can be configured to determine which CCEs should be combined into pairs by sorting the CCEs in ascending order using the number of mini-CCE in the first OFDM symbol, wherein if some CCE have the same number of mini-CCE, they are sorted in ascending order according to the number of mini-CCE in the second OFDM symbol, and so on, and by pairing the CCEs from the outer elements of this sorted set.
The processor 530 can be further configured to repeat an aggregation accomplished by sorting and determination for aggregation levels four and eight.
The processor 530 can be, for example, a general purpose computer or Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC).
A memory 540 (which may be useful for storing data such as CCEs and computer programs) and a transmitter 550 (which may be useful for externally communicating data) can also be included in the apparatus 500. Of course, it is not required that the memory 540, processor 530, transmitter 550, and receiver 520 be separate physical elements, and consequently all of these components may be implemented as a single chip. The interleaver 510 may be on the same chip, or may be on a separate chip or device.
One having ordinary skill in the art will readily understand that the invention as discussed above may be practiced with steps in a different order, and/or with hardware elements in configurations which are different than those which are disclosed. Therefore, although the invention has been described based upon these preferred embodiments, it would be apparent to those of skill in the art that certain modifications, variations, and alternative constructions would be apparent, while remaining within the spirit and scope of the invention.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/IB09/00187 | 2/3/2009 | WO | 00 | 12/2/2010 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61006864 | Feb 2008 | US |