Sidelink Sensing Window Adaptation for Latency Constraints
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing sidelink transmission techniques face challenges in fulfilling varying transmission requirements, particularly due to fixed sensing window sizes that may not accommodate stringent latency requirements, leading to potential delays in packet transmission.
Innovation Solution
A method that dynamically adjusts the duration of the sensing window based on transmission requirements such as packet delay budget and priority, allowing for more flexible resource selection and ensuring data is transmitted within the required latency constraints.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If a fixed sensing window size is used for resource selection, then the resource selection process is simple and standardized, but it cannot accommodate varying transmission requirements and may violate latency constraints
Solution Approach 1:
The sensing window size is made dynamic rather than fixed. The transmitting UE adjusts the sensing window duration based on the packet delay budget and other transmission requirements. This allows the system to adapt to different service types (e.g., low-latency V2X vs. standard traffic) while maintaining a standardized base protocol, thus improving adaptability without proportionally increasing complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the parameter of sensing window duration based on transmission requirements. Specifically, the sensing window size is adjusted according to the packet delay budget (PDB) and priority of the data to be transmitted. This parameter adaptation enables the system to meet diverse latency requirements while using a standardized resource selection mechanism, resolving the contradiction between adaptability and complexity.
2Manufacturing precision
If the sensing window duration is extended to ensure sufficient resource selection time, then resource selection accuracy is improved, but transmission latency increases violating delay budgets
Solution Approach 1:
The sensing window duration is dynamically adjusted based on the packet delay budget and transmission priority. For high-latency-tolerant traffic, a longer sensing window provides accurate resource selection. For low-latency traffic, the sensing window is shortened to meet delay constraints, accepting potentially reduced selection accuracy. This dynamic adjustment resolves the contradiction by making the window length adaptive rather than fixed.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the sensing window parameter according to the specific transmission requirements. When the packet delay budget is tight, the sensing window duration is reduced to ensure timely transmission. When the delay budget is loose, the window is extended for better resource selection accuracy. This parameter adaptation directly addresses the trade-off between selection accuracy and transmission latency.
3Speed
If resource selection is performed quickly to meet latency requirements, then transmission timeliness is improved, but resource selection accuracy may be compromised
Solution Approach 1:
The system dynamically adjusts the sensing window duration to match the available time for resource selection. When latency requirements demand fast selection, the sensing window is shortened, accepting reduced accuracy. When time permits, the window is extended for more accurate selection. This dynamic timing adjustment resolves the contradiction between speed and accuracy in resource selection.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the sensing window parameter based on the packet delay budget and transmission priority. For urgent transmissions with tight deadlines, the sensing window is minimized to enable rapid resource selection, even at the cost of some accuracy. For non-urgent traffic, the window is maximized for optimal selection accuracy. This parameter adaptation directly balances speed and accuracy requirements.
4Loss of time
If the sensing window is shortened for low-latency transmissions, then transmission timeliness is improved, but channel sensing coverage is reduced
Solution Approach 1:
The sensing window duration is dynamically adjusted based on the transmission latency requirements. For low-latency V2X transmissions, the sensing window is shortened to enable timely resource selection and transmission, accepting reduced sensing coverage. For standard traffic, the full sensing window is used for comprehensive channel assessment. This dynamic adjustment resolves the contradiction between transmission timeliness and sensing coverage.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the sensing window parameter according to the packet delay budget. When the delay budget is tight (e.g., for safety-critical V2X messages), the sensing window duration is reduced to ensure the transmission can complete within the required time, even though this reduces the channel sensing coverage. When the delay budget is generous, the full sensing window is used for optimal coverage. This parameter adaptation directly addresses the trade-off between delay and coverage.
Data Source
AI summary
A technique for performing a transmission on a sidelink, SL, from a transmitting radio device to one or more receiving radio devices is described. As to a method aspect of the technique, a channel of the SL is sensed during a sensing window (420) upon arrival of data for the transmission on the SL, sensing. A duration (422) of the sensing window (420) depends on a transmission requirement (440) associated with the data. Based on a result of the sensing of the channel during the sensing window (420), resources of the channel are selected in a resource selection window (430) for the transmission of the data.