Wireless Network Software Validation With Adaptive Performance Criteria

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Software package updates in wireless network infrastructure can lead to performance degradation due to interoperability issues, compatibility problems, and introduction of bugs, resulting in instability and resource inefficiencies.

Innovation Solution

A method for validating software packages by logging performance indicators before and after installation, comparing these indicators, and adjusting validation criteria based on the impact of reference features to determine whether the package improves or degrades network performance.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If a new software package is deployed to add features or fix bugs, then software functionality is improved, but network performance may deteriorate due to interoperability issues or compatibility problems

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesoftware functionalityVSAvoidnetwork performance

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary validation testing of software packages in a test environment before deploying them to the production network. Performance indicators are measured in advance with a baseline software package, and the new software package is evaluated against these pre-established benchmarks to predict potential performance issues before they affect the live network.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously monitors network performance indicators after software deployment and compares them against baseline measurements. When performance degradation is detected, the system provides feedback to automatically invalidate the software package and trigger rollback procedures, creating a closed-loop control system that maintains network reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Ease of operation

If software package validation is performed with fixed criteria, then validation process is simple, but it cannot account for changes in reference features that affect network performance

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevalidation process simplicityVSAvoidperformance evaluation accuracy

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The validation criteria are made dynamic rather than static. The system automatically adjusts performance thresholds and evaluation parameters based on detected changes in reference features such as carrier aggregation configurations. This allows the validation process to adapt to different network conditions and software characteristics while maintaining operational simplicity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system modifies validation parameters automatically based on reference feature analysis. When reference features change (e.g., carrier aggregation is modified), the system adjusts the corresponding performance indicators and thresholds used for validation, ensuring that the evaluation remains accurate without requiring manual intervention to change validation rules.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If performance indicators are logged and evaluated for every software update, then network performance is maintained, but validation time and computational resources increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvenetwork performance maintenanceVSAvoidvalidation time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs partial validation by focusing on specific performance indicators that are most relevant to the changes introduced by the software update. Rather than evaluating all possible performance metrics, the system selectively monitors key indicators based on the type of software changes detected, reducing validation time while maintaining reliability for critical performance aspects.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The validation process is segmented into multiple phases: initial baseline establishment, targeted monitoring of specific performance indicators during the validation period, and selective re-evaluation based on detected anomalies. This segmentation allows the system to maintain comprehensive performance oversight without requiring continuous full-scale validation, thereby reducing overall validation time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS20260044335A1Criteria modification of wireless network infrastructure software package validation

Publication Date: 2026.02.12 BOOST SUBSCRIBERCO LLC

AI summary

Techniques for criteria modification of wireless network infrastructure software package validation are provided. A NodeB includes a network entity that is a central unit, distributed unit or radio unit. A computer system receives data representing a pre-installation reference parameter determined when the network entity is operated using a first software package and receives data representing a post-installation reference parameter determined when the network entity is operated using a second software package. The computer system stores a criterion for validating the second software package, identifies a difference between the post-installation and pre-installation reference parameters, modifies the criterion based on the difference and determines whether to validate the second software package based on the modified criterion. If validated, the computer system, sends a signal to the NodeB indicating the validation, and the NodeB causes the second software package to be installed on the network entity.