WO1999018748A1 - Neural network application for frequency planning - Google Patents
Neural network application for frequency planning Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO1999018748A1 WO1999018748A1 PCT/SE1997/001669 SE9701669W WO9918748A1 WO 1999018748 A1 WO1999018748 A1 WO 1999018748A1 SE 9701669 W SE9701669 W SE 9701669W WO 9918748 A1 WO9918748 A1 WO 9918748A1
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- base
- frequency
- frequencies
- signal strength
- procedure according
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04W—WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS
- H04W16/00—Network planning, e.g. coverage or traffic planning tools; Network deployment, e.g. resource partitioning or cells structures
- H04W16/18—Network planning tools
Definitions
- Procedure to, in a cellular mobile telephone system find the cells which constitute potential interferers, i.e. which might interfere if they were allocated unsuitably selected frequencies at planning, by a calculation/estimation .
- Radio network construction includes the work to define a set of base station locations, cells, radio channels, frequencies, cell parameters etc. These shall give radio coverage within the wanted area with sufficient quality och capacity at lowest longterm cost. Cell planning is further a repetetive task, with a big streak of practical trials and corrections. Among the most important elements are radio propagation calculations and measurements, traffic density estimations and measurements, and frequency planning och setting of parameters. When regarding a number of radio transmitters scattered over a certain geographical area, and wanting to measure in a certain point the signal strength over the spectrum the radio transmitters are using, there will arise certain problems. The principal problem which then will arise is to investigate which transmitters that, over a certain threshold level, have contributed to the measured signal strength.
- the frequencies for which an operator has licence shall be allocated to each cell in a way that the interference between the cells become acceptable.
- the problem then is to, for a given cell, find the cells which constitute potential interferers, i.e which might interfere if they were allocated unsuitably selected frequencies.
- the procedure gives more efficient ways of minimizing the interference between the cells which in its turn results in a better way of allocating frequencies to individual cells.
- FIG. 1 illustrates the principle according to the algorithm.
- Figure 2 shows examples with the bases A, B, C and C marked.
- Figure 3 shows a case which shows that the answer depends on what the exclusions between the bases look like.
- Figure 4 shows the probability for that the weight from a certain base (type C in Figure 2 above) to another base (type A in Figure 2 above) is positive - in spite of that base C does not interfere with base A, i.a. that an superfluous exclusion is obtained.
- the values of the x-axis is the number of frequencies which are measured at the base A.
- the method is implemented in a way that the signal strength in uplink is measured over the frequency spectrum which is used by the operator.
- the measurements are made from the base in the cell to which one wants to find the other cells which interfere or which are potential interferers.
- FAS Frequency Allocation Support
- the task of the algorithm is to, on the basis of the measurement result and information about which frequencies respective base has been allocated, decide from where the measured signal strength emanates. In that way the result might be used to decide exclusion weights in MACO, which is a frequency planning tool .
- the number N is equal to the number of bases in the network.
- Figure 1 illustrates the situation. In principle there is a weight from each node in the left column to each node in the right column and vice versa. All weights are, however, for the sake of clarity, not drawn.
- the weights w._ are updated according to the following (so called Hebbian learning rule) :
- base D interferes with base A
- base C is such that C does not interfere with A
- Base A will register signal strength on the frequencies which B is using. That means that the weight from B to A will increase its value. How rapidly the value will increase is decided by the parameter ⁇ according to the relation (1) .
- the weight from C to A will wrongly (!) increase by ⁇ . It will be compensated to a more or less extent - depending on the value of the parameter ⁇ according to relation (1) - by the "downcounting" of the weight which is obtained when C uses a frequency which is not measured by base A.
- the risk of a wrong exclusion to a certain base depends, according to the above described, on the number of frequencies which are measured at the base.
- the following assumption is made for the analysis model : the frequencies to each base are allocated at random and independent of each other. A lover of law and order will put the question how this assumption (which of course results in a somewhat playful frequency plan) affects the analysis compared with a realistic planning of the frequencies.
- the frequencies which are measured at U are, according to assumption, A's frequencies.
- all other bases B, C, D(7) can have the same frequency as A, and there is a risk that superfluous exclusions will occur.
- none of the bases B, C, D and E will have the same frequency as A and therefore there is no risk of getting a wrong exclusion to U from these.
- F it is different.
- the number of possible frequencies to allocate is fewer than at a random allocation. (Random allocation here means that all frequencies can be used for a base independent of which frequencies that have been allocated to other bases) . Because there are fewer possible frequencies to allocate, the risk that the frequencies that are allocated will be the same as at A will increase. The conclusion is that the risk of getting a wrong exclusion from F to U will be bigger at a correct frequency planning than at the one at random.
- n freq the number of frequencies that are used in the network.
- n m the number of frequencies on which signal strength are measured.
- TRX the number of TRX:es on the base towards which there can be obtained a wrong exclusion.
- the probability of getting a superfluous exclusion is by definition the same as obtaining a positive value of the weight that represents the exclusion.
- the value of the weight can be regarded as the condition in a Markov chain where the jump probabilities are decided by (2) and (1) .
- the number of conditions in the chain are decided by the number of decimals in ⁇ w ⁇ 3 .
- the probability of getting a superfluous exclusion then can be expressed as the probability of being in the conditions in the Markov chain which correspond to positive values of the weight.
- the above shown formula gives, given frequencies, number of measured frequencies which have been allocated a base and the total number of frequencies that are used, the probablility of how many frequencies at the base that are found among the measured ones. Of course it is here supposed that the bases do not interfere with each other. What shall be calculated is the probability of getting a wrong exclusion. I Figure 4 the result is shown.
- the graph shows the probability of the weight from a certain base (type C in Figure 2 above) to another base (type A in Figure 2 above) being positive - in spite of that base C does not interfere with base A, i.e. that a superfluous exclusion is obtained.
- the values of the x-axis is the number of frequencies which are measured at the base . It should be noted that the superfluous exclusion which can occur is not of statistical kind.
- the values of the weights are changing continuously according to (1) at each change of frequencies (at least on principle, but is evident that the values of the weights should in some way be restricted. In the analysis in question the restriction was made that the values of all weights was between -1 and 1) .
- the probability shall be associated with the occurrence that there at a certain change of frequencies exists a superfluous exclusion from base C to base A.
Abstract
Procedure to, in a cellular mobile telephone system, find the cells which constitute potential interferers, i.e. which might interfere if they are allocated unsuitably selected frequencies at planning. A calculation/estimation is made by signal strength in uplink being measured over the frequency spectrum which is used by a certain operator, at which a neural algorithm is used to, on the basis of the measurement result and which frequencies respective base has been allocated, decide from where the measured signal strength emanates.
Description
TITLE OF THE INVENTION
Neural network application for frequency planning
TECHNICAL FIELD
Procedure to, in a cellular mobile telephone system, find the cells which constitute potential interferers, i.e. which might interfere if they were allocated unsuitably selected frequencies at planning, by a calculation/estimation .
PRIOR ART
In the patent documentation there are a lot of documents which describe frequency planning. For instance is in the Swedish patent application 8900742-1 shown a method for frequency planning.
Further it is generally known to, by theoretical models, achieve a good frequency planning and for a given cell find the cells which constitute potential interferers in a cellular mobile telephone system, i.e. those which should interfere if they were allocated unsuitably selected frequencies .
TECHNICAL PROBLEM
Cell planning, or radio network construction, includes the work to define a set of base station locations, cells, radio channels, frequencies, cell parameters etc. These shall give radio coverage within the wanted area with sufficient quality och capacity at lowest longterm cost. Cell planning is further a repetetive task, with a big streak of practical trials and corrections. Among the most important elements are radio propagation calculations and measurements, traffic density estimations and measurements, and frequency planning och setting of parameters. When regarding a number of radio transmitters scattered over a certain geographical area, and wanting to measure in a certain point the signal strength over the spectrum the
radio transmitters are using, there will arise certain problems. The principal problem which then will arise is to investigate which transmitters that, over a certain threshold level, have contributed to the measured signal strength. At frequency planning of cellular networks the frequencies for which an operator has licence shall be allocated to each cell in a way that the interference between the cells become acceptable. The problem then is to, for a given cell, find the cells which constitute potential interferers, i.e which might interfere if they were allocated unsuitably selected frequencies.
TECHNICAL SOLUTION
The technical solution is described by what is indicated in the patent claims.
ADVANTAGES
The procedure gives more efficient ways of minimizing the interference between the cells which in its turn results in a better way of allocating frequencies to individual cells.
DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
The invention now will be described by means of not restricted examples of embodiment and with reference to enclosed, schematically made drawings. Among the drawings:
Figure 1 illustrates the principle according to the algorithm.
Figure 2 shows examples with the bases A, B, C and C marked.
Figure 3 shows a case which shows that the answer depends on what the exclusions between the bases look like.
Figure 4 shows the probability for that the weight from a certain base (type C in Figure 2 above) to another base (type A in Figure 2 above) is positive - in spite of that base C does not interfere with base A, i.a. that an superfluous exclusion is obtained. The values of the x-axis is the number of frequencies which are measured at the base A.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION The method is implemented in a way that the signal strength in uplink is measured over the frequency spectrum which is used by the operator. The measurements are made from the base in the cell to which one wants to find the other cells which interfere or which are potential interferers.
With a special functions FAS (Frequency Allocation Support) it will be possible to, from a base (MSC) , measure signal strength in uplink from mobiles which are not camping at the own base. (The function makes use of empty time slots for these measurements) .
The result from FAS will be that for each base is measured signal strength in uplink over the frequency spectrum.
The task of the algorithm is to, on the basis of the measurement result and information about which frequencies respective base has been allocated, decide from where the measured signal strength emanates. In that way the result might be used to decide exclusion weights in MACO, which is a frequency planning tool .
The algorithm - which is popularly called NENAF (Neural Network Application for Frequency Planning) - is based on, say 2xN nodes, each connected with weights, say wAj , where i = 1 , 2 , 3 . . . , N and j= 1,2,3...,_.. The number N is equal to the number of bases in the network. Figure 1 illustrates
the situation. In principle there is a weight from each node in the left column to each node in the right column and vice versa. All weights are, however, for the sake of clarity, not drawn.
Let {u and {v.} represent the conditions {0,1} in the nodes on the left respective right side in Figure 1. (i = 1,2,3...,JV and j= 1,2,3...,N as before and in the following if nothing else is indicated) .
For each frequency, say f, which is used in the frequency plan the following steps are gone through:
• When base number i transmits on frequency f, then u. is set to one, otherwise to zero.
• When base number j measures signal strength on frequency f (above a certain threshold level) then v. is set to one, otherwise to zero.
• The weights w._ are updated according to the following (so called Hebbian learning rule) :
wu = wu + ΔW13 (1) ι; =_ 2v_ _ βux (1 - Vj ) > 0 , β> 0
It now is evident that if base number i transmits on frequency f (ux=l) and base number j measures signal strength on the same frequency (v.=l) , then the weight w-_ will increase its value by α . If base number i transmits on frequency f and base number j does not measure signal strength on the frequency (v.=0) , then w will decrese its value by β. In other cases the value of the weight will be unchanged.
What has been described above is the principle for the algorithm. Now an analysis of its application will follow.
Consider Figure 2 with the bases A, B, C and D marked. We want to decide exclusions from the base A to surrounding bases. A number of bases located outside the circumference of a circle can be directly excluded since the geographical distance is too large, type base D.
Suppose that base D interferes with base A, whereas base C is such that C does not interfere with A.
Base A will register signal strength on the frequencies which B is using. That means that the weight from B to A will increase its value. How rapidly the value will increase is decided by the parameter α according to the relation (1) .
For the exclusion between base A and C the situation is more difficult in following way: According to assumption, C does not interfere with base A, but it might be a possibility that one or more of the frequencies which C is using is measured by base A - for instance depending on that B and C has one or more frequencies in common. The more frequencies that are measured at A , the greater the probability that one or some of the frequencies on which base C is transmitting will be part of the measured ones.
For each of C's frequencies that are part of the mesasured ones, the weight from C to A will wrongly (!) increase by α. It will be compensated to a more or less extent - depending on the value of the parameter α according to relation (1) - by the "downcounting" of the weight which is obtained when C uses a frequency which is not measured by base A.
By the above described can be realized that the risk of getting a wrong exclusion from C to A exists and depends on the number of frequencies which are measured at A and the values of the parameters α and β.
The risk of a wrong exclusion to a certain base depends, according to the above described, on the number of frequencies which are measured at the base. In order to calculate the risk, the following assumption is made for the analysis model : the frequencies to each base are allocated at random and independent of each other. A lover of law and order will put the question how this assumption (which of course results in a somewhat bizarre frequency plan) affects the analysis compared with a realistic planning of the frequencies.
A case which shows that the answer depends on what the exclusions between the bases look like is shown in Figure 3.
Suppose that the drawn curves (exclusions) are the correct ones. We now compare the risk of getting a wrong exclusion from one of the other nodes to U for the two cases, the first one of which is when the frequency allocation is made quite randomly, and the second according to a frequent frequency planning tool, where values of exclusion weights are allocated, called MACO.
The frequencies which are measured at U are, according to assumption, A's frequencies. At a random allocation all other bases (B, C, D...) can have the same frequency as A, and there is a risk that superfluous exclusions will occur. At a correct frequency planning none of the bases B, C, D and E will have the same frequency as A and therefore there is no risk of getting a wrong exclusion to U from these.
With F it is different. Because F is not allowed to have the same frequencies as the bases towards which F has exclusion, the number of possible frequencies to allocate is fewer than at a random allocation. (Random allocation here means that all frequencies can be used for a base independent of which frequencies that have been allocated to other bases) . Because there are fewer possible frequencies to allocate, the risk that the frequencies that are allocated will be the same as at A will increase. The conclusion is that the risk of getting a wrong exclusion from F to U will be bigger at a correct frequency planning than at the one at random.
The moral of the above is that the results from the analysis should be taken with a pinch of salt. Depending on what the exclusions between the bases look like, the result of the analysis model - for instance the probability of getting exclusions which are superfluous - will differ from the practically implemented use of the algorithm.
In certain cases of use there will in all probability be nodes of the type F above, where the probability of a superfluous exclusion is bigger than the one which is given by the model. But it does not mean than the model is unusable, even if it will turn out that the probability can be high for occasional weights. The question is in such a case how many superfluous exclusions that are obtained in relation to the total number of exclusions that exist, and which proportion between these that can be accepted.
Given the indications below and random frequency planning the probability of, say X, frequencies among the measured ones of (2) below. (The basic assumption is of course as before that the base, the frequencies of which can be found among these that are measured, do no interfere with the base which is measuring) .
where the indications have the following meanings:
nfreq : the number of frequencies that are used in the network.
nm : the number of frequencies on which signal strength are measured.
nTRX : the number of TRX:es on the base towards which there can be obtained a wrong exclusion.
The probability of getting a superfluous exclusion is by definition the same as obtaining a positive value of the weight that represents the exclusion.
The value of the weight can be regarded as the condition in a Markov chain where the jump probabilities are decided by (2) and (1) . (The number of conditions in the chain are decided by the number of decimals in Δ w ι3) • The probability of getting a superfluous exclusion then can be expressed as the probability of being in the conditions in the Markov chain which correspond to positive values of the weight. The above shown formula gives, given frequencies, number of measured frequencies which have been allocated a base and the total number of frequencies that are used, the probablility of how many frequencies at the base that are found among the measured ones. Of course it is here supposed that the bases do not interfere with each other. What shall be calculated is the probability of getting a wrong exclusion.
I Figure 4 the result is shown. The graph shows the probability of the weight from a certain base (type C in Figure 2 above) to another base (type A in Figure 2 above) being positive - in spite of that base C does not interfere with base A, i.e. that a superfluous exclusion is obtained. The values of the x-axis is the number of frequencies which are measured at the base . It should be noted that the superfluous exclusion which can occur is not of statistical kind. The values of the weights are changing continuously according to (1) at each change of frequencies (at least on principle, but is evident that the values of the weights should in some way be restricted. In the analysis in question the restriction was made that the values of all weights was between -1 and 1) . The probability shall be associated with the occurrence that there at a certain change of frequencies exists a superfluous exclusion from base C to base A.
The invention is not restricted to the above indicated but may be varied within the frame of the patent claims.
Claims
1. Procedure to, in a cellular mobile telephone system, find the cells which constitute potential interferers, i.e which might interfere if they were allocated unsuitably selected frequencies at planning, by a calculation/estimation, c h a r a c t e r i z e d in that the calculation/estimation is made by signal strength in uplink being measured over the frequency spectrum which is used by a certain operator, that a neural algorithm is used to, on the basis of the measurement result and which frequencies respective base has been allocated, determine from where the measured signal strength emanates.
2. Procedure according to patent claim 1, c h a r a c t e r i z e d in that the measurements are made from the base in the cell to which one wants to find the other cells which interfere or which are potential interferers .
3. Procedure according to patent claim 1, c h a r a c t e r i z e d in that empty time slots are utilized for the measuring.
4. Procedure according to patent claim 1, c h a r a c t e r i z e d in that the neural algorithm is based on, say 2xN, nodes each connected with weights, say ij , where i = 1,2,3,...,-. and j = 1,2 ,3 , ... ,N. The number N is equal to the number of bases in the network.
Let {u. and {v┬▒} represent the conditions {0,1} in the nodes on the left respective right side in Figure 1. For each frequency, say f, which is used in the frequency plan the following steps are gone through: ΓÇó When base number i transmits on frequency f, then u. is set to one, otherwise to zero.
ΓÇó When base number j measures signal strength on frequency f (above a certain threshold level) then vx is set to one, otherwise to zero.
ΓÇó The weights w.. are updated according to the following (so called Hebbian learning rule) :
Δw13 =au1vJ _ βu1(l-vJ) a>0,β>0
5. Procedure according to patent claim 4, c h a r a c t e r i z e d in that the measured signal strength is shown on one to the base station connected equipment .
6. Procedure according to patent claim 1, c h a r a c t e r i z e d in that the measurement result is used to allocate values of the exclusion weights which are used in the frequency planning tool MACO.
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/SE1997/001669 WO1999018748A1 (en) | 1996-09-27 | 1997-10-06 | Neural network application for frequency planning |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
SE9603557A SE514246C2 (en) | 1996-09-27 | 1996-09-27 | Cellular mobile telephone system operation method |
PCT/SE1997/001669 WO1999018748A1 (en) | 1996-09-27 | 1997-10-06 | Neural network application for frequency planning |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO1999018748A1 true WO1999018748A1 (en) | 1999-04-15 |
Family
ID=26662762
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/SE1997/001669 WO1999018748A1 (en) | 1996-09-27 | 1997-10-06 | Neural network application for frequency planning |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
WO (1) | WO1999018748A1 (en) |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
WO2001033882A1 (en) * | 1999-11-04 | 2001-05-10 | Telediffusion De France | Method for validating frequency plan allocation of telecommunication networks |
Citations (5)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4736453A (en) * | 1985-12-10 | 1988-04-05 | Schloemer Gerald R | Method and apparatus for making frequency channel assignment in a cellular or non-cellular radiotelephone communications system |
EP0631453A2 (en) * | 1993-06-21 | 1994-12-28 | Telia Ab | Method for locating mobile stations in a digital telephone network |
US5434950A (en) * | 1992-04-13 | 1995-07-18 | Televerket | Method for making handover decisions in a radio communications network |
US5442804A (en) * | 1989-03-03 | 1995-08-15 | Televerket | Method for resource allocation in a radio system |
WO1997033394A1 (en) * | 1996-03-08 | 1997-09-12 | Watkins-Johnson Company | Wireless communication system with dynamic channel allocation |
-
1997
- 1997-10-06 WO PCT/SE1997/001669 patent/WO1999018748A1/en active Application Filing
Patent Citations (5)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4736453A (en) * | 1985-12-10 | 1988-04-05 | Schloemer Gerald R | Method and apparatus for making frequency channel assignment in a cellular or non-cellular radiotelephone communications system |
US5442804A (en) * | 1989-03-03 | 1995-08-15 | Televerket | Method for resource allocation in a radio system |
US5434950A (en) * | 1992-04-13 | 1995-07-18 | Televerket | Method for making handover decisions in a radio communications network |
EP0631453A2 (en) * | 1993-06-21 | 1994-12-28 | Telia Ab | Method for locating mobile stations in a digital telephone network |
WO1997033394A1 (en) * | 1996-03-08 | 1997-09-12 | Watkins-Johnson Company | Wireless communication system with dynamic channel allocation |
Cited By (2)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
WO2001033882A1 (en) * | 1999-11-04 | 2001-05-10 | Telediffusion De France | Method for validating frequency plan allocation of telecommunication networks |
FR2800964A1 (en) * | 1999-11-04 | 2001-05-11 | Telediffusion Fse | PROCESS FOR VALIDATION OF ALLOCATION OF FREQUENCY PLANS OF TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
JP2976211B2 (en) | Method for designing a wireless cell | |
US7212822B1 (en) | Method and techniques for penalty-based channel assignments in a cellular network | |
US6990348B1 (en) | Self-configuring wireless system and a method to derive re-use criteria and neighboring lists therefor | |
US6223031B1 (en) | Process and device for quality determination | |
CN108781428B (en) | Method for calculating distance between base stations, storage medium, base station and cellular network | |
KR100657369B1 (en) | Apparatus and method for collection and analysis of wireless signal propagation in a wireless system | |
US6230016B1 (en) | Apparatus and method for adaptive-dynamic channel assignment in wireless communication networks | |
EP0461176B1 (en) | Method for resource allocation in a radio system | |
US20030129987A1 (en) | System and method for frequency planning in wireless communication networks | |
US20040203727A1 (en) | Quality-based optimization of cellular network parameters | |
EP0926912B1 (en) | Method for channel assignment in a mobile communication system with space division multiple access | |
WO1994005097A1 (en) | Method for estimating c/i density and interference probability in the uplink | |
US20140073316A1 (en) | Method for interference & congestion detection with multiple radio technologies | |
EP0715479A1 (en) | Channel habitat segregation method | |
US10219182B1 (en) | Channel bandwidth selection | |
Onoe et al. | Flexible re-use for dynamic channel assignment in mobile radio systems | |
WO1995034957A2 (en) | Adaptive frequency allocation for broadcast control channels | |
US6728544B1 (en) | Methods and techniques in channel assignment in a cellular network | |
WO1999018748A1 (en) | Neural network application for frequency planning | |
US6859486B1 (en) | Method for predicting interference in a frequency hopping cellular communications system | |
CN107231653B (en) | Weighted graph modeling method for channel reuse in wireless cellular network | |
US6658256B2 (en) | Method for allocating a channel in a cell of cellular network | |
US11876572B2 (en) | Wireless telecommunications network | |
EP1252786B1 (en) | Channel allocation in mobile communication system | |
EP1931166A1 (en) | Call admission control in a mobile communication system |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AK | Designated states |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): NO US |
|
AL | Designated countries for regional patents |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): AT BE CH DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE |
|
DFPE | Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101) | ||
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
122 | Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase |