Why Channel-Centric Models are not Enough to Predict End-to-End Performance in Private 5G: A Measurement Campaign and Case Study
Organizations: School of Industrial Engineering and Management, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Communication-aware robot planning requires accurate predictions of wireless network performance. Current approaches rely on channel-level metrics such as received signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio, assuming these translate reliably into end-to-end throughput. We challenge this assumption through a measurement campaign in a private 5G industrial environment. We evaluate throughput predictions from a commercial ray-tracing simulator as well as data-driven Gaussian process regression models against measurements collected using a mobile robot. The study uses off-the-shelf user equipment in an underground, radio-shielded facility with detailed 3D modeling, representing a best-case scenario for prediction accuracy. The ray-tracing simulator captures the spatial structure of indoor propagation and predicts channel-level metrics with reasonable fidelity. However, it systematically over-predicts throughput, even in line-of-sight regions. The dominant error source is shown to be over-estimation of sustainable MIMO spatial layers: the simulator assumes near-uniform four-layer transmission while measurements reveal substantial adaptation between one and three layers. This mismatch inflates predicted throughput even when channel metrics appear accurate. In contrast, a Gaussian process model with a rational quadratic kernel achieves approximately two-thirds reduction in prediction error with near-zero bias by learning end-to-end throughput directly from measurements. These findings demonstrate that favorable channel conditions do not guarantee high throughput; communication-aware planners relying solely on channel-centric predictions risk overly optimistic trajectories that violate reliability requirements. Accurate throughput prediction for 5G systems requires either extensive calibration of link-layer models or data-driven approaches that capture real system behavior.
Figures & tables
| Reference | Focus area | Indoor | Throughput | Measured | Predictive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ 45 ] | Ray tracing simulation | \checkmark | \checkmark | \checkmark | |
| [ 1 ] | Stochastic channel model | \checkmark | \checkmark | ||
| [ 47 ] | Propagation model comparison | \checkmark | |||
| [ 34 ] | 5G field trial | \checkmark | \checkmark | \checkmark | |
| [ 8 ] | Industrial 5G deployment | \checkmark | \checkmark | ||
| [ 15 ] | System-level simulation | \checkmark | \checkmark | \checkmark |
| AT command | Query |
|---|---|
| AT+QENG | Primary serving cell information |
| AT+QSINR | Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio |
| AT+QRSRP | Reference signal received power |
| AT+QRSRQ | Reference signal received quality |
| AT+QNWCFG=nr5g_csi | Channel state information |
| AT+QNWCFG=down | Average downlink throughput |
| Metric | Value | Unit |
| Bias | ||
| Median error | ||
| Mean over-prediction magnitude | ||
| Mean under-prediction magnitude | ||
| Over-prediction rate | ||
| Under-prediction rate |
| Metric | Sim | RBF | M1 | RQ | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias | |||||
| Median error | |||||
| Mean over-pred. | |||||
| Mean under-pred. | |||||
| Over-pred. rate | |||||
| Under-pred. rate |
Wireless Communications
Wireless communications studies how information is sent over radio links and how networks manage signals, spectrum, and resources reliably.
See all 399 papers