question stringclasses 3
values | case_inputs listlengths 3 3 | final_answer stringclasses 3
values | recurring_pattern stringclasses 3
values | supporting_evidence listlengths 3 3 | applicability_boundary stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
What recurring relationship between the Open Fronthaul path limit and the DU packet size appears in these cases? Support the inference with case numbers and explain its scope. | [
{
"configuration": "O-CU Alder-CU 2.6 and O-DU Bracken-DU 4.0 connect to O-RU Cinder-RU 1.9 over Open Fronthaul through a switch path configured for a 1500-byte maximum frame. The DU emits packets up to 3000 bytes.",
"interoperability_result": "The RU receives smaller packets, but larger packets are dropped... | The cases show a consistent association between the configured path maximum and the DU's packet sizes. In case 1, the path is limited to 1500 bytes while packets reach 3000 bytes, and larger packets are dropped. Case 2 records stable processing when the path limit is 9000 bytes for packets up to 3000 bytes. In case 3, ... | In the listed configurations, packets larger than the path's configured maximum are associated with packet drops and unstable radio processing, while a path limit above the configured packet sizes is associated with successful delivery and stable processing. | [
{
"case_numbers": [
1
],
"observation": "The DU emits packets up to 3000 bytes over a path limited to 1500 bytes; larger packets are dropped and radio processing does not become stable."
},
{
"case_numbers": [
2
],
"observation": "The path is configured for 9000-byte frames w... | The pattern applies to the stated packet sizes and path limits in these Open Fronthaul configurations. These cases do not establish a universal frame-size requirement or prove that path capacity is the only factor affecting processing stability; they provide no result for other packetization, switch, or component confi... |
What recurring condition for compression-profile negotiation is supported by these cases? Identify the supporting observations and the limits of the inference. | [
{
"configuration": "O-CU Fern-CU 7.0 and O-DU Grove-DU 5.3 connect to O-RU Harbor-RU 3.1 over Open Fronthaul. The DU requests compression profile CP-A, which the RU advertises as supported.",
"interoperability_result": "Profile negotiation completes, and the RU enters the operational state."
},
{
"c... | The cases support a profile-compatibility condition: the DU's requested compression profile must be one the RU advertises for negotiation to complete in the configurations described. Case 1 completes with CP-A requested and advertised. Case 2 is rejected when CP-B is requested but only CP-A is advertised; case 3 comple... | In the listed configurations, negotiation completes when the DU-requested compression profile is among the profiles advertised by the RU. The one recorded mismatch is rejected, and changing the request to the advertised CP-A is followed by successful negotiation. | [
{
"case_numbers": [
1
],
"observation": "The DU requests CP-A, the RU advertises CP-A, and negotiation completes with the RU operational."
},
{
"case_numbers": [
2
],
"observation": "The DU requests CP-B while the RU advertises only CP-A; negotiation is rejected and the RU do... | This inference covers only the stated profile requests, advertisements, and component combinations. The cases do not establish behavior for other compression profiles, software versions, or negotiation settings, and they do not show that matching profiles alone guarantees end-to-end service operation. |
Across these cases, what recurring compatibility condition is associated with successful operation? Cite the case evidence and state the limits of the conclusion. | [
{
"configuration": "O-CU Cedarwave-CU 5.4 and O-DU Lattice-DU 3.2 are connected to O-RU Pine-RU 2.7 over Open Fronthaul. The DU expects timing profile P1, and the RU is configured to use P1.",
"interoperability_result": "The RU reports stable synchronization, and the cell reaches the operational state."
}... | The cases indicate that matching the O-DU's expected timing profile to the O-RU's configured profile is associated with stable synchronization in the configurations examined. Case 1 operates with P1 matched to P1. Case 2 does not stabilize with P2 expected and P1 configured, while case 3 stabilizes after the RU is chan... | In the listed configurations, stable operation is associated with the O-RU timing profile matching the O-DU's expected profile. The mismatch in case 2 coincides with unstable synchronization; changing the RU profile to match in case 3 coincides with recovery. | [
{
"case_numbers": [
1
],
"observation": "The O-DU expects P1 and the O-RU uses P1; synchronization is stable and the cell becomes operational."
},
{
"case_numbers": [
2
],
"observation": "The O-DU expects P2 while the O-RU uses P1; synchronization does not stabilize and the c... | This pattern is supported only for the timing-profile configurations and component combinations described in these cases. The cases do not establish that profile alignment alone guarantees operation in other deployments, nor do they identify the cause of any failure involving different timing settings or software versi... |
Open RAN Interoperability Pattern Induction Q&A Dataset
This question-and-answer text dataset presents multi-vendor Open RAN interoperability cases involving O-CU, O-DU, and O-RU components, including component combinations, interfaces, software configurations, and observed outcomes. Each sample asks a model to compare multiple cases, identify recurring compatibility conditions or interoperability issue patterns, and provide supporting evidence and applicability boundaries. The data supports inductive reasoning training, reasoning SFT, and evaluation of interoperability analysis capabilities in the Open RAN domain.
Technical Specifications
| Field | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| question | string | A question asking the model to identify recurring compatibility conditions or interoperability issue patterns across the cases and explain the evidence and applicability boundaries. |
| case_inputs | array | One or more O-CU, O-DU, and O-RU interoperability cases used for pattern induction. |
| final_answer | string | A complete user-facing response that combines the inferred conclusion, supporting case evidence, and applicability boundaries. |
| recurring_pattern | string | A summary of the shared compatibility condition or interoperability issue pattern found across multiple cases. |
| supporting_evidence | array | Case identifiers and specific observations that support the inferred pattern. |
| applicability_boundary | string | The component combinations, interfaces, or software configurations to which the pattern applies, along with cases that cannot be inferred from it. |
Compliance Statement
| Authorization Type | CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Attribution–NonCommercial–ShareAlike) |
| Commercial Use | Requires exclusive subscription or authorization contract (monthly or per-invocation charging) |
| Privacy and Anonymization | No PII, no real company names, simulated scenarios follow industry standards |
| Compliance System | Compliant with China's Data Security Law / EU GDPR / supports enterprise data access logs |
Source & Contact
- Downloads last month
- -