MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989115430 · doi:10.1109/infocom.2014.6847958

Electronic frog eye: Counting crowd using WiFi

2014· article· en· W1989115430 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Xi, Jizhong Zhao, Xiangyang Li, Kun Zhao, Shaojie Tang, Xue Liu, Zhiping Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityComputer scienceMetric (unit)Channel (broadcasting)Monotonic functionChannel state informationCode (set theory)Reliability (semiconductor)State (computer science)Artificial intelligenceReal-time computingWirelessComputer visionComputer engineeringAlgorithmComputer networkMathematicsDatabaseTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crowd counting, which count or accurately estimate the number of human beings within a region, is critical in many applications, such as guided tour, crowd control and marketing research and analysis. A crowd counting solution should be scalable and be minimally intrusive (i.e., device-free) to users. Image-based solutions are device-free, but cannot work well in a dim or dark environment. Non-image based solutions usually require every human being carrying device, and are inaccurate and unreliable in practice. In this paper, we present FCC, a device-Free Crowd Counting approach based on Channel State Information (CSI). Our design is motivated by our observation that CSI is highly sensitive to environment variation, like a frog eye. We theoretically discuss the relationship between the number of moving people and the variation of wireless channel state. A major challenge in our design of FCC is to find a stable monotonic function to characterize the relationship between the crowd number and various features of CSI. To this end, we propose a metric, the Percentage of nonzero Elements (PEM), in the dilated CSI Matrix. The monotonic relationship can be explicitly formulated by the Grey Verhulst Model, which is used for crowd counting without a labor-intensive site survey. We implement FCC using off-the-shelf IEEE 802.11n devices and evaluate its performance via extensive experiments in typical real-world scenarios. Our results demonstrate that FCC outperforms the state-of-art approaches with much better accuracy, scalability and reliability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations405
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207