Range-Based Localization in Wireless Networks Using Density-Based Outlier Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Node localization is commonly employed in wireless networks. For example, it is used to improve routing and enhance security. Localization algorithms can be classified as range-free or range-based. Range-based algorithms use location metrics such as ToA, TDoA, RSS, and AoA to estimate the distance between two nodes. Proximity sensing between nodes is typically the basis for range-free algorithms. A tradeoff exists since range-based algorithms are more accurate but also more complex. However, in applications such as target tracking, localization accuracy is very important. In this paper, we propose a new range-based algorithm which is based on the density-based outlier detection algorithm (DBOD) from data mining. It requires selection of the K-nearest neighbours (KNN). DBOD assigns density values to each point used in the location estimation. The mean of these densities is calculated and those points having a density larger than the mean are kept as candidate points. Different performance measures are used to compare our approach with the linear least squares (LLS) and weighted linear least squares based on singular value decomposition (WLS-SVD) algorithms. It is shown that the proposed algorithm performs better than these algorithms even when the anchor geometry about an unlocalized node is poor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".