Generic Composite Counting in RFID Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counting the number of RFID tags is a fundamental issue and has a wide range of applications in RFID systems. Most existing protocols, however, only apply to the scenario where a single reader counts the number of tags covered by its radio, or at most the union of tags covered by multiple readers. They are unable to achieve more complex counting objectives, i.e., counting the number of tags in a composite set expression such as (S_1 big cup S_2) - (S_3 big cap S_4). This type of counting has realistic significance since it provides more diversity than existing counting scenario, and can be applied in various applications. In this paper, we formally introduce the RFID composite counting problem, which aims at counting the tags in arbitrary set expression. We obtain strong lower bounds on the communication cost of composite counting. We then propose a generic Composite Counting Framework (CCF) that provides estimates for any set expression with desired accuracy. The communication cost of CCF is proved to be within a small factor from the optimal. We build a prototype system for CCF using USRP software defined radio and Intel WISP computational tags. Also, extensive simulations are conducted to evaluate the performance of CCF. The experimental results show that CCF is generic, accurate and time-efficient.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".