A hybrid randomized protocol for RFID tag identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Radio frequency identification (RFID) is a technology for tracking objects that is expected to be widely adopted in very near future. A reader device sends probes to a set of RFID tags, which then respond to the request. A tag is recognized only when it is the only one to respond to the probe. Only reader has collision detection capability. The problem considered here is to minimize the number of probes necessary for reading all the tags, assuming that the number of tags is known in advance. Design/methodology/approach Well known binary andn‐ary partitioning algorithms can be applied to solve the problem for the case of known number of tags. A new randomized hybrid tag identification protocol has been proposed, which combines the two partitioning algorithms into a more efficient one. The new scheme optimizes the binary partition protocol for small values ofn(e.g.n=2, 3, 4). The hybrid scheme then appliesn‐ary partition protocol on the whole set, followed by binary partition on the tags that caused collision. Findings It is analytically proved that the expected number of time slots in the hybrid algorithm with known number of users is less than 2.20n. Performance of these algorithms was also evaluated experimentally, and an improvement fromento approximately 2.15nwas obtained. Originality/value The algorithm shown here is efficient both by theory and practice and outperforms existing ones.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".