MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060918376 · doi:10.1109/icc.2012.6364358

Received signal strength calibration for handset localization in WLAN

2012· article· en· W2060918376 on OpenAlexafffund
Diego Felix, Michael McGuire

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsRSSHandsetCalibrationComputer scienceTransformation (genetics)Affine transformationWirelessLaptopSignal strengthKey (lock)Real-time computingSIGNAL (programming language)Non-line-of-sight propagationArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terminal localization for indoor Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) is critical for the deployment of location based services inside of buildings. A key challenge in localization arises when more than one mobile device is used for collecting received signal strength (RSS) measurements due to the existence of inconsistencies in the signal measurement hardware from different devices. This paper focuses on developing a calibration method to bring RSS measurements from different source devices to comparable levels by the means of an affine transformation. This calibration method is automated based on the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm to find the effective transformation parameters in real time. The results show that the estimated locations are within 2m of the true locations for laptop and handset localization when an affine transformation is used and that measurements from only 11 locations were needed for the automated calibration algorithm to obtain the transformation parameters. The results indicate that this calibration technique yields high accuracy levels in localization and that automated RSS measurement calibration is feasible.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207