Randomized Multi-Channel Interrogation Algorithm for Large-Scale RFID Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A radio frequency identification (RFID) system consists of a set of readers and several objects, equipped with small computer chips, called tags. In a dense RFID system, where several readers are placed together to improve the read rate and correctness, readers and tags can frequently experience packet collision. A common approach to avoid collision is to use a distinct frequency channel for interrogation for each reader. Various multi-channel anti-collision protocols have been proposed for RFID readers. However, due to their heuristic nature, most algorithms may not fully utilize the achievable system performance. In this paper, we develop an optimization-based distributed randomized multi-channel interrogation algorithm, called FDFA, for large-scale RFID systems. For this purpose, we develop elaborate models for reader-to-tag and reader-to-reader collision problems. FDFA algorithm is guaranteed to find a local optimum of a max-min fair resource allocation problem to balance the processing load among readers. Simulation results show that FDFA has a significantly better performance than the existing heuristic algorithms in terms of the number of successful interrogations. It also better utilizes the frequency spectrum.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".