MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2240666255 · doi:10.1109/iisa.2015.7388079

A practical comparison between filtering algorithms for enhanced RFID localization in smart environments

2015· article· en· W2240666255 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean-Sébastien Bilodeau, Dany Fortin-Simard, Sébastien Gaboury, Bruno Bouchard, Abdenour Bouzouane

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsComputer scienceRadio-frequency identificationKalman filterWireless sensor networkIdentification (biology)WirelessField (mathematics)Real-time computingParticle filterTracking (education)Smart environmentFilter (signal processing)AlgorithmEmbedded systemArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsComputer networkComputer visionComputer securityInternet of Things

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid adoption of wireless technologies has increased the interest of many laboratories about the field of Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) or the Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology which has emerged as a winning combination for the implementation of an advanced assistance system within smart environments. To fulfill the important mission of a technological assistance, an algorithm first had to identify the ongoing activities of its user by tracking everyday life objects in real time using, for example, passive RFID tags. To increase the quality of information extracted from the objects localization by properly using the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), this paper explores Kalman filter, particle filter and few others filtering algorithm that enhances the tracking performance. It also discusses three of the most interesting methods that can be applied for the localization of objects in smart environments without requiring the installation of references tags everywhere. Finally, to increase the value, we include experiments that were conducted within a real smart home infrastructure to review the positive and negative elements of each method.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207