RSSI-Based Indoor Localization With the Internet of Things
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of smart cities, there are a plethora of applications where the localization of indoor environments is important, from monitoring and tracking in smart buildings to proximity marketing and advertising in shopping malls. The success of these applications is based on the development of a cost-efficient and robust real-time system capable of accurately localizing objects. In most outdoor localization systems, global positioning system (GPS) is used due to its ease of implementation and accuracy up to five meters. However, due to the limited space that comes with performing localization of indoor environments and the large number of obstacles found indoors, GPS is not a suitable option. Hence, accurately and efficiently locating objects is a major challenge in indoor environments. Recent advancements in the Internet of Things (IoT) along with novel wireless technologies can alleviate the problem. Small-size and cost-efficient IoT devices which use wireless protocols can provide an attractive solution. In this paper, we compare four wireless technologies for indoor localization: Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11n-2009 at the 2.4 GHz band), Bluetooth low energy, Zigbee, and long-range wide-area network. These technologies are compared in terms of localization accuracy and power consumption when IoT devices are used. The received signal strength indicator (RSSI) values from each modality were used and trilateration was performed for localization. The RSSI data set is available online. The experimental results can be used as an indicator in the selection of a wireless technology for an indoor localization system following application requirements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".