MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957673928 · doi:10.1109/icc.2019.8762080

A Distributed Graph-Based Dense RFID Readers Arrangement Algorithm

2019· article· en· W2957673928 on OpenAlexaff
Peizhi Yan, Salimur Choudhury, Ruizhong Wei

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRFID technology advancements
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRadio-frequency identificationInternet of ThingsAlgorithmKey (lock)GraphDistributed algorithmSet (abstract data type)Distributed computingTheoretical computer scienceWorld Wide WebComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) plays a key role in the Internet of things (IoT). The type of scenario that needs to use many readers to cover a large area is a dense RFID environment scenario. In supply-chain management, companies such as Wal-Mart use dense RFID reader systems to track products [1]. Collisions usually happen in dense RFID reader systems, which reduce the number of tags that can be read by the system. Many algorithms were designed to eliminate the collisions in a dense RFID environment. A Maximum-Weight-Independent-Set-Based Algorithm (MWISBA) [2] is used to solve the dense RFID readers' arrangement uses a graph-based algorithm to get the MWIS. However, MWISBA does not consider interference range, it can only avoid reader-to-tag collisions. Based on MWISBA, an improved algorithm called MWISBAII [3] can avoid both reader-to-tag collisions and reader-to-reader collisions. However, both MWISBA and MWISBAII are centralized algorithms. In this paper, we propose a distributed realization of MWISBAII. In our distributed algorithm, each reader can communicate with other neighbor readers to share and collect information; making the local decision afterwards. The experimental results show that our distributed algorithm can get almost the same performance as the MWISBAII.

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 score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRFID technology advancementsFrench-language works237,207