Learning RSSI Feature via Ranking Model for Wi-Fi Fingerprinting Localization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wi-Fi fingerprinting is widely used in indoor localization due to the ubiquitous availability of Wi-Fi infrastructure in indoor environments. The basic assumption of fingerprinting localization is that the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) distance is consistent with the location distance. However, due to the fluctuation of Wi-Fi signals in indoor environments, the nearest neighbors selected using the RSSI distance may not be those whose corresponding locations are nearest to the target, which could lead to a large localization error. In this paper, we propose a novel fingerprinting method for indoor localization by transforming raw RSSI into features with a learned non-linear mapping function. To learn such mapping function, we design a triple loss function that measures the difference between the rank of RSSI distance and that of location distance. By minimizing the loss function iteratively, we can learn the non-linear mapping function with the gradient boosting regression forest (GBRF) method. Experiments have been conducted in a complex environment and experimental results show that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art methods.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it