A People-Counting and Speed-Estimation System Using Wi-Fi Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counting the number of people and estimating their walking speeds are essential in crowd control and flow. In this work, we propose a system that uses prevalent Wi-Fi signals to identify the number of people entering and leaving a room through a door. It selects the best subcarrier of Wi-Fi signals and applies the Hampel filter to remove outlier information first. Then, it employs a double threshold method to determine the start and end times of entering or leaving. Afterward, it compares the detected signals with the precollected database using the dynamic time-warping algorithm and determines the number of people. It uses a variance threshold method to identify the states of entering or leaving. It also employs a nonlinear fitting approach to calculate the walking speeds. The experiments show that, in a large empty laboratory, the accuracy rates in determining the number of people are 100% for one person, 81% for two persons, and 95% for three persons. In a small office, the accuracy rates for detecting the number of people are 98% for one or two persons, 82% for three persons, 93% for four, and 75% for five persons. For the walking speed estimation, the accuracy rate for a speed error of less than 0.2410 m/s is 75% for a single person.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".