Impact of Model Uncertainty and Sensor Deployment Geometry on the Precision of BLE RSSI-Based Indoor Positioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indoor positioning systems based on Bluetooth technology have gained significant attention with the widespread adoption of Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). The rapid growth of BLE-enabled devices—now exceeding eight billion worldwide—has enabled the development of cost-effective, location-aware applications. The precision of BLE indoor positioning systems depends on several factors, among which the quality of Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) measurements and the spatial deployment of sensors are most critical. Existing research has largely focused on improving RSSI accuracy through techniques such as multi-channel measurements, outlier detection, Kalman filtering, and regression modeling. In this work, we examine two primary components that govern positioning precision: (i) the uncertainty in the RSSI–distance model parameters, including the path-loss exponent, reference power, and raw RSSI values; and (ii) the geometry of sensor deployment, which directly affects estimation precision through the geometric dilution of precision (GDoP). We demonstrate that optimizing sensor placement using Centroidal Voronoi Tessellation (CVT) reduces GDoP and substantially improves positioning precision. Comparative experiments across two deployment scenarios, one based on CVT, confirm that CVT-based sensor configurations yield significantly higher precision in BLE RSSI-based indoor positioning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".