Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Transfer Learning of RSSI to Improve Indoor Localisation Performance

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read BLE RSSI from other homes can be transferred to improve indoor localisation in a new home, with macro F1 gains up to 12.2 points and 51-point accuracy gains in stairs and outdoors.

desk verdict The cross-protocol transfer idea is genuinely new and the SPHERE experiment is clean, but the headline 12.2% F1 gain comes from a confounded same-protocol run, so the paper needs a control and a rerun before the central claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09292 v1 pith:XWDY5URM submitted 2024-12-12 cs.LG

Thanaphon Suwannaphong , Ryan McConville , Ian Craddock This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords indoorlocalisationRSSIBLEtransferlearningconditionalGANdataaugmentationsmarthomeCon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that Bluetooth Low Energy signal-strength readings (RSSI) collected in one set of homes carry reusable information for locating people in a different home, despite each house having a unique radio fingerprint. The authors propose T-ConGAN, which pre-trains a conditional GAN on RSSI from several source homes and then fine-tunes it on a small amount of labelled data from a target home to generate synthetic room-specific RSSI. They report that this transfer-based augmentation improves macro F1 for room-level localisation by up to 12.2 percentage points over training without augmentation, with the largest gains in hard-to-label areas like stairs and outdoor spaces. If correct, this would reduce the annotation burden for in-home health monitoring systems, since new deployments would not need hours of labelled walking tours.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the transfer-learned Conditional Generative Adversarial Network (T-ConGAN): a ConGAN with 1D convolutional generator and discriminator, trained with Wasserstein loss and gradient penalty, pre-trained on source-home RSSI without room labels and then fine-tuned on target-home fingerprint data. The transfer step adapts three architectural pieces to the target: the label embedding layer (number of rooms), the generator's output layer (number of access points), and the discriminator's input layer. The pre-trained weights are intended to carry generic RSSI structure from the source homes, so that fine-tuning requires only small amounts of labelled target data. Evaluation couples the generator with a Random Forest classifier and the MiVo metric to compare synthetic data quality across augmentation methods.

What would settle it

Run an ablation in which the pre-trained SPHERE weights are replaced with random initialisation at the same architecture, then fine-tune on house B/C/D fingerprint data; if the macro-F1 gain over single-house ConGAN disappears, the improvement is attributable to the transferred weights rather than to the architecture or fine-tuning procedure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that RSSI data can be shared across different homes, even when collected under different experimental protocols, and that the shared information improves indoor localisation performance. The authors demonstrate this with a conditional GAN (ConGAN) trained with Wasserstein loss and gradient penalty. They pre-train the ConGAN on RSSI from multiple source homes—either the same dataset's houses B, C, and D, or three SPHERE project homes with a different number of access points—then fine-tune it on a target house's fingerprint data to generate room-specific RSSI. Using a Random Forest classifier evaluated on held-out free-living data, they report macro F1 improvements of up to 12.2 percentage points and class accuracy improvements of up to 51 percentage points in stairs and outdoor areas, compared with no augmentation. They claim this is the first demonstration that BLE RSSI can be effectively shared across homes.

Load-bearing premise

The cross-protocol transfer result depends on the assumption that a GAN pre-trained on SPHERE homes with 9 access points can be adapted to target homes with 11 access points by resizing the generator output, discriminator input, and label embedding layers, while retaining enough pre-trained structure to help; the paper does not specify how the new layers are initialised or how much of the gain comes from the retained weights.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New homes can deploy indoor localisation with substantially less labelled data, because a pre-trained generator supplies realistic room-specific RSSI after fine-tuning on minutes of fingerprint data.
  • Unannotated free-living RSSI datasets, such as the SPHERE homes used here, become useful training resources, extending the reach of augmentation beyond a single house.
  • Minority classes that are dangerous or hard to annotate—stairs, outdoor areas—gain the most, with reported accuracy improvements of 21–51 percentage points.
  • The method outperforms both classical augmentation (SMOTE, random oversampling, domain-expert noise) and single-house ConGAN augmentation, suggesting transfer learning is the active ingredient.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transfer effect holds broadly, one could pre-train a single large RSSI generator on many unlabelled homes and fine-tune it per residence, amortising the cost of annotation across an entire deployment fleet; the paper tests only three source homes, so scaling behaviour is an open question.
  • The reported 12.2-point macro-F1 gain is the difference between the best transfer method and the no-augmentation baseline in Table 2; a fairer comparison against a same-protocol transfer baseline (T-ConGAN) would isolate what cross-protocol data adds, which the paper does not fully separate.
  • A testable extension: use the same T-ConGAN framework with Wi-Fi or UWB RSSI, since the paper explicitly leaves cross-signal compatibility unexamined; the mechanism is signal-agnostic in principle.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a transfer-learning framework for RSSI-based indoor localisation, combining a Conditional GAN (ConGAN) for data augmentation with a transfer step (T-ConGAN). The idea is to pre-train a ConGAN on RSSI data from multiple houses—either houses from the same annotated dataset or unannotated SPHERE homes—and then fine-tune it on a target house to generate room-conditioned RSSI samples. The augmented data are used to train a Random Forest classifier for room-level localisation. Experiments on three residential houses report macro-F1 improvements of up to 12.2 percentage points and class-accuracy improvements of up to 51% for stairs and outdoor areas, and the paper claims to be the first to show that BLE RSSI data can be shared across homes with different experimental protocols.

Significance. If the cross-protocol transfer result is sound, the work has practical significance for reducing annotation effort in home health monitoring: pre-training on unannotated free-living data from other homes and fine-tuning on a small target dataset could improve localisation in minority classes such as stairs and outdoor spaces. The strengths of the paper are that it uses real residential data, repeats each experiment ten times with reported standard deviations, and makes the code available. However, the central claim is currently supported by an experiment that includes the target house in the pre-training pool, and the clean cross-protocol experiment lacks a control for generic pretraining. These issues are load-bearing for the claim that shared RSSI information, rather than pretraining itself, drives the improvement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.2, Table 2] The same-protocol T-ConGAN experiment is confounded. The paper states that the pre-trained ConGAN uses combined fingerprint data from houses B, C, and D, with each house as a separate class, and is then transferred to a target house among B, C, and D. Thus, when house C is the target, house C's fingerprint data are also in the pre-training set. The 12.2 percentage-point gain for T-ConGAN on house C (81.16 vs. 68.96 in Table 2) cannot be attributed to cross-house transfer, because the model has seen the target house's own data during pre-training. Please retrain with the target house excluded from the pre-training pool, or explicitly reclassify this experiment as a warm-start result and remove it from the cross-house transfer claim.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 2] The cross-protocol T-ConGAN-SPHERE experiment is the only non-circular support for the central claim, but it lacks a control for generic pretraining. The paper does not compare T-ConGAN-SPHERE with (i) the same architecture trained from scratch on the target house, or (ii) a model pre-trained on a shuffled or non-RSSI version of the SPHERE data. Without such a control, the gains over the plain ConGAN could arise from the pretraining procedure itself, such as better initialization or a learned label-embedding structure, rather than from shareable RSSI content. Please add an ablation that isolates the information content of the SPHERE RSSI signals.
  3. [Section 4.2.2, Figure 2] The cross-protocol architecture adaptation is underspecified. When adapting from 9 SPHERE APs to 11 target-house APs, the paper modifies the generator output, discriminator input, and label embedding layers, but it does not state how these new layers are initialized, whether they are trained from scratch, or what fraction of the final model's weights is inherited from the SPHERE pre-training. This matters because the claimed mechanism is that pre-trained weights provide useful structure; if the new layers are randomly initialized and most of the retained weights are in lower layers, the result could be close to training from scratch. Please report the initialization scheme and an ablation that measures the contribution of the retained weights.
  4. [Table 2, Section 4.4] The paper reports means and standard deviations over ten repetitions but provides no significance tests or effect sizes. Several comparisons in Table 2 are small relative to the reported deviations, for example T-ConGAN-SPHERE on house C (79.42 ± 0.57) versus SMOTE (77.91 ± 0.51), or T-ConGAN on house B (74.48 ± 0.79) versus Domain-Expert (74.72 ± 0.86). The claim that transfer-based methods 'consistently outperform' other augmentations would be strengthened by paired tests across the ten runs or by reporting confidence intervals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.2] There is a stray space in 'T ransfer learning with ConGAN' in the section heading; also, the abstract contains 'required annotated data' where 'requires annotated data' would be grammatically correct.
  2. [Figure 3] The line plots in Figure 3 are difficult to compare because the axes are not labeled and no RSSI scale is shown; adding axis labels and a consistent y-scale would improve interpretability.
  3. [Section 5.1, Table 1] The MiVo interpretation is not validated against the classification results: SMOTE has the lowest MiVo values but is among the best-performing methods in Table 2, so the statement that low MiVo suggests 'limited additional value' is not supported without a direct analysis linking MiVo to downstream classification performance.
  4. [Table 3] Table 3 reports class-accuracy improvements but does not specify the baseline accuracies or standard deviations; please clarify whether these values are averaged over the ten runs and whether the improvements are stable across runs.
  5. [Section 3.1, Section 5.4] House A is excluded from the experiments, but the paper does not explicitly discuss how this affects the generality of the transfer claims; please state this limitation more directly in the limitations section.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Headline cross-home transfer gain is partially circular: the same-protocol T-ConGAN experiment pre-trains on the target house itself, so the 12.2% gain does not isolate shared information from other homes; the separate SPHERE experiment is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2.2, 'Transferring within the same experimental protocol'; abstract and Table 2]
    "We pre-train ConGAN using combined fingerprint (radio map) data from house B, C, and D, treating each house as a separate class, so the pre-train ConGAN generates three classes of RSSI which are RSSI from house B, C and D. Then we transfer this pre-trained ConGAN to a target house (B, C, or D) individually, to learn room-level RSSI, resulting in T-ConGAN model for each house."

    For any reported T-ConGAN target, that target house is one of the three houses in the pretraining set. The abstract attributes the 'up to 12.2%' macro F1 improvement to T-ConGAN; in Table 2 this maximum is house C (68.96 to 81.16), and house C's fingerprint data is part of the pretraining input. The improvement of T-ConGAN over the non-transfer ConGAN can therefore come from the model having seen the target house's own labelled data during pretraining, not only from information shared by other homes. The cross-protocol T-ConGAN-SPHERE experiment avoids this overlap (SPHERE homes are disjoint from houses B, C, D), so the central claim retains independent support, but the headline same-protocol result is not a clean demonstration of cross-home RSSI sharing.

full rationale

The paper's genuinely clean cross-protocol experiment (pretraining on three SPHERE homes, fine-tuning on houses B, C and D) is not circular: the target houses never appear in the SPHERE pretraining set, and the test set is held-out free-living data from the target houses. That experiment provides independent evidence relevant to the central claim. The circularity is limited to the same-protocol T-ConGAN comparison, where the protocol defines pretraining as using all of houses B, C and D and then transfers to one of those same houses. Because the abstract's headline 12.2% figure is taken from that confounded comparison, part of the paper's central demonstration reduces to reusing target-house data under the label 'transfer'. I do not count the absence of an ablation for the SPHERE architecture modification as circularity; that is a missing control, not a definitional reduction. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in the headline result with independent content remaining in the SPHERE transfer experiment.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method does not rest on physical axioms, but it assumes that BLE RSSI in the two datasets is comparable enough that a pre-trained GAN can transfer between homes and protocols. The main hand-chosen inputs are GAN architecture and hyperparameters, data segmentation, missing-value handling, and the 1000-sample augmentation budget. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • ConGAN learning rate = 0.002077
    Selected by Bayesian hyperparameter search (Section 4.2.1); the central results depend on it.
  • ConGAN batch size = 48
    Selected by Bayesian search (Section 4.2.1).
  • ConGAN critic iterations = 10
    Selected by Bayesian search (Section 4.2.1).
  • Gradient penalty coefficient = 10
    Given in Section 4.2.1 as part of the WGAN-GP setup.
  • Label embedding size = 100
    Selected by Bayesian search (Section 4.2.2).
  • Augmented samples per room = 1000
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.4; all compared methods likely use the same cap.
  • Missing-value fill-forward limit = 1 second
    Manual preprocessing choice in Section 4.1 based on an assumption about packet loss.
  • Missing-value fallback = -120 dBm
    Manual preprocessing choice in Section 4.1 for values not covered by fill-forward.
  • RF classifier hyperparameters = not reported
    Selected by grid search with 3-fold cross-validation (Section 4.3.2), but the selected values are not stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Byrne et al. dataset has accurate room-level labels and the free-living split is a valid test set.
    Central evaluation uses fingerprint training and free-living testing; see Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption SPHERE RSSI from three homes is a useful generic BLE prior despite different hardware, AP counts, and no room labels.
    Used as the source domain for cross-protocol transfer in Section 4.2.2.
  • domain assumption A conditional GAN with WGAN-GP loss can generate realistic room-specific RSSI from limited fingerprint data.
    This is the generative modeling assumption behind the whole method; no proof is given.
  • domain assumption Min-max normalization and 4-second windows preserve localization-relevant signal structure.
    Preprocessing choices in Section 4.1 are assumed not to destroy location information.
  • standard math Wasserstein GAN with gradient penalty provides a stable training objective.
    Standard result from Gulrajani et al. (2017), cited as [19] and used without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transfer Learning of RSSI to Improve Indoor Localisation Performance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWDY5URM

@misc{pith2026241209292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transfer Learning of RSSI to Improve Indoor Localisation Performance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWDY5URM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09292}
}
read the original abstract

With the growing demand for health monitoring systems, in-home localisation is essential for tracking patient conditions. The unique spatial characteristics of each house required annotated data for Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI)-based monitoring system. However, collecting annotated training data is time-consuming, particularly for patients with limited health conditions. To address this, we propose Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks (ConGAN)-based augmentation, combined with our transfer learning framework (T-ConGAN), to enable the transfer of generic RSSI information between different homes, even when data is collected using different experimental protocols. This enhances the performance and scalability of such intelligent systems by reducing the need for annotation in each home. We are the first to demonstrate that BLE RSSI data can be shared across different homes, and that shared information can improve the indoor localisation performance. Our T-ConGAN enhances the macro F1 score of room-level indoor localisation by up to 12.2%, with a remarkable 51% improvement in challenging areas such as stairways or outside spaces. This state-of-the-art RSSI augmentation model significantly enhances the robustness of in-home health monitoring systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09292 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transfer learning framework for RSSI augmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ConGAN architectures for the generator and discriminator. The red text highlights the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Line plots of the actual RSSI (a) compared with augmented RSSI using different methods: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Detecting signatures of early-stage dementia with behavioural models derived from sensor data,

    R. Poyiadzi, W. Yang, Y. Ben-Shlomo, I. Craddock, L. Coulthard, R. Santos-Rodriguez, J. Selwood, and N. Twomey, “Detecting signatures of early-stage dementia with behavioural models derived from sensor data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.03615 , 2020

    arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Ultra wideband indoor positioning technologies: Analysis and recent advances,

    A. Alarifi, A. Al-Salman, M. Alsaleh, A. Alnafessah, S. Al-Hadhrami, M. A. Al-Ammar, and H. S. Al- Khalifa, “Ultra wideband indoor positioning technologies: Analysis and recent advances,” Sensors, vol. 16, no. 5, p. 707, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Healthcare in the smart home: A study of past, present and future,

    J. Bennett, O. Rokas, and L. Chen, “Healthcare in the smart home: A study of past, present and future,” Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 840, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Indoor location identification of patients for directing virtual care: An ai approach using machine learning and knowledge-based methods,

    W. Van Woensel, P. C. Roy, S. S. R. Abidi, and S. R. Abidi, “Indoor location identification of patients for directing virtual care: An ai approach using machine learning and knowledge-based methods,” AI in Medicine , vol. 108, p. 101931, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Residential wearable rssi and accelerometer measurements with detailed location annotations,

    D. Byrne, M. Kozlowski, R. Santos-Rodriguez, R. Piechocki, and I. Craddock, “Residential wearable rssi and accelerometer measurements with detailed location annotations,” Scientific data , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2018. 11

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Vesta: A digital health analytics platform for a smart home in a box,

    R. McConville, G. Archer, I. Craddock, M. Koz lowski, R. Piechocki, J. Pope, and R. Santos- Rodriguez, “Vesta: A digital health analytics platform for a smart home in a box,”Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 114, pp. 106 – 119, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Radio signal strength indication augmentation for one-shot learning in indoor localisation,

    T. Suwannaphong, R. McConville, and I. Craddock, “Radio signal strength indication augmentation for one-shot learning in indoor localisation,” in SmartWear ’22, p. 7–12, ACM, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Rssi-based indoor localization with the internet of things,

    S. Sadowski and P. Spachos, “Rssi-based indoor localization with the internet of things,” IEEE access, vol. 6, pp. 30149–30161, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Survey of wireless indoor positioning techniques and sys- tems,

    H. Liu, H. Darabi, P. Banerjee, and J. Liu, “Survey of wireless indoor positioning techniques and sys- tems,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1067–1080, 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    An empirical survey of data augmentation for time series classification with neural networks,

    B. K. Iwana and S. Uchida, “An empirical survey of data augmentation for time series classification with neural networks,” Plos one , vol. 16, no. 7, p. e0254841, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Effectiveness of data augmentation in cellular-based localiza- tion using deep learning,

    H. Rizk, A. Shokry, and M. Youssef, “Effectiveness of data augmentation in cellular-based localiza- tion using deep learning,” in WCNC, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Accurate indoor positioning based on learned absolute and relative models,

    C. Kjellson, M. Larsson, K. ¨Astr¨ om, and M. Oskarsson, “Accurate indoor positioning based on learned absolute and relative models,” in IPIN, pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Indoor localization using data augmentation via selective generative adversarial networks,

    W. Njima, M. Chafii, A. Chorti, R. M. Shubair, and H. V. Poor, “Indoor localization using data augmentation via selective generative adversarial networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 98337–98347, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    extendgan+: Transferable data augmentation framework using wgan-gp for data-driven indoor localisation model,

    S. Yean, W. Goh, B.-S. Lee, and H. L. Oh, “extendgan+: Transferable data augmentation framework using wgan-gp for data-driven indoor localisation model,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 9, p. 4402, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A survey of transfer learning,

    K. Weiss, T. M. Khoshgoftaar, and D. Wang, “A survey of transfer learning,” Journal of Big data , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–40, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Sphere: A sensor platform for healthcare in a residential environment,

    P. Woznowski, A. Burrows, T. Diethe, X. Fafoutis, J. Hall, S. Hannuna, M. Camplani, N. Twomey, M. Kozlowski, B. Tan,et al., “Sphere: A sensor platform for healthcare in a residential environment,” Designing, Developing, and Facilitating Smart Cities: Urban Design to IoT Soluti...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Generative adversarial networks,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, “Generative adversarial networks,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 139– 144, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Conditional generative adversarial nets,

    M. Mirza and S. Osindero, “Conditional generative adversarial nets,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Improved training of wasserstein gans,

    I. Gulrajani, F. Ahmed, M. Arjovsky, V. Dumoulin, and A. C. Courville, “Improved training of wasserstein gans,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data,

    G. E. Batista, R. C. Prati, and M. C. Monard, “A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data,” ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 20–29, 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    Evaluation of generative adversarial networks for time series data,

    H. Arnout, J. Bronner, and T. Runkler, “Evaluation of generative adversarial networks for time series data,” in IJCNN, pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Machine learning based indoor localization using wi-fi and smart- phone,

    Z. Khokhar and M. A. Siddiqi, “Machine learning based indoor localization using wi-fi and smart- phone,” J. Independent Stud. Res. Comput , vol. 18, no. 1, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Low-cost ble based indoor localization using rssi fingerprinting and machine learning,

    C. Jain, G. V. S. Sashank, S. Markkandan, et al., “Low-cost ble based indoor localization using rssi fingerprinting and machine learning,” in WiSPNET, pp. 363–367, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Dataloc+: A data augmentation technique for machine learning in room-level indoor localization,

    A. Hilal, I. Arai, and S. El-Tawab, “Dataloc+: A data augmentation technique for machine learning in room-level indoor localization,” in WCNC, pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2021. 12

    2021

  17. [25]

    Multimodal indoor localisation in parkinson’s disease for detecting medication use: Observational pilot study in a free- living setting,

    F. Jovan, C. Morgan, R. McConville, E. L. Tonkin, I. Craddock, and A. Whone, “Multimodal indoor localisation in parkinson’s disease for detecting medication use: Observational pilot study in a free- living setting,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge...

    2023

  18. [26]

    A ble-based probabilistic room-level localization method,

    A. I. Kyritsis, P. Kostopoulos, M. Deriaz, and D. Konstantas, “A ble-based probabilistic room-level localization method,” in 2016 International Conference on Localization and GNSS (ICL-GNSS) , pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Empirical study of a room-level localization system based on bluetooth low energy beacons,

    P. J. Garc ´ ıa-Paterna, A. S. Mart ´ ınez-Sala, and J. C. S´ anchez-Aarnoutse, “Empirical study of a room-level localization system based on bluetooth low energy beacons,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 11, p. 3665, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    A low-cost room-level indoor localization system with easy setup for medical applications,

    T. Tegou, I. Kalamaras, K. Votis, and D. Tzovaras, “A low-cost room-level indoor localization system with easy setup for medical applications,” in2018 11th IFIP Wireless and Mobile Networking Conference (WMNC), pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    A review of indoor localization techniques and wireless technologies,

    H. Obeidat, W. Shuaieb, O. Obeidat, and R. Abd-Alhameed, “A review of indoor localization techniques and wireless technologies,” Wireless Personal Communications , vol. 119, pp. 289–327, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    An environmental-adaptive wi-fi localization approach with low start-up cost for the exhibition industry,

    J. K. Ng, H. Li, V. C. Cheng, and W. K. Cheung, “An environmental-adaptive wi-fi localization approach with low start-up cost for the exhibition industry,” in 2019 IEEE 25th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA) , pp. 1–8...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Comparative study of seamless asset location and tracking technologies,

    F. Ahmed, M. Phillips, S. Phillips, and K.-Y. Kim, “Comparative study of seamless asset location and tracking technologies,” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 51, pp. 1138–1145, 2020. 13

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.