Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

A Proximity-Based Approach for Dynamically Matching Industrial Assets and Their Operators Using Low-Power IoT Devices

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Matching construction tools to their operators can be done from Bluetooth signal strength alone, with a reported outdoor accuracy of 98.6%.

desk verdict A solid applied IoT paper with a real prototype and a novel matching formulation, but the headline matching accuracy is validated only in an easy regime where the nearest-operator premise is never stressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13600 v1 pith:RZQAQOTB submitted 2024-12-18 eess.SP

Silvano Cortesi , Michele Crabolu , Prodromos-Vasileios Mekikis , Giovanni Bellusci , Christian Vogt , Michele Magno This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords iotedgecomputingbluetoothlowenergyrssidistanceestimationextendedkalmanfilterassettrackingconstructionsiteactivityrecognition
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

Asset-operator matching in industry usually requires either a biometric reader on each tool or a full real-time locating system. This paper argues that a much cheaper cue suffices: whoever stands closest to a handheld tool while it is active is the person using it. The authors build a system consisting of a BLE tag on the tool that detects and broadcasts the tool's active state, a wearable badge carried by each worker that estimates the distance to every active tag from received signal strength, and a cloud algorithm that assigns each active tool to its nearest operator. The estimates are smoothed with an Extended Kalman Filter, so only small amounts of filtered data are sent over the cellular link. If the claim holds, construction, manufacturing, and healthcare fleets can obtain per-operator usage logs, safety-training checks, and maintenance schedules from infrastructure they may already partly own.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the nearest-operator premise together with a one-state Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and a cloud-side assignment solver. The EKF, defined by a no-motion motion model $x_k = x_{k-1} + w_k$ and a logarithmic path-loss observation model $h(x) = \operatorname{RSSI}(x_0) - 10n\log_{10}(x/x_0)$, runs on the wearable badge and converts noisy RSSI readings into a filtered distance per active tag. The assignment solver then minimizes $\sum_i\sum_j\sum_t a_{ijt}\, d(i,j,t)$, subject to each active asset receiving exactly one operator and each operator remaining fixed for the duration of a continuous active session, and it labels a match UNSURE whenever the distance to the second-nearest operator is below 0.75 m.

What would settle it

Take one active tool and two operators at measured distances of 0.4 m and 1.0 m, run the published EKF and assignment solver on fresh RSSI data, and compare match results to video ground truth. A wrong SURE decision in more than a small fraction of trials, or a systematic reversal of the distance ordering, would falsify the nearest-operator rule as implemented.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that RSSI-based proximity alone can resolve who-is-using-which-asset, and that the resolution is accurate enough for real deployment: a median distance-estimation error of 0.49 m, an indoor matching accuracy of 89.7%, and an outdoor matching accuracy of 98.6%, with 100% precision among high-confidence outdoor matches. The argument is that absolute distance accuracy is not required; only the ordering of operators by distance to the active asset matters, and the system's two algorithms preserve that ordering. The matching accuracy is high when the distance gap between the nearest and second-nearest operator exceeds the 0.75 m trust threshold, and the classifier intentionally withholds confidence ("UNSURE") when it does not.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the closest person to an active tool is the one using it, and that the fitted RSSI path-loss model plus the 0.75 m separation rule keep that ordering visible in real deployments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Per-operator usage logs, safety-training compliance checks, and maintenance triggers can be generated automatically from BLE-based asset-tracking infrastructure that many sites already run.
  • Because only the nearest operator is selected, the system tolerates biased distance estimates as long as they preserve the ordering of operators around an asset.
  • Wearables need to transmit only one aggregated distance per active session, which the power measurements put at 0.39 Wh per day and a 28-day battery life on the tested device.
  • The EKF's median error of 0.49 m is sufficient for matching at typical power-tool working distances, but the trust classifier should be used to filter out decisions made in dense operator layouts.
  • In the paper's tests, the dynamic scenario with workers swapping tools mid-session still achieved 98.9% precision, which suggests the session-continuity constraint is not a practical handicap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the method's reliance on relative ordering rather than absolute distance suggests that per-wearable RSSI calibration could remove systematic bias and push the usable range beyond the tested 0.5–6 m.
  • Editorial extension: the 0.75 m UNSURE threshold is a tunable safety valve; a deployment with many workers in close quarters could trade recall for precision by raising it, or use fixture spacing to lower it.
  • Editorial extension: the same pipeline could be applied to medical equipment and manufacturing machines, provided the asset's active state is detectable from its accelerometer or another low-power sensor.
  • Editorial extension: a natural test is to re-run the experiments in a second building with different clutter; if the fitted path-loss parameters need to be re-learned, the system would require a short per-site calibration step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an asset-operator matching system for industrial tools that combines BLE RSSI-based distance estimation on low-power wearables with a cloud-side nearest-operator assignment algorithm. The wearable runs a one-state Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) over RSSI measurements to estimate distance to active BLE tags attached to tools; the cloud algorithm solves a linear assignment problem and labels matches as SURE or UNSURE based on a 0.75 m margin. The authors built a prototype with existing hardware (SMART TAG and ECOTRACK), validated it indoors and outdoors on a construction site, and report a median distance estimation error of 0.49 m, an indoor matching accuracy of 89.7% with 98.6% SURE-precision, and an outdoor accuracy of 98.6%. The main claim is that accurate asset-user matching is feasible without RTLS infrastructure using low-power BLE devices.

Significance. If the reported results hold independently, the work addresses a real industrial gap with a low-cost, low-power solution: it combines activity detection on the tool, RSSI-based ranging on a badge, and cloud assignment, and it validates on physical hardware in a realistic setting. The power measurements and the dynamic tool-swapping experiments are concrete strengths, as is the comparison with prior Bayesian-filter RSSI ranging work. The central limitation is that the quantitative evidence is partly in-sample: the path-loss parameters, measurement noise covariance, and initial distance clamps are fitted on the same RSSI data used to report the 0.49 m median error, and the matching experiments do not include the regime in which the nearest-operator premise is actually challenged. The core idea is sensible and plausibly correct, but the paper needs additional independent validation before the headline numbers can be taken as evidence of real-world performance.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VI-A, §VI-B, Eq. (1), Eq. (6), Eq. (7)] The distance accuracy claim is evaluated in-sample. The path-loss parameters (n = 1.011, RSSI(x0) = -45.6 dB) are fitted to the 55,097 RSSI measurements in Fig. 3, the measurement noise covariance R_k = 43.53 in Eq. (6) is set using the same measurement set, and the initial distance clamps in Eq. (7) are chosen from that fitted curve. The 2338 distance estimates used to report the median error of 0.49 m are then drawn from the same overall dataset. An independent test set, cross-validation, or a separate calibration session is needed before the 0.49 m figure can be treated as a realistic accuracy estimate.
  2. [§V-B, §VI-B, §VI-C] The matching experiments do not exercise the nearest-operator premise in a discriminating way. In the reported tests the true operator is always within 0.5 m of the active tool, while all competing persons are placed at distances of 0.5, 1, 2, or 3 m; the paper states in §VI-B that 'the distance between a user and its asset during the experiments was always below 0.5 m.' Consequently, no trial places a non-operator closer to the asset than the true operator, and no trial places a non-operator within the 0.75 m trust margin of Eq. (13). Given the distance estimator's standard deviation of 1.63 m (Table II), close-spacing cases could invert the order of candidates, but such cases are absent from the evaluation. The reported accuracy of 89.7% indoor and 98.6% outdoor therefore reflects a favorable separation distribution and does not validate the central claim that the nearest operator is the user.
  3. [§IV-B, Eq. (13)] The trust-level classifier is calibrated by an assumed minimum interpersonal distance of 0.75 m, which the paper itself states 'comes from the assumption that two users do generally not stand closer to each other.' No sensitivity analysis is provided for this threshold, yet the headline SURE-precision figures depend directly on it. The authors should report how the precision, recall, and accuracy of matching vary with the threshold, or otherwise justify the threshold from data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §VI-B] The abstract reports a 'median accuracy of 0.49 m' while Table II and the text state 'Median Error 0.49 m'; the wording should be consistent to avoid implying a different metric.
  2. [§VI-C vs §VII] The conclusion states an indoor accuracy of 87.7%, while §VI-C reports 89.7%. This numerical inconsistency should be reconciled.
  3. [Algorithm 1, Line 9] The 'exhaustiveSearch()' step is described only in prose. For the stated scalability assumption of at most 15 active assets, an explicit enumeration is acceptable, but the pseudo-code should state the complexity or the search-space size.
  4. [§IV-A, Eq. (3)] The notation 'v_max^2 / X^2_{1,c}' is terse; a brief explanation of the chi-squared scaling factor and the chosen confidence level would improve readability.
  5. [Fig. 7] The confusion matrices would benefit from a caption that defines the rows and columns, since the text refers to 'dark blue color means many results' without an explicit mapping of colors to counts.
  6. [§V-B] The downsampling of 0.5 s advertisements to 7 s intervals to create a larger dataset is a useful technique, but it should be stated clearly that the resulting 2338 estimates are not fully independent samples for statistical purposes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; matching is validated against external ground truth, and the distance-estimation concern is an in-sample validation limitation rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central matching claim is evaluated against external ground truth: the OptiTrack system and a video camera are used to record the true user-asset pairings, and the confusion matrices compare the algorithm's assignments to those externally recorded labels. The asset-user matching therefore does not reduce to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. The distance estimator uses a path-loss model whose parameters (RSSI(x0) = -45.6 dB, n = 1.011) are fitted to the same RSSI measurements later used to compute the reported 0.49 m median error; this is an in-sample validation weakness that can make the accuracy estimate optimistic, but the filtered distance is not equal to a fitted parameter by construction, so it does not meet the standard for a circular step under the stated rules. The 0.75 m trust threshold in Eq. (13) is an explicit assumption, not an output fitted to the data, so it is not a fitted-input-called-prediction issue. The paper cites its own SMARTTAG, ECOTRACK, and MiniRocket works, but these are used as hardware components and as an externally tested activity-classification result; they are not used to define the matching outcome or to rule out alternative explanations. The experimental design places the true operator within 0.5 m while bystanders are at 0.5-3 m, which makes the matching test favorable, but that is a scope and generalization limitation, not circularity. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, no ansatz is smuggled in via a self-citation, and no known result is renamed as a new contribution.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central feasibility claim rests on four fitted or tuned values and several domain assumptions. The most consequential are same-data path-loss calibration and the 0.75 m separation rule, both of which would need independent validation in new environments.

free parameters (4)
  • Path-loss model parameters = RSSI(x0)=-45.6 dB, n=1.011 at x0=1 m
    Fitted to all 55,097 RSSI measurements (Fig. 3, Section VI-A) and used inside the EKF observation model for the same experiments, so the distance accuracy is an in-sample evaluation.
  • Measurement noise covariance R_k = sigma^2 = 43.53
    Evaluated experimentally using the same RSSI measurements shown in Fig. 3 (Section IV-A, Eq. 6); used in the EKF update step.
  • Initial distance clamps = 0.5 m and 20 m
    Stated as tuning parameters in Section IV-A, Eq. 7; constrain EKF initialization to 'realistic' distances.
  • Trust threshold = 0.75 m
    Distance margin in Eq. 13 chosen from the assumption that two users do not stand closer than 0.75 m, not calibrated by data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The operator of an active handheld asset is the nearest person to it
    The introduction states 'the operator of a handheld asset must be the one nearest to the asset when it is active'; if two people work on the same tool or a bystander is closer, the matching premise fails.
  • domain assumption No-motion motion model: distance is constant plus zero-mean Gaussian noise
    Section IV-A, Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 model the distance evolution as x_k = x_{k-1} + w_k with vmax = 0.7 m/s; worker movement is modeled as noise rather than tracked.
  • domain assumption Logarithmic path-loss model is a sufficient observation model in deployment environments
    Section IV-A, Eq. 5 assumes Eq. 1 is valid, though Section VI-A acknowledges the RSSI-distance map is not bijective under multipath and body effects.
  • domain assumption At most 15 active assets and operators are within BLE range
    This use-case assumption appears in the introduction and is not stress-tested; experiments use at most 3 operators.
  • ad hoc to paper Two users stand farther apart than 0.75 m
    Section IV-B, Eq. 13: 'The distance of 0.75 m comes from the assumption that two users do generally not stand closer to each other.'
  • domain assumption MiniRocket activity detection correctly identifies active tool periods
    Section V-A inherits the activity classifier from prior work, reporting 96.9% accuracy across 16 tools; the matching system depends on correct activity boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Proximity-Based Approach for Dynamically Matching Industrial Assets and Their Operators Using Low-Power IoT Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZQAQOTB

@misc{pith2026241213600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Proximity-Based Approach for Dynamically Matching Industrial Assets and Their Operators Using Low-Power IoT Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZQAQOTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13600}
}
read the original abstract

Asset tracking solutions have proven their significance in industrial contexts, as evidenced by their successful commercialization (e.g., Hilti On!Track). However, a seamless solution for matching assets with their users, such as operators of construction power tools, is still missing. By enabling assetuser matching, organizations gain valuable insights that can be used to optimize user health and safety, asset utilization, and maintenance. This paper introduces a novel approach to address this gap by leveraging existing Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)-enabled low-power Internet of Things (IoT) devices. The proposed framework comprises the following components: i) a wearable device, ii) an IoT device attached to or embedded in the assets, iii) an algorithm to estimate the distance between assets and operators by exploiting simple received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements via an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF), and iv) a cloud-based algorithm that collects all estimated distances to derive the correct asset-operator matching. The effectiveness of the proposed system has been validated through indoor and outdoor experiments in a construction setting for identifying the operator of a power tool. A physical prototype was developed to evaluate the algorithms in a realistic setup. The results demonstrated a median accuracy of 0.49m in estimating the distance between assets and users, and up to 98.6% in correctly matching users with their assets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the three parts of the system: sensor tags mounted on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Outdoor experimental setup. Three workers, each with their own asset, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of the 2338 performed measurements according to their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: RSSI measurements versus ground truth distance together with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimation error with respect to ground truth, evaluated over all 2338 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of estimation errors against their ground truth distances. The errors of each distance bin are represented as swarm and as half-violin with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Confusion matrix of the (a) indoor and (b) outdoor experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results in the indoor setup, divided up according the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Industry 4.0 implementation challenges and opportunities: a managerial perspective,

    B. Bajic, A. Rikalovic, N. Suzic, and V . Piuri, “Industry 4.0 implementation challenges and opportunities: a managerial perspective,” IEEE Systems Journal , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 546–559, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2020.3023041

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Industry 4.0 implementation challenges and opportunities: a technological perspective,

    A. Rikalovic, N. Suzic, B. Bajic, and V . Piuri, “Industry 4.0 implementation challenges and opportunities: a technological perspective,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 2797–2810, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2021.3101673

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Internet of things for smart cities,

    A. Zanella, N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi, “Internet of things for smart cities,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2014.2306328

    arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Iot, big data, and artificial intelligence in agriculture and food industry,

    N. N. Misra, Y . Dixit, A. Al-Mallahi, M. S. Bhullar, R. Upadhyay, and A. Martynenko, “Iot, big data, and artificial intelligence in agriculture and food industry,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 6305–6324, 2022. [Online]. Available: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.2998584

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Utilizing industry 4.0 on the construction site: Challenges and opportunities,

    C. J. Turner, J. Oyekan, L. Stergioulas, and D. Griffin, “Utilizing industry 4.0 on the construction site: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 746–756,

    work page

  6. [6]

    Investigating major challenges for industry 4.0 adoption among construction companies,

    S. Demirkesen and A. Tezel, “Investigating major challenges for industry 4.0 adoption among construction companies,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1470–1503, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2020-1059

    work page doi:10.1108/ecam-12-2020-1059 2021

  7. [7]

    Identification and assessment of risk in construction projects using the integrated fmea-swara-waspas model under fuzzy environment: a case study of a construction project in iran,

    A. Alvand, S. M. Mirhosseini, M. Ehsanifar, E. Zeighami, and A. Mohammadi, “Identification and assessment of risk in construction projects using the integrated fmea-swara-waspas model under fuzzy environment: a case study of a construction project in iran,”International Journal of Construction Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 392–404, 2021. [Online]. Avail...

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Huffstutler, 11 2023, last access: 15.02.2024

    B. Huffstutler, 11 2023, last access: 15.02.2024. [Online]. Available: https://news.ararental.org/ hilti-adds-more-than-500000-tool-tags-to-trackunit-platform

    work page 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Automated methods for activity recognition of construction workers and equipment: State-of-the-art review,

    B. Sherafat, C. R. Ahn, R. Akhavian, A. H. Behzadan, M. Golparvar- Fard, H. Kim, Y .-C. Lee, A. Rashidi, and E. R. Azar, “Automated methods for activity recognition of construction workers and equipment: State-of-the-art review,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Managem...

    2020

  2. [10]

    de Fatima F

    S. de Fatima F. Barbosa and G. T. M. D. Sasso, Patient Safety: Opportunities and Risks of Health IT Applications, Methods and Devices, ser. Health Informatics. Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 357–374. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-91237-6 24

    2022

  3. [11]

    Luschi, G

    A. Luschi, G. Ghisalberti, G. L. Daino, V . Mezzatesta, and E. Iadanza, OHIO: Integrating IoT Technologies for Enhanced Clinical Engineering and Dynamic Tracking of Medical Equipment , ser. IFMBE Proceedings. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 169–177. [Online]. Available:...

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Iot edge computing-enabled collaborative tracking system for manufacturing resources in industrial park,

    Z. Zhao, P. Lin, L. Shen, M. Zhang, and G. Q. Huang, “Iot edge computing-enabled collaborative tracking system for manufacturing resources in industrial park,” Advanced Engineering Informatics, vol. 43, p. 101044, 2020. [Online]. Available: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101044

    2020

  5. [13]

    Digital skin of the construction site,

    R. Edirisinghe, “Digital skin of the construction site,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 184–223, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ ECAM-04-2017-0066

    2018

  6. [14]

    An in-depth survey demystifying the internet of things (iot) in the construction industry: Unfolding new dimensions,

    K. Khurshid, A. Danish, M. U. Salim, M. Bayram, T. Ozbakkaloglu, and M. A. Mosaberpanah, “An in-depth survey demystifying the internet of things (iot) in the construction industry: Unfolding new dimensions,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 1275, 2023. [Online]. Available: h...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Study on factors affecting equipment management and its effect on productivity in building construction,

    R. Ranjithapriya, D. S. Arulselvan, and C. institute of technology, “Study on factors affecting equipment management and its effect on productivity in building construction,” International Journal of Engineering Research and , vol. V9, no. 04, p. 8, 2020. [Online]. Available: ...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Real- time locating systems applications in construction,

    H. Li, G. Chan, J. K. W. Wong, and M. Skitmore, “Real- time locating systems applications in construction,” Automation in Construction , vol. 63, pp. 37–47, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.12.001

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Improving ble beacon proximity estimation accuracy through bayesian filtering,

    A. Mackey, P. Spachos, L. Song, and K. N. Plataniotis, “Improving ble beacon proximity estimation accuracy through bayesian filtering,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3160–3169, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.2965583

    2020

  10. [18]

    Smarttag: An ultra low power asset tracking and usage analysis iot device with embedded ml capabilities,

    M. Giordano, R. Fischer, M. Crabolu, G. Bellusci, and M. Magno, “Smarttag: An ultra low power asset tracking and usage analysis iot device with embedded ml capabilities,” in 2021 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS) , 8 2021, p. 6. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/1...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Krishnan and R

    S. Krishnan and R. X. M. Santos, Real-Time Asset Tracking for Smart Manufacturing, ser. Intelligent Systems Reference Library. Springer International Publishing, 2021, ch. 2, pp. 25–53. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67270-6 2

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Smarteg: an autonomous wireless sensor node for high accuracy accelerometer-based monitoring,

    M. Magno, L. Sigrist, A. Gomez, L. Cavigelli, A. Libri, E. Popovici, and L. Benini, “Smarteg: an autonomous wireless sensor node for high accuracy accelerometer-based monitoring,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 12, p. 2747, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19122747

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    b+wsn: Smart beehive for agriculture, environmental, and honey bee health monitoring - preliminary results and analysis,

    F. E. Murphy, M. Magno, P. Whelan, and E. P. Vici, “b+wsn: Smart beehive for agriculture, environmental, and honey bee health monitoring - preliminary results and analysis,” in 2015 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS) , 4 2015, p. nil. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi....

    2015

  14. [22]

    Energy-aware adaptive sampling for self-sustainability in resource-constrained iot devices,

    M. Giordano, S. Cortesi, P.-V . Mekikis, M. Crabolu, G. Bellusci, and M. Magno, “Energy-aware adaptive sampling for self-sustainability in resource-constrained iot devices,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Energy Harvesting & Energy-Neutral Sensing Systems...

    2023

  15. [23]

    The application of active radio frequency identification technology for tool tracking on construction job sites,

    P. M. Goodrum, M. A. McLaren, and A. Durfee, “The application of active radio frequency identification technology for tool tracking on construction job sites,” Automation in Construction , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 292–302, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autc...

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Automated tool tracking on the construction site,

    J. D. Goedert, E. T. Foster, J. Jewell, and J. Bartek, “Automated tool tracking on the construction site,” International Journal of Construction Education and Research , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 12–23, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578770902717535

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    Uwb and mems imu integrated positioning algorithm for a work-tool tracking system,

    S.-G. Kwon, O.-J. Kwon, K.-R. Kwon, and S.-H. Lee, “Uwb and mems imu integrated positioning algorithm for a work-tool tracking system,” Applied Sciences , vol. 11, no. 19, p. 8826, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11198826

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    A survey of indoor localization systems and technologies,

    F. Zafari, A. Gkelias, and K. K. Leung, “A survey of indoor localization systems and technologies,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2568–2599, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2019.2911558

    2019

  19. [27]

    On the energy consumption and ranging accuracy of ultra-wideband physical interfaces,

    L. Flueratoru, S. Wehrli, M. Magno, and D. Niculescu, “On the energy consumption and ranging accuracy of ultra-wideband physical interfaces,” in GLOBECOM 2020 - 2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference , 12 2020, p. 7. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/GLOBECOM4...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Multipath mitigation for indoor localization based on ieee 802.11 time-of-flight measurements,

    S. Koenig, M. T. Schmidt, and C. Hoene, “Multipath mitigation for indoor localization based on ieee 802.11 time-of-flight measurements,” in 2011 IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. XX, NO. XX, XX XXXXXXX XXXX 12 and...

    2011

  21. [29]

    Comparison between an rssi- and an mcpd-based ble indoor localization system,

    S. Cortesi, C. V ogt, and M. Magno, “Comparison between an rssi- and an mcpd-based ble indoor localization system,” Computers, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 59, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ computers12030059

    2023

  22. [30]

    A note on a simple transmission formula,

    H. Friis, “A note on a simple transmission formula,” Proceedings of the IRE , vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 254–256, 1946. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JRPROC.1946.234568

    1946

  23. [31]

    Indoor positioning system based on ble location fingerprinting with classification approach,

    Y .-C. Pu and P.-C. You, “Indoor positioning system based on ble location fingerprinting with classification approach,” Applied Mathematical Modelling , vol. 62, pp. 654–663, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2018.06.031

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Rssi based localization and tracking in a spatial network system using wireless sensor networks,

    A. Balakrishnan, K. Ramana, K. Nanmaran, M. Ramachandran, V . Bhaskar, and S. Kallam, “Rssi based localization and tracking in a spatial network system using wireless sensor networks,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 879–915, 2021. [Online]. Available: h...

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    The role of internet of things to control the outbreak of covid-19 pandemic,

    A. Castiglione, M. Umer, S. Sadiq, M. S. Obaidat, and P. Vijayakumar, “The role of internet of things to control the outbreak of covid-19 pandemic,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 8, no. 21, pp. 16 072–16 082, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ JIOT....

    2021

  26. [34]

    Iot-to-the-rescue: a survey of iot solutions for covid-19-like pandemics,

    N. Pathak, P. K. Deb, A. Mukherjee, and S. Misra, “Iot-to-the-rescue: a survey of iot solutions for covid-19-like pandemics,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 8, no. 17, pp. 13 145–13 164, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2021.3082838

    2021

  27. [35]

    Social distancing using bluetooth low energy to prevent the spread of covid-19,

    S. Kumar, V . Gautam, A. Kumar, and P. Kumari, “Social distancing using bluetooth low energy to prevent the spread of covid-19,” in 2021 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science &; Engineering (Confluence) , 1 2021, p. 5. [Online]. Available: http://dx.do...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Deepble: Generalizing rssi-based localization across different devices,

    H. Agarwal, N. Sanghvi, V . Roy, and K. Kitani, “Deepble: Generalizing rssi-based localization across different devices,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00252

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    On the crucial impact of antennas and diversity on ble rssi-based indoor localization,

    H. Schulten, M. Kuhn, R. Heyn, G. Dumphart, F. Trosch, and A. Wittneben, “On the crucial impact of antennas and diversity on ble rssi-based indoor localization,” in 2019 IEEE 89th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Spring) , 4 2019, p. 6. [Online]. Available: http://dx.d...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Tackling multipath and biased training data for imu-assisted ble proximity detection,

    T. He, J. Tan, W. Zhuo, M. Printz, and S.-H. G. Chan, “Tackling multipath and biased training data for imu-assisted ble proximity detection,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications , 5 2022, p. 10. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INFOC...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Trilateration with ble rssi accounting for pathloss due to human obstacles,

    S. Naghdi and K. O’Keefe, “Trilateration with ble rssi accounting for pathloss due to human obstacles,” in 2019 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN) , 9 2019, p. 8. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IPIN.2019.8911816

    2019

  32. [40]

    Goldsmith, Wireless Communication

    A. Goldsmith, Wireless Communication. Cambridge University Press,

  33. [41]

    Method for improving indoor positioning accuracy using extended kalman filter,

    S.-H. Lee, I.-K. Lim, and J.-K. Lee, “Method for improving indoor positioning accuracy using extended kalman filter,” Mobile Information Systems , vol. 2016, pp. 1–15, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2369103

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Improving ble distance estimation and classification using tx power and machine learning,

    M. A. Qathrady and A. Helmy, “Improving ble distance estimation and classification using tx power and machine learning,” in Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Modelling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems . Miami Florida, USA: ACM, 11 2...

    2017

  35. [43]

    Monitoring harness use in construction with ble beacons,

    J. M. G. de Gabriel, J. A. Fern ´andez-Madrigal, A. L ´opez-Arquillos, and J. C. Rubio-Romero, “Monitoring harness use in construction with ble beacons,” Measurement, vol. 131, pp. 329–340, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.07.093

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Proximity estimation with ble rssi and uwb range using machine learning algorithm,

    S. Debnath and K. O’Keefe, “Proximity estimation with ble rssi and uwb range using machine learning algorithm,” in 2023 13th International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN), 9 2023, p. 6. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ IPIN57070.202...

    2023

  37. [45]

    I. V . Stelzer, J. Kager, and C. Herwig, Comparison of Particle Filter and Extended Kalman Filter Algorithms for Monitoring of Bioprocesses, ser. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering. Elsevier, 2017, pp. 1483–1488. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-444-6396...

    2017

  38. [46]

    Fernandez-Madrigal and J

    J.-A. Fernandez-Madrigal and J. L. B. Claraco, Simultaneous Localiza- tion and Mapping for Mobile Robots: Introduction and Methods , 1st ed. USA: IGI Global, 2012

    2012

  39. [47]

    M. S. Grewal and A. P. Andrews, Kalman Filtering: Theory and Practice Using MATLAB. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470377819.ch4

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    Stochastic stability of the discrete-time extended kalman filter,

    K. Reif, S. Gunther, E. Yaz, and R. Unbehauen, “Stochastic stability of the discrete-time extended kalman filter,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 714–728, 1999. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/9.754809

    1999 doi

  41. [49]

    Convergence analysis of the extended kalman filter used as an observer for nonlinear deterministic discrete-time systems,

    M. Boutayeb, H. Rafaralahy, and M. Darouach, “Convergence analysis of the extended kalman filter used as an observer for nonlinear deterministic discrete-time systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 581–586, 1997. [Online]. Available: http://dx.do...

    1997 doi

  42. [50]

    Design and performance evaluation of an ultralow-power smart iot device with embedded tinyml for asset activity monitoring,

    M. Giordano, N. Baumann, M. Crabolu, R. Fischer, G. Bellusci, and M. Magno, “Design and performance evaluation of an ultralow-power smart iot device with embedded tinyml for asset activity monitoring,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 71, pp. 1–11, 2...

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    Optimizing iot-based asset and utilization tracking: Efficient activity classification with minirocket on resource-constrained devices,

    M. Giordano, S. Cortesi, M. Crabolu, L. Pedrollo, G. Bellusci, T. Bendinelli, E. T ¨uretken, A. Dunbar, and M. Magno, “Optimizing iot-based asset and utilization tracking: Efficient activity classification with minirocket on resource-constrained devices,” 2023. [Online]. Avail...

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hand-transmitted vibration in power tools: Accomplishment of standards and users’ perception,

    M. Vergara, J.-L. Sancho, P. Rodr ´ıguez, and A. P ´erez-Gonz´alez, “Hand-transmitted vibration in power tools: Accomplishment of standards and users’ perception,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 38, no. 9-10, pp. 652–660, 2008. [Online]. Available: http:/...

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    Hand-arm vibration exposure from construction tools: Results of a field study,

    D. J. Edwards and G. D. Holt, “Hand-arm vibration exposure from construction tools: Results of a field study,” Construction Management and Economics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 209–217, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190500310643 Silvano Cortesi (GS’22) rec...

    2010 doi

  46. [2005]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841224

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841224

    doi

  47. [2021]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TII.2020.3002197

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TII.2020.3002197

    2020

Pith tools

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