Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

XGait: A Multi-Modality Wireless Sensing Dataset for Indoor Human Tracking and Identification

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read XGait is introduced as the first public dataset that records the same indoor walks with Wi-Fi CSI, active acoustics, and camera ground truth, from 27 participants and more than 22,000 samples across three indoor environments, and it uses…

desk verdict A genuinely useful multi-modal dataset, but the headline complementarity finding rests on a vision ground-truth pipeline that gets no error analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07064 v1 pith:6D44OELV submitted 2026-08-07 cs.HC

Wei Xu , Zhu Wang , Yifan Guo , Changlong Cheng , Yin Zhang , Zhihui Ren , Bin Guo , Zhiwen yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords wirelesssensingindoortrackinghumanidentificationWi-FiCSIacousticDopplerspectrogrammulti-modalitydatasetgaitrecognition
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

XGait is presented as the first public dataset that captures the same indoor walks with Wi-Fi channel state information, active acoustic echoes, and camera-based ground truth, from 27 participants and more than 22,000 samples across a laboratory, a home, and a meeting room. The paper's central claim is that these two wireless modalities are complementary rather than redundant: Wi-Fi gives the more reliable basis for trajectory tracking, while acoustic Doppler signatures are more stable and discriminative for identity recognition. To make the comparison fair, the authors map both signal types into a shared Doppler spectrogram and provide a benchmark pipeline for alignment, feature construction, tracking, and recognition. The importance, if the claims hold, is that wireless sensing researchers get a common ground on which to test generalization across environments and trajectories, instead of relying on small single-modality collections.

What carries the argument

The unifying device is the Doppler spectrogram: Wi-Fi CSI and acoustic echoes are both converted into shared time-frequency spectra using the time-frequency reassignment spectrum (TFRSP), after modality-specific pre-processing such as CSI-ratio cleaning for Wi-Fi and quadrature demodulation plus resampling for acoustics. Torso motion is captured as a path length change rate (PLCR) sequence, which serves as a modality-invariant temporal anchor for aligning unsynchronized links. Tracking solves a weighted least-squares velocity projection from multi-link signed PLCRs, while identity recognition uses either spectrum-driven deep features or the model-based polar-coordinate velocity profile (PPVP).

What would settle it

Re-run the ground-truth extraction on the released videos for a subset of trials and compare the back-projected foot positions against manually annotated or motion-capture positions, especially in occluded non-line-of-sight segments; if the vision reference error is comparable to the roughly one-meter tracking differences reported, the modality comparisons would not be resolvable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a multi-modality dataset with vision ground truth can reveal and quantify modality complementarity in wireless sensing. The empirical discovery is a task-oriented division of labor: Wi-Fi provides the stronger baseline for trajectory tracking, acoustic signals provide finer spectral granularity that better survives cross-trajectory and clothing-induced shifts in identity recognition, and fusion of the two yields selective gains that grow as environmental complexity and non-line-of-sight conditions increase. The paper also reports that the proposed Doppler-spectrogram representation and benchmark pipeline make these comparisons reproducible, and that a model-based descriptor such as the polar-coordinate velocity profile inherits tracking errors, which explains why spectrum-driven recognition features are generally more robust.

Load-bearing premise

The vision-based ground-truth trajectories, produced by YOLOv8 pose estimation and AprilTag back-projection, are assumed accurate enough to serve as reference for tracking errors, but the paper gives no independent error analysis of this ground-truth pipeline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can benchmark both indoor tracking and identity recognition on the same recordings, with vision-derived trajectories as reference, enabling direct cross-modal comparison.
  • Fusion gains become more pronounced as environments grow more complex and occluded, reaching about 48% of trajectories in the meeting-room scenario, which implies adaptive fusion is worth pursuing.
  • Acoustic sensing appears better suited for identity recognition, while Wi-Fi is the more reliable tracking baseline under the tested conditions.
  • Model-based features like PPVP inherit tracking errors, so recognition evaluations should report both spectrum-driven and model-driven results.
  • Cross-scene zero-shot transfer collapses to near-chance levels, but a small amount of fine-tuning recovers quickly, suggesting that scene geometry rather than identity information dominates the domain shift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the unified Doppler-spectrogram representation likely extends to other Doppler-based sensing modalities such as millimeter-wave radar, making XGait a template for future multi-modality benchmarks.
  • Inference: the observed 'selective gain' of fusion implies that a confidence-weighted or dynamically switching fusion rule could outperform static fusion, a testable extension on the released data.
  • Inference: the acoustic modality's robustness to clothing variation suggests that commodity-speaker identity systems remain viable even when Wi-Fi features degrade.
  • Inference: the sharp cross-scene zero-shot collapse points to multipath geometry as the dominant covariate, so scene-agnostic representations should be evaluated explicitly on XGait.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces XGait, a multi-modality wireless sensing dataset that synchronously records Wi-Fi CSI, active acoustic signals, and camera video across three indoor scenarios, with 27 participants and more than 22K walking samples. The authors propose a unified Doppler spectrogram representation and a benchmark pipeline for two tasks: indoor tracking and identity recognition. They report that Wi-Fi is more reliable for trajectory tracking, acoustics provides stronger and more trajectory-robust biometric signatures, and fusion is most beneficial in complex trajectories and challenging environments. The dataset and code are publicly released.

Significance. If the claims hold, XGait is a valuable community resource: it is, to my knowledge, the first public dataset combining Wi-Fi CSI, active acoustic echoes, and camera ground truth for joint tracking and identification. The release of raw data, the unified spectrogram representation, the standardized benchmark pipeline, and the extensive cross-scenario evaluation are all strengths that could enable reproducible comparison and new research on modality complementarity. The physical grounding of the Doppler representation and the explicit treatment of temporal alignment are also useful contributions. The significance is conditional, however, on the accuracy of the vision-based ground truth and on the representativeness of the evaluation subset.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.1 and 5.1] The tracking benchmark uses camera-derived trajectories from YOLOv8 pose estimation and AprilTag back-projection as ground truth, but no independent accuracy assessment of this pipeline is reported. The quantitative evidence for the central complementarity claim consists of CDFs at a 1 m threshold (Figs. 6-8) and per-trajectory fusion win ratios; systematic errors in the reference trajectories, due to foot-keypoint bias, floor-plane assumptions, or occlusion, would change both absolute errors and the relative ranking of Wi-Fi, acoustic, and fusion. Please report validation of the vision ground truth against a second reference (e.g., a person-worn marker, a second camera, or a laser/IMU tracker) per scenario, including error bounds, failure rates, and the spatial regions where the reference is reliable.
  2. [Section 5.1] Tracking performance is evaluated on only 4 out of 27 participants (3 male, 1 female), and only on path clusters with manually selected reliable vision annotations in the home and meeting-room scenarios. Because the headline finding is that fusion benefits increase with environmental complexity, and Fig. 8(d) claims consistent performance across individuals, this small and non-random subset is load-bearing evidence. Please either extend the tracking evaluation to more participants, or explicitly rephrase the cross-scenario claims as exploratory and report per-participant variability so readers can judge how much the 4-user subset supports the conclusions.
  3. [Section 5.3 and abstract] The claim that acoustic sensing offers stronger biometric discrimination is not uniformly supported by the reported experiments. In the laboratory random-split PPVP results (Fig. 11(c)) Wi-Fi is better, and in the meeting-room cross-trajectory setting (Section 5.3(3)) the acoustic modality degrades more than Wi-Fi; the acoustic advantage appears mainly in cross-trajectory Doppler-based experiments and in clothing-variation fine-tuning. The conclusion should be conditioned on the feature paradigm and scenario, with the conflicting results explicitly reconciled, since the paper's abstract presents complementary strengths as a general finding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Table 2] The text states 22,288 valid Wi-Fi CSI recordings, while Table 2 reports 22,284; please reconcile the count.
  2. [Section 5.1] The identity recognition protocol is described as subject-closed, which is reasonable for the household-occupant scenario, but the paper should state more prominently that the reported identity accuracies are closed-set re-identification rates rather than open-set identification performance.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (5)] The weight matrix W is said to be 'based on link reliability,' but no procedure for setting it is given; please specify how W is computed and whether the same W is used for Wi-Fi-only, acoustic-only, and fusion configurations.
  4. [Section 4.4] The text says the benchmark pipeline 'will be released alongside the dataset,' while the abstract states the dataset and code are already available; please align these statements and provide the exact release status at the time of publication.
  5. [Figures 3, 9, and 14] Several figure labels and legends render poorly in the PDF, making it hard to read the path-cluster names, subject IDs, and confusion-matrix axes; please ensure all subfigures are legible in the camera-ready version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: XGait's empirical findings are self-contained observations, and the unvalidated vision ground-truth pipeline is a correctness risk rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper makes no derived quantitative prediction that reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a prior result. The tracking benchmark (Section 4.2) solves a weighted least-squares velocity projection from measured multi-link PLCRs and integrates them forward; the reported errors are empirical comparisons against vision-derived reference trajectories, not outputs entailed by the calibration. The recognition benchmarks (Section 5.3) train standard networks on spectrogram and PPVP features and report held-out accuracies; no parameter is fit to the evaluation labels and then reported as a prediction. The 'unified Doppler spectrogram' is a signal-processing representation (TFRSP, CSI ratio, quadrature demodulation), explicitly drawn from prior work, and the paper credits earlier PLCR tracking and PPVP rather than claiming them as new. The central complementarity claim (Wi-Fi better for tracking, acoustics for identification) is presented as an observed result across three scenarios, with both confirming and caveated cases (e.g., home fusion not always beating acoustic in PPVP). The only notable weakness is the absence of an independent error analysis of the YOLOv8+AprilTag ground-truth extraction in Sections 3.1 and 5.1; that is a threat to the validity of the tracking comparisons, but it is not a circular dependence because the ground-truth trajectories are produced by a separate camera modality and are not defined in terms of the Wi-Fi or acoustic quantities being evaluated. No self-citation is used to justify the load-bearing novelty claim. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The dataset's utility rests on the sensor hardware working as described, the accuracy of the vision-based ground truth, and the validity of the Doppler-alignment assumptions. The listed free parameters are manually chosen preprocessing choices rather than fitted constants. No invented physical entities are needed.

free parameters (4)
  • Wi-Fi Doppler band-pass range = 2 to 100 Hz
    Set manually to isolate gait-related Doppler from Wi-Fi CSI in the unified representation (Section 4.1).
  • Acoustic DC suppression band = within ±15 Hz
    Chosen to remove static-reflection and carrier-leakage components before building the acoustic spectrogram (Section 4.1).
  • Spectrogram grid = 1 Hz frequency, 1 ms time
    Acoustic data resampled to 1 kHz to match the Wi-Fi packet rate; these resolutions are design choices rather than fitted values (Section 4.1).
  • PPVP angular and velocity bins = 1 degree, 40 velocity bins
    Feature size 360×40×T_s; chosen for the model-based identity descriptor (Section 4.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dominant Doppler ridge in each spectrogram corresponds to torso motion and is stable enough to serve as an alignment reference.
    Used in Section 4.1 for PLCR extraction and cross-modal alignment; if the ridge is not reliably the torso, the alignment and downstream tracking degrade.
  • domain assumption The signed PLCR of a link is approximately the projection of the full-body velocity onto the bistatic unit direction, via a first-order linearization of a point target.
    Central to the tracking formulation in Equations (2)-(5) of Section 4.2; the approximation is standard but not exact for extended human motion.
  • domain assumption Vision-based ground truth from YOLOv8 pose and AprilTag back-projection is accurate enough for tracking error evaluation.
    Used in Section 5.1; no independent error characterization of this pipeline is provided.
  • domain assumption The software-triggered recordings can be aligned by maximizing cross-correlation of PLCR envelopes across modalities.
    Section 4.1 and Section 3.3; if the torso PLCR is not comparable across Wi-Fi and acoustic signals, the temporal alignment is unreliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XGait: A Multi-Modality Wireless Sensing Dataset for Indoor Human Tracking and Identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6D44OELV

@misc{pith2026260807064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XGait: A Multi-Modality Wireless Sensing Dataset for Indoor Human Tracking and Identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6D44OELV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07064}
}
read the original abstract

Wireless sensing has emerged as a promising approach for tracking and identification using commodity Internet of Things devices. However, the features derived from a single wireless modality are often fragile to variations in environmental layouts and walking trajectories. Furthermore, most existing studies are based on datasets collected in specific scenarios with limited trajectory diversity and sensing modalities, preventing a robust evaluation of system generalization. \textcolor{blue}{To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{XGait}, a multi-modality wireless sensing dataset that synchronously captures human walking using Wi-Fi and acoustic transceivers across three indoor scenarios, with vision-based measurements serving as ground truth. Specifically, XGait contains more than 22K walking samples from 27 participants, covering diverse directions and trajectories to support both indoor tracking and identity recognition. To bridge the heterogeneity of wireless sensing modalities, we propose a unified Doppler spectrogram representation that maps Wi-Fi and acoustic signals into a shared time--frequency space, along with a standardized benchmark pipeline for pre-processing, temporal alignment, and feature construction, enabling reproducible evaluation and systematic cross-modal analysis. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that Wi-Fi and acoustic sensing exhibit complementary strengths, particularly under complex trajectories and challenging propagation conditions, thereby paving the way for novel research in the field of multi-modality wireless sensing.} The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/warrior-087/XGait.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07064 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Complementary properties of Wi-Fi and acoustic sensing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dataset collection settings. (a) Laboratory configuration. (b) Home configuration. (c) Meeting-room configuration. (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Volunteer attributes and motion trajectory diversity. (a) Volunteer Information. (b) Trajectories of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Benchmark processing pipeline. 4 BENCHMARK PROCESSING PIPELINE To unify heterogeneous Wi-Fi CSI and acoustic signals, we develop a benchmark processing pipeline ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ground-truth trajectories extraction. Given the scale of XGait, tracking performance is evaluated on a representative subset with reliable ground￾truth annotations. We select 3 males (User1,2,3) and 1 female (User13) who appear across all three scenarios, chosen to ref…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overall tracking results. (a) CDF of position errors in Laboratory. (b) CDF of position errors in Home. (c) CDF of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Different trajectories performance in Laboratory. (a) Best performance ratio. (b) Tracking error box chart. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Best fusion cases. (a) CDF of position errors in Laboratory. (b) CDF of position errors in Home. (c) CDF of position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Best fusion cases. (a)-(h) Results in Laboratory. (i)-(l) Results in Home. (m)-(p) Results in Meeting-room. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Impact of node density. (a) Laboratory scene. (b) Home scene. (c) Meeting-room scene. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Overall classification results in Laboratory. (a) Doppler-based learning. (b) Cross-trajectory Doppler-based learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Overall classification results in Home. (a) Doppler-based learning. (b) Cross-trajectory Doppler-based learning. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Overall classification results in Meeting-room. (a) Doppler-based learning. (b) Cross-trajectory Doppler-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Error estimation. (a) Error rate in laboratory. (b) Confusion matrix from Wi-Fi sensing in home. (c) Confusion matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cross-scene validation and varying configurations. (a) Fine-tuning data ratio on clothing. (b) Fine-tuning data ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wejdan Al-Mari, Hamda Al-Marri, Sheyma Al-Jaber, Alreem Al-Tamimi, Jayakanth Kunhoth, Somaya Al-Maadeed, Moutaz Saleh, and Younes Akbari. 2026. A Multimodal benchmark of EMG and 3D hand motion for gesture recognition and biometric authentication.CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction(2026), 1–18

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    2012.The human gait

    Wilhelm Braune and Otto Fischer. 2012.The human gait. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Chao Cai, Henglin Pu, Peng Wang, Zhe Chen, and Jun Luo. 2021. We Hear Your PACE: Passive Acoustic Localization of Multiple Walking Persons.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.5, 2, Article 55 (June 2021), 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3463510

    doi:10.1145/3463510 2021

  4. [4]

    Yuwei Cheng and Yimin Liu. 2021. Person reidentification based on automotive radar point clouds.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing60 (2021), 1–13

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Shenghong Dai, Shiqi Jiang, Yifan Yang, Ting Cao, Mo Li, Suman Banerjee, and Lili Qiu. 2025. Babel: A Scalable Pre-trained Model for Multi-Modal Sensing via Expandable Modality Alignment. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems(UC Irvine Student Center., Irvine, CA, USA)(SenSys ’25). Association for Computing Machiner...

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Guillaume Garreau, Charalambos M Andreou, Andreas G Andreou, Julius Georgiou, Salvador Dura-Bernal, Thomas Wennekers, and Sue Denham. 2011. Gait-based person and gender recognition using micro-doppler signatures. InBiomedical Circuits & Systems Conference

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Yifan Guo, Zhu Wang, Qian Qin, Yangqian Lei, Qiwen Gan, Zhuo Sun, Chao Chen, Bin Guo, and Zhiwen Yu. 2025. mmPencil: Toward Writing-Style-Independent In-Air Handwriting Recognition via mmWave Radar and Large Vision-Language Model.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.9, 3, Article 81 (Sept. 2025), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3749504

    work page doi:10.1145/3749504 2025

  8. [8]

    Daniel Halperin, Wenjun Hu, Anmol Sheth, and David Wetherall. 2011. Tool release: Gathering 802.11 n traces with channel state information.ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review41, 1 (2011), 53–53

    work page 2011

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Siyang Jiang, Mu Yuan, Xiang Ji, Bufang Yang, Zeyu Liu, Lilin Xu, Yang Li, Yuting He, Liran Dong, Wenrui Lu, et al. 2025. A Large-Scale Multimodal Dataset and Benchmarks for Human Activity Scene Understanding and Reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07136(2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Shan Jiang, Xuecheng Zhou, Mingjin Zhang, Changfu Xu, Guocheng Liao, Jianguo Chen, and Jiannong Cao. 2026. Edge large language models: a comprehensive survey.CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction(2026), 1–30

    2026

  3. [11]

    Kaustubh Kalgaonkar and Bhiksha Raj. 2007. Acoustic Doppler sonar for gait recogination. InIEEE Conference on Advanced Video & Signal Based Surveillance

    2007

  4. [12]

    Jincheng Li, Binbin Li, Lin Wang, and Wenyuan Liu. 2023. Passive multiuser gait identification through micro-Doppler calibration using mmWave radar.IEEE Internet of Things Journal11, 4 (2023), 6868–6877

    2023

  5. [13]

    Mengning Li and Wenye Wang. 2025. Synergizing Acoustic and Wi-Fi Signals for Device-Free Gesture Recognition.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing24, 9 (2025), 8167–8179. doi:10.1109/TMC.2025.3558139

    2025

  6. [14]

    Wenwei Li, Ruiyang Gao, Jie Xiong, Jiarun Zhou, Leye Wang, Xingjian Mao, Enze Yi, and Daqing Zhang. 2024. WiFi-CSI Difference Paradigm: Achieving Efficient Doppler Speed Estimation for Passive Tracking.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.8, 2, Article 63 (May ...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Wenwei Li, Jiarun Zhou, Jie Xiong, Yuhui Xie, Leye Wang, Duo Zhang, and Daqing Zhang. 2025. Rethinking WiFi-based Angle Estimation for Robust Passive Indoor Localization.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.9, 4, Article 190 (Dec. 2025), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3770662

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Jie Lian, Jiadong Lou, Li Chen, and Xu Yuan. 2021. EchoSpot: Spotting Your Locations via Acoustic Sensing.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.5, 3, Article 113 (Sept. 2021), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3478095

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Ying Liang, Wenjie Wu, Haobo Li, Xiaojun Chang, Xiaojiang Chen, Jinye Peng, and Pengfei Xu. 2024. DCS-Gait: a class-level domain adaptation approach for cross-scene and cross-state gait recognition using Wi-Fi CSI.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security19 (2024...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Yu Liu, Jingyang Hu, Hongbo Jiang, Kehua Yang, Wei Zhang, and Zheng Qin. 2025. CSID: Enhancing Wi-Fi Based Gait Recognition via Adversarial Learning.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing24, 11 (2025), 12076–12087. doi:10.1109/TMC.2025.3583946 Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable ...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Dongliang Ma, Zhuo Sun, Zhiqiang Wei, Yifan Guo, Yangqian Lei, Zhu Wang, Zhiwen Yu, and Bin Guo. 2025. AdaptTrack: A Robust Tracking System for Complex Environments Based on WiFi Device Selection Strategy.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.9, 3, Article 116 (...

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Chengzhen Meng, Chenming He, Dequan Wang, Yuxuan Xiao, Lingyu Wang, Xiaoran Fan, Lu Zhang, and Yanyong Zhang. 2025. Gr-fall: A fall detection system with gait recognition for indoor environments using siso mmwave radar.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable an...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Zhen Meng, Song Fu, Jie Yan, Hongyuan Liang, Anfu Zhou, Shilin Zhu, Huadong Ma, Jianhua Liu, and Ning Yang. 2020. Gait Recognition for Co-Existing Multiple People Using Millimeter Wave Sensing.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence34, 01 (Apr. 2020), 849...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Anat Mirelman, Paolo Bonato, Richard Camicioli, Terry D Ellis, Nir Giladi, Jamie L Hamilton, Chris J Hass, Jeffrey M Hausdorff, Elisa Pelosin, and Quincy J Almeida. 2019. Gait impairments in Parkinson’s disease.The Lancet Neurology18, 7 (2019), 697–708

    2019

  15. [23]

    Kai Niu, Xuanzhi Wang, Fusang Zhang, Rong Zheng, Zhiyun Yao, and Daqing Zhang. 2022. Rethinking Doppler effect for accurate velocity estimation with commodity WiFi devices.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications40, 7 (2022), 2164–2178

    2022

  16. [24]

    Edwin Olson. 2011. AprilTag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system. In2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 3400–3407. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2011.5979561

    2011

  17. [25]

    Kun Qian, Chenshu Wu, Zheng Yang, Yunhao Liu, and Kyle Jamieson. 2017. Widar: Decimeter-Level Passive Tracking via Velocity Monitoring with Commodity Wi-Fi. InProceedings of the 18th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (Chennai, India)(Mobihoc...

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Kun Qian, Chenshu Wu, Yi Zhang, Guidong Zhang, Zheng Yang, and Yunhao Liu. 2018. Widar2.0: Passive Human Tracking with a Single Wi-Fi Link. InProceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services(Munich, Germany)(MobiSys ’18). As...

    2018

  19. [27]

    Zhihui Ren, Zhu Wang, Zhuo Sun, Yifan Guo, Wenchao Song, Hualei Zhang, Chao Chen, Bin Guo, Zhiwen Yu, Xingshe Zhou, and Daqing Zhang. 2024. Characterizing the Through-Wall Sensing Mechanism of Wi-Fi Signals With a Refraction-Aware Fresnel Zone Model.IEEE Transactions on Mobile...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Xinyu Tong, Xiaoqiang Xu, Aiwen Yu, Xin Xie, Xiulong Liu, and Wenyu Qu. 2025. STAGR: Simultaneous Tracking and Gait Recognition With Commodity Wi-Fi.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing24, 10 (2025), 10868–10885. doi:10.1109/TMC.2025.3570993

    2025

  21. [29]

    Topham, Wasiq Khan, Dhiya Al-Jumeily, and Abir Hussain

    Luke K. Topham, Wasiq Khan, Dhiya Al-Jumeily, and Abir Hussain. 2022. Human Body Pose Estimation for Gait Identification: A Comprehensive Survey of Datasets and Models.ACM Comput. Surv.55, 6, Article 120 (Dec. 2022), 42 pages. doi:10.1145/3533384

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Baiqing Wang, Helei Cui, Bo Zhang, Xiaolong Zheng, Bin Guo, and Zhiwen Yu. 2026. MeCo: Enhancing LLM-Empowered Multi-Robot Collaboration via Similar Task Memoization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20577(2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    Dazhuo Wang, Jianfei Yang, Wei Cui, Lihua Xie, and Sumei Sun. 2022. CAUTION: A Robust WiFi-based human authentication system via few-shot open-set recognition.IEEE Internet of Things Journal9, 18 (2022), 17323–17333

    2022

  24. [32]

    Dequan Wang, Xinran Zhang, Kai Wang, Lingyu Wang, Xiaoran Fan, and Yanyong Zhang. 2024. Rdgait: A mmwave based gait user recognition system for complex indoor environments using single-chip radar.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologi...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Fei Wang, Yizhe Lv, Mengdie Zhu, Han Ding, and Jinsong Han. 2024. Xrf55: A radio frequency dataset for human indoor action analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies8, 1 (2024), 1–34

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fei Wang, Tingting Zhang, Bintong Zhao, Libao Xing, Tiantian Wang, Han Ding, and Tony Xiao Han. 2025. A survey on wi-fi sensing generalizability: Taxonomy, techniques, datasets, and future research prospects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08008(2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Hao Wang, Daqing Zhang, Junyi Ma, Yasha Wang, Yuxiang Wang, Dan Wu, Tao Gu, and Bing Xie. 2016. Human respiration detection with commodity wifi devices: do user location and body orientation matter?. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and...

    2016

  28. [36]

    Luhan Wang, Xuan Yang, Shuang Zhou, Zhaoming Lu, Ying Yang, and Changzhen Tian. 2025. MUID: Multi-person Gait Identification with Commodity Wi-Fi.IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement(2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Penghao Wang, Ruobing Jiang, Chao Liu, and Jun Luo. 2024. AGR: acoustic gait recognition using interpretable micro-range profile. In IEEE INFOCOM 2024-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, Vancouver,BC,Canada, 1201–1210. doi:10.1109/INFOCOM52122. 2024.10621283

    2024

  30. [38]

    Tianben Wang, Zhu Wang, Daqing Zhang, Tao Gu, Hongbo Ni, Jiangbo Jia, Xingshe Zhou, and Jing Lv. 2016. Recognizing Parkinsonian Gait Pattern by Exploiting Fine-Grained Movement Function Features.ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol.8, 1, Article 6 (Aug. 2016), 22 pages. doi:10.114...

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Wei Wang, Alex X Liu, and Muhammad Shahzad. 2016. Gait recognition using wifi signals. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. 363–373. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 10, No. 3, Article 17...

    2016

  32. [40]

    Zhu Wang, Bin Guo, Zhiwen Yu, and Xingshe Zhou. 2018. Wi-Fi CSI-based behavior recognition: From signals and actions to activities. IEEE Communications Magazine56, 5 (2018), 109–115

    2018

  33. [41]

    Zhongcheng Wei, Wei Chen, Shuli Ning, Weidong Lin, Nan Li, Bin Lian, Xiang Sun, and Jijun Zhao. 2025. A Survey on WiFi-based Human Identification: Scenarios, Challenges, and Current Solutions.ACM Trans. Sen. Netw.21, 1, Article 10 (Jan. 2025), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3708323

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    Chenshu Wu, Feng Zhang, Yuqian Hu, and K. J. Ray Liu. 2021. GaitWay: Monitoring and Recognizing Gait Speed Through the Walls. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing20, 6 (June 2021), 2186–2199. doi:10.1109/TMC.2020.2975158

    2021

  35. [43]

    Wei Xu, Zhu Wang, Yifan Guo, Zhihui Ren, Yandi Xu, Bin Guo, Zhiwen Yu, and Xingshe Zhou. 2025. Acoustic sensing mechanisms, technologies, and applications: a survey: W. Xu et al.CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction(2025), 1–28

    2025

  36. [44]

    Wei Xu, ZhiWen Yu, Zhu Wang, Bin Guo, and Qi Han. 2019. AcousticID: Gait-based Human Identification Using Acoustic Signal.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.3, 3, Article 115 (Sept. 2019), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3351273

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Dawei Yan, Panlong Yang, Fei Shang, Feiyu Han, Yubo Yan, and Xiang-Yang Li. 2024. freeGait: Liberalizing Wireless-based Gait Recognition to Mitigate Non-gait Human Behaviors. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Symposium on Theory, Algorithmic Foundations, and Prot...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Dawei Yan, Panlong Yang, Fei Shang, Feiyu Han, Yubo Yan, and Xiang-Yang Li. 2025. Pushing the Limits of WiFi-Based Gait Recognition Towards Non-Gait Human Behaviors.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing(2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Wei Yang, Zhixiang Li, and Sheng Chen. 2025. Environment Independent Gait Recognition Based on Wi-Fi Signals.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing(2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Pathak, and Prasant Mohapatra

    Yunze Zeng, Parth H. Pathak, and Prasant Mohapatra. 2016. WiWho: WiFi-Based Person Identification in Smart Spaces. In2016 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN). IEEE, 1–12. doi:10.1109/IPSN.2016.7460727

    2016

  41. [49]

    Youwei Zeng, Dan Wu, Jie Xiong, Enze Yi, Ruiyang Gao, and Daqing Zhang. 2019. FarSense: Pushing the Range Limit of WiFi-based Respiration Sensing with CSI Ratio of Two Antennas.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.3, 3, Article 121 (Sept. 2019), 26 pages. doi:1...

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    Shuangjiao Zhai, Zhanyong Tang, Petteri Nurmi, Dingyi Fang, Xiaojiang Chen, and Zheng Wang. 2021. RISE: robust wireless sensing using probabilistic and statistical assessments. InProceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking(New Orl...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Jie Zhang, Zhanyong Tang, Meng Li, Dingyi Fang, Petteri Nurmi, and Zheng Wang. 2018. CrossSense: Towards Cross-Site and Large- Scale WiFi Sensing. InProceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking(New Delhi, India) (MobiCom ’18). Asso...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Lei Zhang, Cong Wang, and Daqing Zhang. 2021. Wi-PIGR: Path independent gait recognition with commodity Wi-Fi.IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing21, 9 (2021), 3414–3427. doi:10.1109/TMC.2021.3052314

    2021

  45. [53]

    Yi Zhang, Yue Zheng, Guidong Zhang, Kun Qian, Chen Qian, and Zheng Yang. 2020. GaitID: Robust Wi-Fi Based Gait Recognition. In Wireless Algorithms, Systems, and Applications. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 730–742

    2020

  46. [54]

    Yi Zhang, Yue Zheng, Guidong Zhang, Kun Qian, Chen Qian, and Zheng Yang. 2021. GaitSense: Towards ubiquitous gait-based human identification with Wi-Fi.ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN)18, 1 (2021), 1–24. Received 1 February 2026; revised 1 May 2026; accepted 1 July 2...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.