Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Why Commodity WiFi Sensors Fail at Multi-Person Gait Identification: A Systematic Analysis Using ESP32

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that multi-person gait identification on commodity ESP32 WiFi is capped by sensing quality and spatial diversity rather than by the separation algorithm, with all six tested methods landing between 39% and 56% accuracy.

desk verdict Useful comparative benchmark on real ESP32 hardware, but the 'hardware ceiling' conclusion is undercut by an unaddressed BSS source-ordering problem and internal contradictions between the abstract and the results table. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.02177 v2 pith:B2DAMYVO submitted 2026-01-05 cs.CV cs.CR

Oliver Custance , Saad Khan , Simon Parkinson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.CR
keywords WiFisensingChannelStateInformationCSIESP32gaitidentificationblindsourceseparationmulti-personbiometriclimits
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

The paper sets out to answer whether poor multi-person gait identification over WiFi is an algorithmic problem or a hardware one. Using commodity ESP32 sensors and six blind source separation methods across 1-10 people and two environments, it finds all methods land within 39-56% accuracy with statistically indistinguishable differences. It introduces three diagnostic metrics—intra-subject variability, inter-subject distinguishability, and performance degradation rate—that attribute the failure to extreme feature-space overlap, unstable within-person representations, and unpredictable environmental sensitivity. The authors conclude that commodity ESP32 sensors hit a fundamental sensing ceiling, so further algorithmic refinement on such hardware is unlikely to yield reliable multi-person identification. If correct, the result redirects research toward more capable hardware and places bounds on the passive identification threat from low-cost WiFi devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the ESP32 CSI acquisition front end together with three diagnostic metrics. The ESP32 provides k=3 antennas and m=52 OFDM subcarriers, which the paper shows yield insufficient spatial resolution (angular resolution roughly 67 degrees) for separating co-located walkers. The metrics—intra-subject variability (ISV), inter-subject distinguishability (ISD), and performance degradation rate (PDR)—quantify how far within-person feature scatter exceeds between-person separation, and how accuracy changes as crowd size grows. The six blind source separation methods (FastICA, SOBI, PCA, NMF, Wavelet, Tucker tensor decomposition) serve as probes: because their accuracies cl

What would settle it

A concrete test: rerun the identical pipeline but align separated components to person identities using a deterministic assignment rule (e.g., match each component to the closest single-person reference template). If accuracy on 5- and 10-person scenarios rises substantially above 56%, or if ISV drops by orders of magnitude, then the reported ceiling is at least partly a labeling artifact rather than purely a hardware limit. Another falsifier: collect CSI from an ESP32 with a 4-antenna external array (or 160 MHz bandwidth) and show ISV/ISD drops below the proposed viability threshold while acc

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims and presents evidence for a negative result with a causal attribution: under the constraints of commodity ESP32 Channel State Information (three antennas, 52 OFDM subcarriers), multi-person gait identification is limited more by sensing quality and spatial diversity than by the chosen separation algorithm. Across 440 trials and seven scenarios spanning 1-10 people, FastICA, SOBI, PCA, NMF, Wavelet, and Tensor decomposition all produce similar accuracy (39-56%), with feature-space overlap above 97% and within-subject variability exceeding between-subject separation by factors of 73 to 1,266,000. The paper argues the ESP32's coarse angular resolution and correlated subcarriers

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that after blind source separation, each separated output component corresponds to a fixed, identifiable person in a consistent order across trials, so that labels can be attached to feature vectors for SVM training; none of the six BSS methods produces a canonical ordering, and no permutation-correction step is described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Algorithm choice will not rescue multi-person gait identification on commodity ESP32-class hardware; all six methods tested fall in the same narrow accuracy band with p > 0.05.
  • Commodity WiFi CSI is not a dependable multi-user biometric for authentication or continuous verification; deployments should treat it as a weak single-user channel at best.
  • Research effort on multi-person WiFi identification should shift from separation algorithms to sensing hardware with more antennas and bandwidth, such as massive MIMO or mmWave.
  • The proposed diagnostic thresholds (ISV/ISD < 10, |PDR| < 20%) give later systems a concrete pre-classification check for whether separation is even feasible before building a classifier.
  • Environmental unpredictability (2.2% to 18.9% lab-classroom gaps, including negative PDR) means models trained in one setting cannot be expected to transfer to another.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not describe a permutation-correction step for the six BSS methods; if separated component order is not aligned across trials, the reported accuracies and ISV/ISD values could partly reflect a labeling artifact rather than a true sensing ceiling. A re-run with source-to-person alignment (e.g., using per-person reference templates) would test whether NMF's 56% is a genuine ceiling or
  • One direct testable extension: apply the same pipeline to an 8-antenna array or a 160 MHz recording while holding the algorithms fixed; the ISV/ISD gap should shrink if the paper's hardware-attribution is correct, and should remain large if the bottleneck is algorithmic.
  • The negative PDR values (accuracy rising from 2 to 10 people) hint that separation benefits from richer mixtures; this is consistent with the paper's spatial-diversity argument but also suggests that a 'more people, more sources' regime may be where commodity sensors are least hopeless—a point worth probing with intermediate person counts.
  • If the hardware-ceiling conclusion holds, it also bounds passive privacy risk from commodity WiFi sniffing: an attacker with the same class of hardware cannot reliably identify individuals in a crowd, so security mitigations can focus on higher-end sensing or multi-modal fusion.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic empirical study of multi-person gait identification using commodity ESP32 WiFi CSI. Six blind source separation methods (FastICA, SOBI, PCA, NMF, Wavelet, Tucker) are compared across seven scenarios with 1–10 people. The authors introduce three diagnostic metrics (ISV, ISD, PDR) and report accuracies between roughly 39% and 56%, with high feature-space overlap and inconsistent environmental effects. The main claim is that, under commodity ESP32 constraints, the bottleneck is hardware sensing quality and spatial diversity rather than the choice of separation algorithm, and that commodity ESP32 sensors cannot provide sufficient signal quality for reliable multi-person separation.

Significance. If the empirical result holds, this is a valuable negative result: it would redirect effort away from incremental algorithm refinement on ESP32-class devices toward hardware upgrades (massive MIMO, mmWave) or alternative sensing modalities. The systematic comparison of six separation methods and the attempt to diagnose failure modes beyond accuracy are useful in principle. However, the central conclusion rests on a multi-person classification pipeline that is not adequately specified, and the paper contains direct internal contradictions in the reported accuracy range, statistical claims, and performance-degradation narrative. The diagnostic metrics are a potentially useful contribution, but their definitions and units need to be made coherent before they can support the stated hardware-ceiling conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-D, II-F, III (Table I)] All six separation methods have permutation indeterminacy: FastICA, SOBI, PCA, NMF, wavelet thresholding, and Tucker decomposition output components in no canonical order. Section II-F trains an SVM with labels y_i in Eq. (9) as person identities, which requires each separated component to correspond to a fixed person consistently across trials. No source-to-person alignment, permutation-correction procedure, Hungarian assignment, or template matching is described. If component order varies across trials, the labels become effectively random with respect to identity, and the reported 39–56% accuracies—and the ISV/ISD metrics—measure a labeling artifact rather than a hardware sensing ceiling. This is load-bearing: the paper's conclusion that commodity ESP32 sensors cannot support reliable multi-person separation rests on these numbers. Please add an explicit alignment step and report its
  2. [Abstract, Section I, Table I] The abstract and contributions state that all methods achieve 45–56% accuracy with σ=3.74% and statistically insignificant differences (p>0.05). Table I lists PCA at 39.4% and Wavelet at 42.3%, both below 45%, and the mean of the six reported accuracies is 47.05% with sample σ≈5.3%, not 3.74%. Furthermore, no test statistic or p-value is reported in Section III. Please correct the accuracy range and standard deviation, and provide the actual statistical test (name, statistic, p-value) used to support the 'no significant differences' claim.
  3. [Abstract vs. Section III-D] The abstract and conclusion claim 'severe performance degradation as person count increases,' but Section III-D reports PDR values of -51.5% to -6.7% for most methods, meaning accuracy improves from the 2-person to 10-person scenarios, and the text explicitly calls this 'counterintuitive.' These two statements cannot both be true for the same dataset. Please report accuracy broken down by scenario (A–G) and reconcile the PDR results with the degradation narrative. As written, the inconsistency undermines the core 'hardware ceiling' interpretation.
  4. [III-D, IV] The ISV/ISD ratio is used as the central evidence that within-class variance exceeds between-class separation by factors of 73–1,266,000×, and the conclusion proposes viability thresholds (ISV/ISD < 10, |PDR| < 20%). However, ISV is defined as a squared distance and reported in units of ×10³ in Table I, while ISD is reported as a percentage. The claimed ratio of 1,266,000 for Tensor does not follow from the stated definitions unless the units are handled consistently. Without compatible units or clear normalization, the ISV/ISD ratio and the proposed thresholds are not interpretable. Please define ISV and ISD with consistent units and recompute the ratios.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II-C] Equation (1) uses a fixed eigenvalue threshold of 0.95 for source-count estimation. No validation is reported showing that this threshold yields the correct number of people across the seven scenarios. Please report estimated vs. true person counts.
  2. [II-D.5] The wavelet 'separation' is described as thresholding detail coefficients in gait frequency bands; this is a denoising/feature-selection step rather than a blind source separation method in the same sense as ICA, SOBI, PCA, or NMF. This weakens the claim that six diverse separation methods were compared.
  3. [II-F / III-A] No train/test split or cross-validation procedure is described. It is unclear whether the SVM classifiers are evaluated on the same participants seen in training and how many trials are used per class. Please specify the evaluation protocol.
  4. [Table I and III-D] The notation for ISV is inconsistent: Table I labels the column '(×10³)' and lists values such as 30.6, 2.3, and 49370.0, while the text says ISV ranges from 2.3×10³ to 49,370×10³. The corresponding ISD values are labeled '%' but are later used as raw distances in ratio calculations. Please clean up these units and notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the study is an empirical benchmark; conclusions are inductive, not derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that commodity ESP32 CSI hardware, rather than the separation algorithm, limits multi-person gait identification. This is supported by a systematic comparison of six BSS methods on collected CSI data, with reported accuracies, feature-overlap percentages, and diagnostic metrics. No equation in the paper constructs the claimed conclusion from a fitted parameter that is then relabeled as a prediction. ISV, ISD, and PDR are computed from the same feature set used for classification, but they are presented as post-hoc diagnostics, not as inputs to a derivation of the hardware ceiling. The hardware-limitation conclusion is an inductive inference from the observed similarity of accuracy across methods and from the diagnostic metrics; it is not forced by construction. The only self-citation, reference [8], appears in a list of prior single-person WiFi sensing results alongside external references [5]–[7], and it is not load-bearing for the central claim. No uniqueness theorem or modeling ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The BSS permutation-order concern (no source-to-person alignment is described) is a potential threat to the validity of the reported accuracies, but it is an experimental-confounding issue, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. Under the stated rules, that concern does not raise the circularity score. The finding is therefore no significant circularity: score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper relies on several hand-chosen hyperparameters and unstated assumptions about source-to-person alignment and preprocessing/procedure interactions. These are load-bearing because the central 'hardware ceiling' conclusion is only as strong as the validity of the person-count estimate, the separation-output labeling, and the representativeness of the single-device, single-classifier pipeline.

free parameters (5)
  • Eigenvalue person-count threshold = 0.95
    Eq. (1) uses a cumulative eigenvalue threshold of ≥0.95 to estimate the number of people p̂; no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • NMF sparsity penalty α = 0.1
    Eq. (5) sets α=0.1 by hand without ablation; results may depend on this choice.
  • SOBI lag configuration = K=10, τ ∈ [1,50]
    Section II-D.2 chooses 10 lags uniformly from 1 to 50 samples without justification or sensitivity analysis.
  • SVM regularization C = 1.0
    Section II-F sets C=1.0 as a standard default; no tuning or cross-validation is reported.
  • Wavelet level and family = L=4, Daubechies-4
    Section II-D.5 selects a 4-level Daubechies-4 decomposition without ablation; the 'gait frequency bands' thresholding is unspecified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CSI amplitude modulations from ESP32 encode individual gait characteristics
    The entire pipeline assumes that the measured CSI time series X∈R^{n×52×3} contains separable information about each walking person (Section II-A).
  • domain assumption Separated BSS components correspond to distinct people in a consistent order for labeling
    Section II-D produces unlabeled source components; Section II-F trains an SVM as though each component has a stable person identity. No permutation/alignment procedure is described.
  • ad hoc to paper Eigenvalue-based source enumeration with a fixed 0.95 threshold gives the correct person count
    Eq. (1) is used to set the number of separation components; if p̂ is wrong, all downstream separation and classification is mismatched.
  • domain assumption Z-score normalization preserves the separability needed by the BSS methods
    Section II-B applies per-subcarrier z-score normalization before all methods, including NMF, which formally requires non-negative data (Section II-D.4).
  • domain assumption The SVM with RBF kernel and hand-picked features is an adequate classifier for this problem
    Only one classifier is used; the 'algorithmic vs hardware' conclusion assumes that the classifier and feature set are not the actual bottleneck.
invented entities (1)
  • ISV, ISD, and PDR diagnostic metrics with viability thresholds
    purpose: To quantify intra-subject variability, inter-subject distinguishability, and performance degradation rate, and to propose that viable systems must achieve ISV/ISD < 10 and |PDR| < 20%.
    These metrics are computed on the same data used to train/evaluate the classifiers, and the proposed thresholds in the conclusion are hand-chosen without independent calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Why Commodity WiFi Sensors Fail at Multi-Person Gait Identification: A Systematic Analysis Using ESP32." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2DAMYVO

@misc{pith2026260102177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Why Commodity WiFi Sensors Fail at Multi-Person Gait Identification: A Systematic Analysis Using ESP32},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2DAMYVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02177}
}
read the original abstract

WiFi Channel State Information (CSI) has shown promise for single-person gait identification, raising interest in its use for contactless biometrics, continuous authentication, and passive identification. However, the feasibility of multi-person identification on low-cost commodity devices remains unclear. A critical question is whether weak multi-person performance is primarily an algorithmic limitation, or whether it reflects a more fundamental sensing ceiling on commodity WiFi hardware. We address this question through a systematic empirical study using commodity ESP32 WiFi sensors. We evaluated six different signal separation methods--FastICA, SOBI, PCA-ICA, NMF, Wavelet, and Tensor decomposition--across seven scenarios spanning 1-10 people in both controlled and realistic indoor environments. To investigate beyond classification accuracy, we introduce three diagnostic metrics: intra-subject variability (ISV), inter-subject distinguishability (ISD), and performance degradation rate (PDR). In all methods, performance remains moderate (39%-56% accuracy), with limited evidence that algorithmic choice alone solves the problem. The best-performing method, NMF, reaches 56% accuracy, while all methods exhibit extremely high feature-space overlap (97%-99%), unstable within-subject representations, and marked environmental sensitivity. These findings suggest that, under commodity ESP32 CSI constraints, dense multi-person gait identification is limited more by sensing quality and spatial diversity than by the chosen separation algorithm. Our results have direct implications for security and privacy: they call into question the practicality of commodity WiFi CSI as a robust multi-user biometric primitive for authentication, while also placing important bounds on the passive identification capabilities achievable with low-cost off-the-shelf WiFi hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02177 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System pipeline overview showing: (1) CSI data collection using ESP32 sensors, (2) preprocessing with filtering and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lab-Classroom performance gap showing environmen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Failure mode distribution showing misclassification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Wifi sensing with channel state information: A survey,

    Y . Ma, G. Zhou, and S. Wang, “Wifi sensing with channel state information: A survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1–36, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Wireless sensing for human activity: A survey,

    J. Liu, H. Liu, Y . Chen, Y . Wang, and C. Wang, “Wireless sensing for human activity: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1629–1645, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Understanding and modeling of wifi signal based human activity recognition,

    W. Wang, A. X. Liu, M. Shahzad, K. Ling, and S. Lu, “Understanding and modeling of wifi signal based human activity recognition,” in Proceedings of the 21st annual international conference on mobile computing and networking , 2015, pp. 65–76

    2015

  4. [4]

    A survey on behavior recognition using wifi channel state information,

    S. Yousefi, H. Narui, S. Dayal, S. Ermon, and S. Valaee, “A survey on behavior recognition using wifi channel state information,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 98–104, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Crosssense: Towards cross-site and large-scale wifi sensing,

    J. Zhang, Z. Tang, M. Li, D. Fang, P. Nurmi, and Z. Wang, “Crosssense: Towards cross-site and large-scale wifi sensing,” in Proceedings of the 24th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking, 2018, pp. 305–320

    2018

  6. [6]

    Csi-net: Unified human body characterization and pose recognition,

    F. Wang, J. Han, S. Zhang, X. He, and D. Huang, “Csi-net: Unified human body characterization and pose recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03064, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Wihi: Wifi based human identity identification using deep learning,

    J. Ding, Y . Wang, and X. Fu, “Wihi: Wifi based human identity identification using deep learning,” IEEe Access , vol. 8, pp. 129 246– 129 262, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Classifying participant stand- ing and sitting postures using channel state information,

    O. Custance, S. Khan, and S. Parkinson, “Classifying participant stand- ing and sitting postures using channel state information,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 21, p. 4500, 2023

    2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Towards environment independent device free human activity recognition,

    W. Jiang, C. Miao, F. Ma, S. Yao, Y . Wang, Y . Yuan, H. Xue, C. Song, X. Ma, D. Koutsonikolas et al. , “Towards environment independent device free human activity recognition,” in Proceedings of the 24th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking , 201...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Fifs: Fine-grained indoor fin- gerprinting system,

    J. Xiao, K. Wu, Y . Yi, and L. M. Ni, “Fifs: Fine-grained indoor fin- gerprinting system,” in 2012 21st international conference on computer communications and networks (ICCCN) . IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–7

    2012

  3. [11]

    Widar3. 0: Zero-effort cross-domain gesture recognition with wi- fi,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Zheng, K. Qian, G. Zhang, Y . Liu, C. Wu, and Z. Yang, “Widar3. 0: Zero-effort cross-domain gesture recognition with wi- fi,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 8671–8688, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Smart user authentication through actuation of daily activities leveraging wifi-enabled iot,

    C. Shi, J. Liu, H. Liu, and Y . Chen, “Smart user authentication through actuation of daily activities leveraging wifi-enabled iot,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM international symposium on mobile ad hoc networking and computing, 2017, pp. 1–10

    2017

  5. [13]

    Multi-user human activity recognition through adaptive location-independent wifi signal characteristics,

    F. Abuhoureyah, K. S. Sim, and Y . C. Wong, “Multi-user human activity recognition through adaptive location-independent wifi signal characteristics,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 112 008–112 024, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Tensor decomposi- tions for signal processing: Theory, advances, and applications,

    N. Tokcan, S. S. Sofi, C. Pr ´evost, S. Kharbech, B. Magnier, T. P. Nguyen, A. Khoshnam, Y . Zniyed, L. de Lathauwer et al. , “Tensor decomposi- tions for signal processing: Theory, advances, and applications,” Signal Processing, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Wifi sensing on the edge: Signal processing techniques and challenges for real-world systems,

    S. M. Hernandez and E. Bulut, “Wifi sensing on the edge: Signal processing techniques and challenges for real-world systems,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 46–76, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Gaitsense: Towards ubiquitous gait-based human identification with wi- fi,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Zheng, G. Zhang, K. Qian, C. Qian, and Z. Yang, “Gaitsense: Towards ubiquitous gait-based human identification with wi- fi,” ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN) , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Spacebeat: Identity-aware multi- person vital signs monitoring using commodity wifi,

    B. Li, Y . Ren, Y . Wang, and J. Yang, “Spacebeat: Identity-aware multi- person vital signs monitoring using commodity wifi,” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1–23, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    A novel adaptive device-free passive indoor fingerprinting localization under dynamic environment,

    X. Rao, L. Qin, Y . Yi, J. Liu, G. Lei, and Y . Cao, “A novel adaptive device-free passive indoor fingerprinting localization under dynamic environment,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Rtmp-id: real-time through-wall multi-person identification based on mimo radar,

    C. Wang, C. Han, X. Gao, H. Ren, L. Sun, and J. Guo, “Rtmp-id: real-time through-wall multi-person identification based on mimo radar,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Clustering-based activity detection algorithms for grant-free random access in cell-free massive mimo,

    U. K. Ganesan, E. Bj ¨ornson, and E. G. Larsson, “Clustering-based activity detection algorithms for grant-free random access in cell-free massive mimo,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 7520–7530, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Gait-based person identification and intruder detection using mm-wave sensing in multi-person scenario,

    Z. Ni and B. Huang, “Gait-based person identification and intruder detection using mm-wave sensing in multi-person scenario,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 9713–9723, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Person identification with millimeter-wave radar in realistic smart home scenarios,

    Z. Xia, G. Ding, H. Wang, and F. Xu, “Person identification with millimeter-wave radar in realistic smart home scenarios,” IEEE Geo- science and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Multi-har: Human activity recognition in multi-person scenes based on mmwave sensing,

    X. Zeng, Y . Shi, and A. Zhou, “Multi-har: Human activity recognition in multi-person scenes based on mmwave sensing,” in 2022 IEEE 8th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1789–1793

    2022

  16. [24]

    Lightweight and Standalone IoT Based WiFi Sensing for Active Repositioning and Mobility,

    S. M. Hernandez and E. Bulut, “Lightweight and Standalone IoT Based WiFi Sensing for Active Repositioning and Mobility,” in 21st Inter- national Symposium on ”A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks” (WoWMoM) (WoWMoM 2020), Cork, Ireland, Jun. 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Source enumeration utilizing adaptive diagonal loading and linear shrinkage coefficients,

    Y . Tian, Z. Zhang, W. Liu, H. Chen, and G. Wang, “Source enumeration utilizing adaptive diagonal loading and linear shrinkage coefficients,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 72, pp. 2073–2086, 2024

  18. [26]

    A packaged food internal raman signal separation method based on spatially offset raman spectroscopy combined with fastica,

    Z. Liu, M. Huang, Q. Zhu, J. Qin, and M. S. Kim, “A packaged food internal raman signal separation method based on spatially offset raman spectroscopy combined with fastica,”Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy , vol. 275, p. 121154, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Remove artifacts from a single-channel eeg based on vmd and sobi,

    C. Liu and C. Zhang, “Remove artifacts from a single-channel eeg based on vmd and sobi,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 17, p. 6698, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Qualitative and quantitative recognition method of drug-producing chemicals based on sno2 gas sensor with dynamic measurement and pca weak separation,

    H. Ji, W. Qin, Z. Yuan, and F. Meng, “Qualitative and quantitative recognition method of drug-producing chemicals based on sno2 gas sensor with dynamic measurement and pca weak separation,” Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical , vol. 348, p. 130698, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    A new non-negative matrix factorization approach for blind source separation of cardiovascular and respiratory sound based on the periodicity of heart and lung function,

    Y . Torabi, S. Shirani, and J. P. Reilly, “A new non-negative matrix factorization approach for blind source separation of cardiovascular and respiratory sound based on the periodicity of heart and lung function,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01889 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Signal pro- cessing algorithm based on discrete wavelet transform,

    A. Osadchiy, A. Kamenev, V . Saharov, and S. Chernyi, “Signal pro- cessing algorithm based on discrete wavelet transform,” Designs, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 41, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Randomized algorithms for computation of tucker decomposition and higher order svd (hosvd),

    S. Ahmadi-Asl, S. Abukhovich, M. G. Asante-Mensah, A. Cichocki, A. H. Phan, T. Tanaka, and I. Oseledets, “Randomized algorithms for computation of tucker decomposition and higher order svd (hosvd),” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 28 684–28 706, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    A multi-modal fusion method based on higher-order orthogonal iteration decomposition,

    F. Liu, J. Chen, W. Tan, and C. Cai, “A multi-modal fusion method based on higher-order orthogonal iteration decomposition,” Entropy, vol. 23, no. 10, p. 1349, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Svm-based gait analysis and classification for patients with parkinson’s disease,

    Y . Zheng, Y . Weng, X. Yang, G. Cai, G. Cai, and Y . Song, “Svm-based gait analysis and classification for patients with parkinson’s disease,” in 2021 15th International symposium on medical information and communication technology (ISMICT) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 53–58

    2021

  26. [34]

    Development of neuro- degenerative diseases’ gait classification algorithm using convolutional neural network and wavelet coherence spectrogram of gait synchroniza- tion,

    F. Setiawan, A.-B. Liu, and C.-W. Lin, “Development of neuro- degenerative diseases’ gait classification algorithm using convolutional neural network and wavelet coherence spectrogram of gait synchroniza- tion,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 38 137–38 153, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.