Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Proximity Detection During Epidemics: Direct UWB TOA Versus Machine Learning Based RSSI

  • Published:
International Journal of Wireless Information Networks Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the direct TOA-based UWB technology with the RSSI-based BLE technology using machine learning algorithms for proximity detection during epidemics in terms of complexity of implementation, availability in existing smart phones, and precision of the results. We establish the theoretical limits on the precision and confidence of proximity estimation for both technologies using the Cramer Rao Lower Bound (CRLB) and validate the theoretical foundations using empirical data gathered in diverse practical operating scenarios. We perform our empirical experiments at eight distances in three flat environments and one non-flat environment encompassing both Line of Sight (LOS) and Obstructed-LOS (OLOS) situations. We also analyze the effects of various postures (eight angles) of the person carrying the sensor, and four on-body locations of the sensor. To estimate the range with BLE RSSI, we use 14 features for training the Gradient Boosted Machines (GBM) learning algorithm and we compare the precision of results with those obtained from memoryless UWB TOA ranging algorithm. We show that the memoryless UWB TOA algorithm achieves 93.60% confidence, slightly outperforming the 92.85% confidence of the BLE RSSI with more complex GBM machine learning (ML) algorithm and the need for substantial training. The training process for the RSSI-based BLE social distance measurements involved 3000 measurements to create a training dataset for each scenario and post-processing of data to extract 14 features of RSSI, and the ML classification algorithm consumed 200 s of computational time. The memoryless UWB ranging algorithm achieves more robust results without any need for training in less than 0.5 s of computation time.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Ghose, C. Bhaumik, and T. Chakravarty, Blueeye: A system for proximity detection using bluetooth on mobile phones. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing Adjunct Publication, pp. 1135–1142, 2013.

  2. S. Liu, Y. Jiang, and A. Striegel, Face-to-face proximity estimationusing bluetooth on smartphones, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 811–823, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. S. Shankar, R. Kanaparti, A. Chopra, R. Sukumaran, P. Patwa, M. Kang, A. Singh, K. P. McPherson, and R. Raskar, Proximity sensing: Modeling and understanding noisy rssi-ble signals and other mobile sensor data for digital contact tracing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.04991, 2020.

  4. Z. Su, K. Pahlavan, and E. Agu, Performance evaluation of covid-19 proximity detection using bluetooth le signal, IEEE Access, Vol. 9, pp. 38891–38906, 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. O. Semenov, E. Agu, K. Pahlavan, and Z. Su, Covid-19 social distance proximity estimation using machine learning analyses of smartphone sensor data, IEEE Sensors Journal. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2022.3162605, 2022.

  6. S. Gezici, and H. V. Poor, Position estimation via ultra-wide-band signals, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 386–403, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Hatami, and K. Pahlavan, Performance comparison of rss and toa indoor geolocation based on uwb measurement of channel characteristics. In: 2006 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pp. 1–6, 2006. IEEE.

  8. DW1000, 3.5 - 6.5 GHz Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Transceiver IC with 1 Antenna Port, 2022. https://www.decawave.com/product/dw1000-radio-ic/.

  9. S. Dwivedi, R. Shreevastav, F. Munier, J. Nygren, I. Siomina, Y. Lyazidi, D. Shrestha, G. Lindmark, P. Ernström, and E. Stare, et al., Positioning in 5g networks, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 59, No. 11, pp. 38–44, 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. A. Dammann, R. Raulefs, and S. Zhang, On prospects of positioning in 5g. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW), pp. 1207–1213, 2015. IEEE.

  11. R. Keating, M. Säily, J. Hulkkonen, and J. Karjalainen, Overview of positioning in 5g new radio. In: 2019 16th International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), pp. 320–324, 2019. IEEE.

  12. F. Wen, J. Kulmer, K. Witrisal, and H. Wymeersch, 5g positioning and mapping with diffuse multipath, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 1164–1174, 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Structured Contact Tracing Protocol, Boston, MA, 2020. https://mitll.github.io/PACT/.

  14. K. Pahlavan, Indoor Geolocation Science and Technology, pp. 104–109. River Publishers, Denmark, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. Pahlavan, J. Ying, Z. Li, E. Solovey, J. P. Loftus, and Z. Dong, Rf cloud for cyberspace intelligence, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 89976–89987, 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge contributions of Dr. Nader Moayeri of the National Institute of Standard and Technology for fruitful discussions on development of thoughts resulting in this research and his productive comments on the reference [4] that laid the foundation of this study. This work was supported in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Warfighter Analytics using Smartphones for Health (WASH) Program under Agreement FA8750-18-2-0077.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electrical and Computer Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA, 01609, USA

    Zhuoran Su, Kaveh Pahlavan & Haowen Wei

  2. Computer Science, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA, 01609, USA

    Emmanuel Agu & Haowen Wei

Authors
  1. Zhuoran Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaveh Pahlavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emmanuel Agu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haowen Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhuoran Su.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Su, Z., Pahlavan, K., Agu, E. et al. Proximity Detection During Epidemics: Direct UWB TOA Versus Machine Learning Based RSSI. Int J Wireless Inf Networks 29, 480–490 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10776-022-00577-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10776-022-00577-4

Keywords