Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Milot Gashi

dblp:226/0158 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0001-6327-3960ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Computer networks · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer networks
2 papers
Wireless sensing and localization · 70% Physical-layer communications · 23% Internet of things and sensor networks · 7%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Wireless sensing and localization
indoor localization
1.122022
Poster Abstract: Accurate and Efficient Hybrid Indoor Localization using ML Methods · IPSN 2022
Poster Abstract: Machine Learning-based Models for Phase-Difference-of-Arrival Measurements Using Ultra-Wideband Transceivers · IPSN 2022
Physical-layer communications › signal processing for communications › array signal processing
direction-of-arrival estimation
0.612022
Poster Abstract: Machine Learning-based Models for Phase-Difference-of-Arrival Measurements Using Ultra-Wideband Transceivers · IPSN 2022
Wireless sensing and localization › ranging
ranging error mitigation
0.612022
Poster Abstract: Accurate and Efficient Hybrid Indoor Localization using ML Methods · IPSN 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

random forest regression · 1.1machine learning regressors · 0.6linear regression · 0.6LightGBM regression · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Poster Abstract: Machine Learning-based Models for Phase-Difference-of-Arrival Measurements Using Ultra-Wideband Transceivers
abstract
Ultra-wideband technology is applied for indoor positioning systems and achieves a position accuracy in the order of decimeters. A trending approach in this context relies on combined angle-of-arrival and time-of-flight measurements, and enables localization using a single anchor, thereby reducing infrastructure overhead. Although analytical models already exist for Ultra-wideband-based distance estimation using time-of-flight, no model has been proposed for its angle-of-arrival counterpart. In this paper we cover this gap by investigating the use of 4 different machine learning regressors to generate such models. The models were trained with data from real-world experiments performed with commercial off-the-shelf Ultra-wideband modules. The models can be easily integrated in simulators, facilitating and even enabling the evaluation of scalable positioning systems using this technology. Among the tested regressors, the random forest regressor presented the best fit to the experimental data, with MAE of the “mean” parameter of 8°.
Leo Botler, Milot Gashi, Konrad Diwold, Kay Römer
IPSN2
2022 Poster Abstract: Accurate and Efficient Hybrid Indoor Localization using ML Methods
abstract
Hybrid time-of-flight and phase-difference-of-arrival ultra-wideband-based localization systems enable indoor position estimation of mo-bile nodes at a low infrastructure overhead. A known drawback in such systems is the decreasing localization accuracy over distance from node(s) with known location. In this paper we evaluated 3 ML algorithms: Random Forest Regression, LightGBM Regression, and Linear Regression to mitigate this issue. We evaluate the ben-efit of using those methods on experimental data obtained with commercial off-the-shelf transceivers. Our results show that the Random Forest Regression outperforms a typical linear regression correction by 0.49±0.01 (mean±std) meters in positioning accuracy at an computing overhead of nearly 0.34±0.003 [s].
Milot Gashi, Leo Botler, Georgios Koutroulis, Konrad Diwold
IPSN1