wifi-densepose/docs/research/sota-2026-05-22/ticks/tick-21.md

79 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

# Tick 21 — 2026-05-22 08:10 UTC
**Thread:** R6.2.1 (3D antenna placement extension)
**Verdict:** Counter-intuitive finding — **ceiling-only mounting gives 0% coverage**. Mixed-height (one low, one high) gives the best result.
## What shipped
- `examples/research-sota/r6_2_1_3d_placement.py` — pure-numpy 3D Fresnel ellipsoid placement search.
- `examples/research-sota/r6_2_1_3d_results.json` — strategy comparison.
- `docs/research/sota-2026-05-22/R6_2_1-3d-placement.md` — research note.
## Headline strategy comparison
3D room (5×5×2.5 m), three 3D target zones (bed at z=0.3-0.6, chair at z=0.5-1.2, standing at z=1.0-1.7):
| Strategy | Coverage |
|---|---:|
| Desk-height (0.8 m walls) | 22.2% |
| Wall-mount (1.5 m walls) | 17.4% |
| **Ceiling-only (2.5 m grid)** | **0.0%** |
| **Mixed walls + ceiling** | **25.7%** ← best |
## The physics
Ceiling-only fails because both antennas at 2.5 m create a Fresnel ellipsoid sitting **at ceiling height** (2.1-2.9 m vertically). Target zones at 0.3-1.7 m are below the envelope by 0.4-2.0 m. The 39 cm transverse radius is symmetric around LOS, so a flat horizontal link at any height misses targets at any other height.
**This is the 3D version of R6.1's on-LOS-degeneracy finding.** A horizontal link at any single height has its envelope concentrated at that height.
## Why mixed wins
Best placement: Tx at (5.0, 4.0, 0.8) desk-height + Rx at (0.0, 4.0, 1.5) wall-mount. The **diagonal-in-z** link tilts the ellipsoid through multiple elevations. Covers chair AND standing AND bed simultaneously.
**Vertical link diversity is the 3D insight 2D analysis missed.**
## Installation-guide updates
| Use case | Recipe |
|---|---|
| Single Tx-Rx pair | One low (0.8 m), one high (1.5 m), opposite walls |
| 4-anchor R6.2.2 | 2× low corners + 2× high opposite corners |
| 5-anchor knee | Mix 0.8 / 1.5 / one ceiling (2.5) for top-down |
| Bed-only sleep monitoring | Both LOW (0.5-0.8 m), opposite sides of bed |
| Standing-only (gym, kitchen) | Both HIGH (1.5 m) |
| **NEVER** | Both ceiling without low anchor |
## Why coverage numbers are lower than R6.2's 51%
3D target zones are *volumes*, not 2D *areas*. A point must be inside the ellipsoid in all 3 axes. Volumetric coverage is inherently lower; the 22-26% range is honest 3D physics.
## Composes with prior threads
- **R6.2** (2D) — incomplete; height matters as much as horizontal
- **R6.2.2** (N-anchor) — N=5 knee should distribute across heights
- **R6.1** multi-scatterer — needs 3D body model (head/chest/legs at different z) for proper composition
- **R14** V1/V2/V3 — each vertical needs height-recipe specific to its sensing zone
- **ADR-029** — anchor placement is (x, y, z), not (x, y)
- **R12 PABS** — sensitivity to intruders inherits the coverage; mixed-height detects standing/sitting/lying intruders alike
## Honest scope
- 3-zone discrete approximation of continuous human occupancy
- Single-pair only; multi-anchor 3D = R6.2.2.1 (next)
- No furniture occlusion
- 0.1 m resolution
- Greedy single-pair search (brute-force feasible at this scale)
## Coordination
`ticks/tick-21.md`. No PROGRESS.md edit. Branch `research/sota-r6.2.1-3d-placement`.
## Remaining work
- **R6.2.2.1**: 3D N-anchor union coverage
- **R6.2.3**: chest-centric zones (per R6.1 chest = 27.6% of signal)
- **R12.1**: pose-PABS closed loop
- **ADR-107**: cross-installation federation
~3.8h to cron stop. **21 ticks landed.** Loop covered R1-R15 + 2 ADRs + 6 deferred follow-ups + 3 negative-result categorisations.