berkus
/
wifi-densepose
mirror of https://github.com/ruvnet/wifi-densepose.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
wifi-densepose/examples/research-sota/02-placement/README.md

2.5 KiB
Raw Blame History

02 — Antenna placement (R6.2 family, 7 sub-ticks)

The 9-tick R6.2 family productised R6's forward model into a working CLI-shaped placement search. Each script answers one axis of the placement question.

Scripts (in development order)

Script Thread Axis Headline
r6_2_antenna_placement.py R6.2 2D single-pair Optimal placement is 93× better than median random; corner-to-corner diagonal
r6_2_1_3d_placement.py R6.2.1 3D single-pair Ceiling-only mounting fails (0% coverage) — Fresnel envelope sits at ceiling, never reaches floor targets
r6_2_2_multistatic_placement.py R6.2.2 2D N-anchor Knee at N=5 anchors for typical bedroom (96.8% body-zone coverage)
r6_2_2_1_3d_multistatic.py R6.2.2.1 3D N-anchor 2D knee disappears in 3D — only 49% at N=5 with body zones
r6_2_3_chest_centric.py R6.2.3 2D chest-centric +27 pp coverage gain when targeting chest specifically (vital-signs cog)
r6_2_4_3d_chest_multistatic.py R6.2.4 3D chest-centric Recovers 3D shortfall — 77% at N=5, 82% at N=6 chest-centric
r6_2_5_multi_subject.py R6.2.5 Multi-subject union 100% coverage for 1-4 occupants at N=5 chest-centric

Decision matrix (final ADR-113 output)

Cog category Dimension Zone mode Occupants N Heights Coverage
Vital signs 2D chest 1-4 5 walls 0.8/1.5 m 100%
Vital signs 3D chest 1-4 6 walls 0.8/1.5 (NO ceiling) 82%
Pose estimation 2D body 1-2 5 walls mixed 97%
Pose estimation 3D body 1-2 7-8 mixed L/M/H 65%+
Person count 2D body 1-4 4 walls mixed 86%

Counter-intuitive findings

  1. Longer links cover more space. Fresnel envelope width = √(d·λ)/2 grows with d.
  2. Ceiling-only fails entirely (R6.2.1) — both anchors at 2.5 m put envelope at ceiling height, target zones below are missed.
  3. 2D N=5 knee doesn't hold in 3D (R6.2.2.1) — 3D ellipsoids are thin slabs, not 2D rectangles.
  4. Anchor heights should match target zone heights (R6.2.4) — chest-centric uses low+mid, NOT ceiling.
  5. Chest-centric beats body-centric for vital signs by +27 pp (R6.2.3).

See also

  • Architectural decision: docs/adr/ADR-113-multistatic-placement-strategy.md
  • Research notes: docs/research/sota-2026-05-22/R6_2*.md
  • Composes with: 01-physics-floor/ (forward model), 06-structure-detection/ (PABS uses placement coverage)