Practical Comparison of Decoding Methods for Chipless RFID System in Real Environment

Alencar, Raphael Tavares de; Barbot, Nicolas; Garbati, Marco; Perret, Etienne

doi:10.1109/rfid-ta.2019.8892020

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…DER and throughput have also been calculated over a reading volume in front of the reader antenna. In these cases, the throughput tends to be lower because there are measurements being considered where there are large tag/reader misalignments (i.e., <15% over the total volume as compared to the reported 90%-99% in [292] where the measurements are being made at the same location) [313,343]. This is an example of how using the same metric does not necessarily mean that a one-to-one comparison can be made.…”

Section: Decoding Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table V provides a list of the detection and decoding comparisons that have been made in the literature. Some of the comparisons in Table V perform the full comparison with the same measurement setup themselves (e.g., [309,313,322,343]), while others compare the method they are proposing to methods that have proposed in other works (i.e., the measurement setup, tag, etc. varies among the works [348] and ML DER as a function of SNR '14 [305] Valley Detection [348], ML on Frequency-Domain and Time-Domain Data [305], Bitby-Bit ML DER as a function of SNR '14 [321] Threshold [349], SVD (SSR) [320] Threshold [350], SSR [320], ML [327], Wavelet [337], AC analysis [295] Reading accuracy, complexity, reader type, and whether the signal processing is done in post or in real-time '19 [295] Background Subtraction and Time Gating…”

Section: Decoding Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…'19 [343] Threshold [350], SSR [320], ML [324], Mother Wavelet [292] Throughput, what type of objects the tag is attached to, and complexity '19 [292] Adaptive Wavelet [337], STMPM [304], Selective Spectral Interrogation (SSI) with Time Gating [271], Calibration with Reference Measurements [67], STFT [245], and Extraction of Antenna Mode with Signal Derivation Tag type, number of bits, calibration, whether or not reader parameters are known, measurement environment, whether or not the reading distance is known, whether or not applied to an inverse scenario '20 [241] Background Subtraction, Time Gating, STFT, Short Time Prony Analysis (STPA)…”

Section: Decoding Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Review of Chipless RFID Measurement Methods, Response Detection Approaches, and Decoding Techniques

Brinker

Zoughi

2022

IEEE Open J. Instrum. Meas.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chipless RFID systems can be considered as a special case of passive RFID systems, where the tag contains no power source and no electronics. Instead, the tag's information is stored in its structure and accessed through its electromagnetic (EM) scattering response. However, robust response detection, which is primarily a function of the measurement method, measurement equipment, and processing method used, is still a major challenge in the chipless RFID field. The consequences of not properly capturing a tag response include, incorrectly assigning an ID or incorrectly reporting a sensing parameter. Due to the criticality of these challenges, this review seeks to provide an overview of the current measurement methods, equipment architectures, and processing methods as they relate to chipless RFID tag response detection and decoding. Since chipless RFID started gaining popularity around 2005, the developments in this area have been focused on three major categories: timedomain, frequency-domain, and spatial-domain systems. Frequency-domain systems have emerged as the most popular among these three categories, and thus, this review focuses on techniques used for these systems.

show abstract

Section: Decoding Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Decoding Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Decoding Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Chipless RFID Measurement Methods, Response Detection Approaches, and Decoding Techniques

Brinker

Zoughi

2022

IEEE Open J. Instrum. Meas.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, [5] considered X-Axis and Y-Axis translations (in plane) of the tag relative to the reader antenna (i.e., open-ended This paragraph of the first footnote will contain the date on which you submitted your paper for review, which is populated by IEEE. waveguide) when the tag is loading the waveguide (i.e., no standoff); [6,7] examined X-Axis, Y-Axis, and Z-Axis translations (in plane and out of plane) of the tag relative to a waveguide; [8] considered 3° tilts of tags about each axis; [9] investigated the effect of moving the tag up and down and changing the tag distance from bistatic horn antennas; [10,11] looked at misalignments in 1 cm steps over a 30x30x30 cm reading volume; and [12] examined yaw-based tilts up to 45°. Through these examples it can be seen that tag/reader misalignments can cause magnitude changes, response shape distortions, and resonant frequency shifts, all of which can lead to improper decoding of the tag response depending on the coding method used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Sensitivity Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation to Examine the Effects of Chipless RFID Measurement Uncertainties—Part I: Misalignment-Based Uncertainty

Brinker

Zoughi

2022

IEEE Open J. Instrum. Meas.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement and response decoding is an ongoing challenge in the chipless radio frequency identification (RFID) field. Measurement uncertainties, including tag/reader misalignment, RCS or S-parameter error, and clutter, can cause response distortions, such as magnitude changes and resonant frequency shifts. These response distortions can lead to the improper assignment of a binary code or sensing parameter (i.e., improper decoding). This work aims to use local sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to fully characterize the effects of misalignment, response parameter measurement error (e.g., VNA S-parameter error), and clutter on chipless RFID tag responses. From this type of comprehensive characterization, conclusions are drawn about the identification (ID) and sensing capabilities of the tags. In this work the simulations are performed for two specific tags and the results are then corroborated with measurements of one of the tags. While the work is done for a near-field monostatic measurement setup, it is presented such that the same procedures can be applied to other tags and measurement setups, including far-field scenarios. Thus, a novel comprehensive tag performance assessment framework is provided. This work is divided into two parts. In this part, Part I, the effects of tag/reader misalignment uncertainty are examined in depth through both simulations and measurements. In Part II, the effects of S-parameter error, clutter-based uncertainty, and the combination of these uncertainties with misalignment uncertainty are investigated. An example demonstrating the application of this tag performance assessment framework is also provided in Part II.

show abstract

“…Our approach has, therefore, been a practical one, in which we compare the different decoding techniques in terms of overall reading success rate for a tag displaced inside a given volume. This paper is an extension of [38], in which two decoding methods for cross-polarization Chipless RFID tags were compared, based on the tag's overall detectability and correct decoding as it was placed and measured in 29,791 different positions within a 30×30×30 cm 3 volume, with a monostatic cross-polarization setup. Here the work is extended by applying four different types of decoding methods to the extensive set of measurements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical Performance Comparison of 1-D and 2-D Decoding Methods for a Chipless RFID System in a Real Environment

Alencar

Ali

Barbot

et al. 2020

IEEE J. Radio Freq. Identif.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparison of four decoding methods for a Chipless RFID system was executed by analyzing the read success rate of a frequency-position coding tag with 12-bit of capacity. Scattering parameter measurements have been performed in a real environment, using a fixed antenna, with the tag moving within a 30×30×30 cm 3 volume. Optimal parameters have been obtained based on the decoding success rates of the practical measurements, for background calibration, time-gating, Short Time Fourier Transform (STFT) and Short Time Prony Analysis (STPA) methods. STFT and time-gating showed the best volume reading performance. Time-gating has been found to be the best decoding method for the chipless RFID system employed, as it presented the best performance amongst the other methods while being a less complex, 1-D, approach.

show abstract

Practical Comparison of Decoding Methods for Chipless RFID System in Real Environment

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

A Review of Chipless RFID Measurement Methods, Response Detection Approaches, and Decoding Techniques

A Review of Chipless RFID Measurement Methods, Response Detection Approaches, and Decoding Techniques

Local Sensitivity Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation to Examine the Effects of Chipless RFID Measurement Uncertainties—Part I: Misalignment-Based Uncertainty

Practical Performance Comparison of 1-D and 2-D Decoding Methods for a Chipless RFID System in a Real Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About