2015
DOI: 10.1109/tvt.2014.2334494
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ubiquitous, Yet Deceptive: Hardware-Based Channel Metrics on Interfered WSN Links

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The classification accuracy of the proposed method is 72%, while this result is also IEEE 802.15.4 packet size dependent, since packets with a small payload size are partially overlapped with the interferer, thus carrying a small interference fingerprint. In [34] Barac et al use forward error correction (FEC) in order to identify the source of bit errors in a received packet (i.e., multipath fading and attenuation, as well as the IEEE 802.11 b/g interference). Therefore, instead of packet retransmissions (which is used in [32]), the FEC method in [34] emerges as an energy-efficient alternative for interference classification, yielding more than 91% classification rate with just one received packet.…”
Section: Bit Error Pattern-based Interference Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The classification accuracy of the proposed method is 72%, while this result is also IEEE 802.15.4 packet size dependent, since packets with a small payload size are partially overlapped with the interferer, thus carrying a small interference fingerprint. In [34] Barac et al use forward error correction (FEC) in order to identify the source of bit errors in a received packet (i.e., multipath fading and attenuation, as well as the IEEE 802.11 b/g interference). Therefore, instead of packet retransmissions (which is used in [32]), the FEC method in [34] emerges as an energy-efficient alternative for interference classification, yielding more than 91% classification rate with just one received packet.…”
Section: Bit Error Pattern-based Interference Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [17], RSS and the LQI indicators are combined in order to distinguish between the errors caused by signal shadowing from those caused by packet collisions, using non-IEEE 802.15.4-compliant devices. However, both indicators exhibit substantial ambiguity under WLAN interference [18], one of the reasons being the fact that, in most IEEE 802.15.4-compliant transceivers, the two are calculated only on several symbols of the packet. Furthermore, RSS-based channel state prediction is proposed in [13], which is in counterintuitive, having in mind the stochastic nature of interference at industrial locations.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Namely, it has been observed that MFA can sometimes cause a small number (<4) of closely placed corrupted symbols (algorithm lines [3][4][5]. MFA is also attributed to the packets with calculated S E D smaller than 0.2 or equal to 1, with symbol errors placed more than t symbols before the end of the packet (lines 9-10), and to packets with S E D ≤ 0.2 and more correctable than uncorrectable codewords (lines [17][18]. The indicators of WLAN are S E D ∈ (0.2, 1) (line 12), S E D above 0.2 with more uncorrectable than correctable codewords (lines [19][20], or S E D > 0.2, calculated only from correctable codewords (lines 25-26).…”
Section: The Lped Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) unlicensed band where industrial wireless sensors net-work (IWSN) nodes are deployed together with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth de-vices has become overcrowded resulting in intense competition for available bandwidth in the ISM band. In addition, unlike traditional wireless sensor networks (WSNs) (Nellore and Hancke, 2016a,b), IWSNs define stricter and stringent QoS requirements (Bara et al, 2015;Baviskar et al, 2015;Dob-slaw et al, 2015;Kruger et al, 2015;Nagarajan and Dhanasekaran, 2015;Papadopoulos, 2015). To meet these goals, different working groups such as WINA, ISA, and the ZigBee working groups have developed various indus-trial standards including WIA-PA, ISA100.11a, WirelessHART, and ZigBee (Batista et al, 2012;Chung et al, 2015;Evans-Pughe, 2003;Miao et al, 2010;Tang et al, 2010;Yang and Dong-Seong, 2013) for specific industrial applications QoS requirements.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%