Season:Shelving Interference and Joint Identification in Large-scale RFID Systems Lei Yang*,Jinsong Han*,Yong Qi*,Cheng Wangs,Tao Gu,Yunhao Liut Department of Computer Science and Technology,Xi'an Jiaotong University,China f TNLIST,School of Software,Tsinghua University,China Department of Computer Science and Engineering,HKUST,Hong Kong 3 Tongji University University of Southern Denmark Abstract-Prior work on anti-collision for Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID)systems usually schedule adjacent readers to exclusively interrogate tags for avoiding reader collisions. Although such a pattern can effectively deal with collisions, the lack of readers'collaboration wastes numerous time on the scheduling process and dramatically degrades the throughput of identification.Even worse,the tags within the overlapped (a) b】 (c) interrogation regions of adjacent readers (termed as contentious tags),even if the number of such tags is very small,introduce Fig.1. Collisions in RFID systems.(a)Tag collision:(b)Reader collision; a significant delay to the identification process.In this paper, (c)Reader-Tag collision we propose a new strategy for collision resolution.First,we shelve the collisions and identify the tags that do not involve reader collisions.Second,we perform a joint identification,in this situation,the signals coming from multiple tags may inter- which adjacent readers collaboratively identify the contentious fere with each other and prevent the reader from resolving any tags.In particular,we find that neighboring readers can cause tag's ID.We call the first collision as"tag collision",as shown a new type of collisions,cross-tag-collision,which may impede the joint identification.We propose a protocol stack,named in Fig.I(a).The second type of collision occurs in a multi- Season,to undertake the tasks in two phases and solve the cross- reader environment,as illustrated in Fig.I(b).In this example, tag-collision.We conduct extensive simulations and preliminary reader r and r2 share an overlapped interrogation region (In implementation to demonstrate the efficiency of our scheme. this paper,we define such a region as 'contentious region', The results show that our scheme can achieve above 6 times the tags within contentious regions as 'contentious tags',and improvement on the identification throughput in a large-scale dense reader environment. other tags as 'non-contentious tags').If there are some tags in Index Terms-RFID,Tag Collision,Reader Collision,Season this region,they cannot resolve the commands from r or r2 when two readers concurrently broadcast their commands.We I.INTRODUCTION call this type of collisions as 'reader collision'.The third type of collision is termed as reader-tag collision,which occurs Radio Frequency Identification systems have been deployed when one reader is in another reader's interrogation region.as in a variety of application domains,such as logistic and supply shown in Figure I(c),reader r is located in r2's interrogation chain management [1],access control [2],theft detection [3]. region.Tag ti's response will be 'drowned'by the commands and tracking [4]-[8],etc.An RFID system typically consists from reader r2,and resulting ri is unable to receive tI's ID. of a large number of readers and tags.RFID tags are attached Clearly,avoiding collisions is a crucial task in RFID to products and targeted to enable the identification of those systems,especially when readers are densely deployed.The objects.Tags usually have no energy and can only be activated algorithms to resolve the aforementioned collisions are known when they are within the electromagnetic field of a reader. as anti-tag-collision,anti-reader-collision,and anti-reader-tag The reader interrogates the tags and collects their IDs via collision algorithm,respectively.As a cost-effective and RF signals,without the need of keeping in sight or touch. source-limited device,the RFID tag cannot afford the relative- In contrast to the conventional barcode system,RFID systems ly complicated anti-collision algorithms adopted in traditional have many advantages,such as non-optical proximity,long wireless networks.such as CSMA.CDMA.FDMA,etc. transmission range,and quick identification.Therefore,the Existing RFID anti-collision algorithms mainly employ Time promising RFID technology is expected to be widely used Dividing Multiple Accesses (TDMA),which allows tags and in the near feature. readers to send signals in different time slots.For example The signal collision is one of the most challenging issues Framed Slotted ALOHA (FSA)[9],[10],[26]-[28],which is when implementing the RFID technology.There are three a dominant anti-tag-collision protocol,requires tags to respond types of RFID signal collisions.The first type of collision in randomly chosen time slot. occurs when more than one tag responds simultaneously.In Unfortunately,existing anti-collision works are inefficient to
Season: Shelving Interference and Joint Identification in Large-scale RFID Systems Lei Yang∗ , Jinsong Han∗ , Yong Qi∗ , Cheng Wang§ , Tao Gu¶ , Yunhao Liu†‡ ∗ Department of Computer Science and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China † TNLIST, School of Software, Tsinghua University, China ‡ Department of Computer Science and Engineering, HKUST, Hong Kong § Tongji University ¶ University of Southern Denmark Abstract—Prior work on anti-collision for Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) systems usually schedule adjacent readers to exclusively interrogate tags for avoiding reader collisions. Although such a pattern can effectively deal with collisions, the lack of readers’ collaboration wastes numerous time on the scheduling process and dramatically degrades the throughput of identification. Even worse, the tags within the overlapped interrogation regions of adjacent readers (termed as contentious tags), even if the number of such tags is very small, introduce a significant delay to the identification process. In this paper, we propose a new strategy for collision resolution. First, we shelve the collisions and identify the tags that do not involve reader collisions. Second, we perform a joint identification, in which adjacent readers collaboratively identify the contentious tags. In particular, we find that neighboring readers can cause a new type of collisions, cross-tag-collision, which may impede the joint identification. We propose a protocol stack, named Season, to undertake the tasks in two phases and solve the crosstag-collision. We conduct extensive simulations and preliminary implementation to demonstrate the efficiency of our scheme. The results show that our scheme can achieve above 6 times improvement on the identification throughput in a large-scale dense reader environment. Index Terms—RFID, Tag Collision, Reader Collision, Season I. INTRODUCTION Radio Frequency Identification systems have been deployed in a variety of application domains, such as logistic and supply chain management [1], access control [2], theft detection [3], and tracking [4]–[8], etc. An RFID system typically consists of a large number of readers and tags. RFID tags are attached to products and targeted to enable the identification of those objects. Tags usually have no energy and can only be activated when they are within the electromagnetic field of a reader. The reader interrogates the tags and collects their IDs via RF signals, without the need of keeping in sight or touch. In contrast to the conventional barcode system, RFID systems have many advantages, such as non-optical proximity, long transmission range, and quick identification. Therefore, the promising RFID technology is expected to be widely used in the near feature. The signal collision is one of the most challenging issues when implementing the RFID technology. There are three types of RFID signal collisions. The first type of collision occurs when more than one tag responds simultaneously. In t2 t3 t1 r1 r1 r2 t1 r1 r2 t1 (a) (b) (c) Fig. 1. Collisions in RFID systems. (a) Tag collision; (b) Reader collision; (c) Reader-Tag collision. this situation, the signals coming from multiple tags may interfere with each other and prevent the reader from resolving any tag’s ID. We call the first collision as “tag collision”, as shown in Fig. I(a). The second type of collision occurs in a multireader environment, as illustrated in Fig. I(b). In this example, reader r1 and r2 share an overlapped interrogation region (In this paper, we define such a region as ‘contentious region’, the tags within contentious regions as ‘contentious tags’, and other tags as ‘non-contentious tags’). If there are some tags in this region, they cannot resolve the commands from r1 or r2 when two readers concurrently broadcast their commands. We call this type of collisions as ‘reader collision’. The third type of collision is termed as reader-tag collision, which occurs when one reader is in another reader’s interrogation region, as shown in Figure I(c), reader r1 is located in r2’s interrogation region. Tag t1’s response will be ‘drowned’ by the commands from reader r2, and resulting r1 is unable to receive t1’s ID. Clearly, avoiding collisions is a crucial task in RFID systems, especially when readers are densely deployed. The algorithms to resolve the aforementioned collisions are known as anti-tag-collision, anti-reader-collision, and anti-reader-tag collision algorithm, respectively. As a cost-effective and source-limited device, the RFID tag cannot afford the relatively complicated anti-collision algorithms adopted in traditional wireless networks, such as CSMA, CDMA, FDMA, etc. Existing RFID anti-collision algorithms mainly employ Time Dividing Multiple Accesses (TDMA), which allows tags and readers to send signals in different time slots. For example, Framed Slotted ALOHA (FSA) [9], [10], [26]–[28] , which is a dominant anti-tag-collision protocol, requires tags to respond in randomly chosen time slot. Unfortunately, existing anti-collision works are inefficient to
combat RFID signal collisions,especially the reader collision. Different from existing approaches,our scheduling protocol, They usually adopt an exclusive scheduling strategy to avoid named Season-II,just selects only one reader from neighboring reader collision [12]-[15].Namely,neighboring readers that readers to perform the interrogation and let the others passively share some contentious regions must be activated in sequence. collect data from contentious tags.Thus,neighboring readers For instance,Colorwave [13],one of the most popular anti- are able to collaborate with each other in the identification of reader-collision protocols,pre-schedules neighboring readers contentious tags,and save vast time consumed in scheduling. to work in different time slots.Those approaches may suffer Adopting joint identification,we find that the collaborative from two drawbacks,low throughput and large identification readers may face an emerging collision,termed as cross- delay.According to the well-known RFID standard ISO- range collision.We develop another anti-tag-collision protocol, 18000 [10].the average identification throughput of Framed Season-III,to combat the cross-range collision and achieve fast Slotted ALOHA protocols only archive 100 tags per second identification [11].The exclusive scheduling among readers will further The rest of this paper is organized as follows.We introduce degrade the throughput.For example,one of experiments preliminary knowledge about RFID systems and the system performed in a warehouse scenario indicates that the reader's model in Section II.We present the design of Season in Section throughput degrades to 52 tags per second on average due to III.In Section IV,we examine the performance of Season via the interferences among four neighboring readers,as shown preliminary implementation and extensive simulation based on in Section IV.As a result.it will spend almost half an hour real traces from a large-scale logistics system.At last,we to inventory 78,606 products.On the other hand,the identi- review related works in Section V and conclude this paper fication delay of tags is an import metric in real-time RFID in Section VI. applications,such as the theft detection 3,object tracking 4], etc.Our experimental results show that Colorwave requires six II.PRELIMINARIES exclusive rounds at least to schedule six mutually-interfered In this section,we first briefly review the three types of readers when identifying 1000 tags for each.In this case,the collisions in RFID systems mentioned in the previous section, maximum delay introduced to each tag is up to 63 seconds. and then introduce our system model. That means the moving speed of tags must be slower than 10cm per second in the readers'monitoring region where A.Tag Collision the range of the reader equals 3m.Such a speed cannot The most common collision in RFID systems is tag col- well support fast identification in real-time RFID applications lision,and it occurs when multiple tags in the interrogation which have a rigid time limit on the processing speed. region of a reader and transmit their IDs at the same time, By reconsidering the solution of reader-collision in another as shown in Fig.I(a).A popular anti-tag-collision algorithm perspective,we find that it is not necessary to constrain is Framed Slotted ALOHA (FSA)[9],[10],[26]-[28].The neighboring readers in a strictly sequential processing pattern design of our protocols is partially based on FSA.In FSA, for the purpose of anti-collision.Usually,the majority of tags the reader first divides a detecting procedure into several are non-contentious in common RFID applications.They can frames.Each frame contains f slots with equal length.At be concurrently identified by multiple readers because there is the beginning of one frame,the reader broadcasts the f to no reader collision in those tags.Hence,we propose to identify all tags and each tag randomly chooses a slot counter from tags in two phases.In the first phase,we simply allow multiple 0 to f-1.The reader then sequentially scans slots in the readers to identify the non-contentious tags simultaneously,frame with the 'query'command.In each slot,if a tag's slot while shelving the reader collisions.In this way,the identifi- counter equals zero,it will backscatter its ID immediately. cation throughput of non-contentious tags will be significantly Otherwise,the tag decreases its slot counter by one.From improved.In the second phase,we design efficient protocols the reader's perspective,there are three types of slots,'idle', to identify the contentious tags.We find that a reader,if it just 'single',and 'collided'slots.In idle slots,no tag responds, passively monitors,can facilitate the identification responses the reader continues to scan the next slot.In single slots,only from contentious tags that are interrogated by another reader. one tag replies,the reader can successfully receive the tag's This observation motivates us to enable collaboration among ID.The reader then sends an acknowledgement of success neighboring readers to enormously reduce the identification 'ACKS'to notify the tag to keep silent in the left identification delays of contentious tags. procedure.In collided slots,more than one tag responds such In this paper,we propose a novel scheme,Season,to that the reader cannot identify any tag.The reader then sends improve the efficiency for anti-collision based RFID identi- an acknowledgement of failure 'ACKF'to indicate these tags fication.The Season protocol works in two phases.In the to reply in the next frame.If there is any collided slot in the first phase,we propose the Season-I protocol in which all current frame,the reader renews a new frame until all tags are readers ignore the reader collisions and concurrently identify identified. non-contentious tags.Season-I extends the existing anti-tag- collision algorithms by adaptively tuning the size of frame B.Reader Collision to improve the throughput of identification.In the second This collision occurs at these tags located within the con- phase,neighboring readers jointly identify contentious tags. tentious regions covered by multiple readers.Engels [12]et al
combat RFID signal collisions, especially the reader collision. They usually adopt an exclusive scheduling strategy to avoid reader collision [12]–[15]. Namely, neighboring readers that share some contentious regions must be activated in sequence. For instance, Colorwave [13], one of the most popular antireader-collision protocols, pre-schedules neighboring readers to work in different time slots. Those approaches may suffer from two drawbacks, low throughput and large identification delay. According to the well-known RFID standard ISO- 18000 [10], the average identification throughput of Framed Slotted ALOHA protocols only archive 100 tags per second [11]. The exclusive scheduling among readers will further degrade the throughput. For example, one of experiments performed in a warehouse scenario indicates that the reader’s throughput degrades to 52 tags per second on average due to the interferences among four neighboring readers, as shown in Section IV. As a result, it will spend almost half an hour to inventory 78,606 products. On the other hand, the identi- fication delay of tags is an import metric in real-time RFID applications, such as the theft detection [3], object tracking [4], etc. Our experimental results show that Colorwave requires six exclusive rounds at least to schedule six mutually-interfered readers when identifying 1000 tags for each. In this case, the maximum delay introduced to each tag is up to 63 seconds. That means the moving speed of tags must be slower than 10cm per second in the readers’ monitoring region where the range of the reader equals 3m. Such a speed cannot well support fast identification in real-time RFID applications which have a rigid time limit on the processing speed. By reconsidering the solution of reader-collision in another perspective, we find that it is not necessary to constrain neighboring readers in a strictly sequential processing pattern for the purpose of anti-collision. Usually, the majority of tags are non-contentious in common RFID applications. They can be concurrently identified by multiple readers because there is no reader collision in those tags. Hence, we propose to identify tags in two phases. In the first phase, we simply allow multiple readers to identify the non-contentious tags simultaneously, while shelving the reader collisions. In this way, the identifi- cation throughput of non-contentious tags will be significantly improved. In the second phase, we design efficient protocols to identify the contentious tags. We find that a reader, if it just passively monitors, can facilitate the identification responses from contentious tags that are interrogated by another reader. This observation motivates us to enable collaboration among neighboring readers to enormously reduce the identification delays of contentious tags. In this paper, we propose a novel scheme, Season, to improve the efficiency for anti-collision based RFID identi- fication. The Season protocol works in two phases. In the first phase, we propose the Season-I protocol in which all readers ignore the reader collisions and concurrently identify non-contentious tags. Season-I extends the existing anti-tagcollision algorithms by adaptively tuning the size of frame to improve the throughput of identification. In the second phase, neighboring readers jointly identify contentious tags. Different from existing approaches, our scheduling protocol, named Season-II, just selects only one reader from neighboring readers to perform the interrogation and let the others passively collect data from contentious tags. Thus, neighboring readers are able to collaborate with each other in the identification of contentious tags, and save vast time consumed in scheduling. Adopting joint identification, we find that the collaborative readers may face an emerging collision, termed as crossrange collision. We develop another anti-tag-collision protocol, Season-III, to combat the cross-range collision and achieve fast identification. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We introduce preliminary knowledge about RFID systems and the system model in Section II. We present the design of Season in Section III. In Section IV, we examine the performance of Season via preliminary implementation and extensive simulation based on real traces from a large-scale logistics system. At last, we review related works in Section V and conclude this paper in Section VI. II. PRELIMINARIES In this section, we first briefly review the three types of collisions in RFID systems mentioned in the previous section, and then introduce our system model. A. Tag Collision The most common collision in RFID systems is tag collision, and it occurs when multiple tags in the interrogation region of a reader and transmit their IDs at the same time, as shown in Fig. I(a). A popular anti-tag-collision algorithm is Framed Slotted ALOHA (FSA) [9], [10], [26]–[28]. The design of our protocols is partially based on FSA. In FSA, the reader first divides a detecting procedure into several frames. Each frame contains f slots with equal length. At the beginning of one frame, the reader broadcasts the f to all tags and each tag randomly chooses a slot counter from 0 to f − 1. The reader then sequentially scans slots in the frame with the ‘query’ command. In each slot, if a tag’s slot counter equals zero, it will backscatter its ID immediately. Otherwise, the tag decreases its slot counter by one. From the reader’s perspective, there are three types of slots, ‘idle’, ‘single’, and ‘collided’ slots. In idle slots, no tag responds, the reader continues to scan the next slot. In single slots, only one tag replies, the reader can successfully receive the tag’s ID. The reader then sends an acknowledgement of success ‘ACKS’ to notify the tag to keep silent in the left identification procedure. In collided slots, more than one tag responds such that the reader cannot identify any tag. The reader then sends an acknowledgement of failure ‘ACKF’ to indicate these tags to reply in the next frame. If there is any collided slot in the current frame, the reader renews a new frame until all tags are identified. B. Reader Collision This collision occurs at these tags located within the contentious regions covered by multiple readers. Engels [12] et al
find that when two readers attempt to communicate with those overlapped regions between ri and its neighboring readers. tags at the same time,the signals cannot be correctly resolved On the contrary,the tags in T=Ur,er()(Ti\T;),where and considered as environment noises by the tags.Meanwhile. Ti Ti={tt E Ti&t g Til,are non-contentious tags of each reader is unaware of the existence of interference from reader ri.They are only covered by reader ri. other readers.Therefore,those tags fail to be identified by any We use undirect graph G =(R,E)to denote RCG. reader.To resolve the signal interference,existing approaches Reader ri and rj.where ri,rj E R,are adjacent in G if convert the potential reader collision to an undirected graph, their corresponding nodes are connected by an edge,i.e., named as Reader Conflict Graph (RCG).In RCG,a node (ri,rj)EE.The degree d(ri)of reader ri is the number represents an individual RFID reader and an edge represents a of edges connected to ri in RCG.The maximum degree of collision constraint:if two nodes are connected with an edge graph G is defined as A(G)=maxrerd(r).We assume the in RCG,the related readers will collide if they transmit the readers can be well synchronized through a global clock and command at the same time. some synchronization protocols [16]. Note that the edge does not represent the communication between readers but only the potential reader collision.Indeed. III.SEASON all readers in the network are often linked through LAN.The In this section,we first present three important observations existing approaches,e.g.,Colorwave [13],utilize the graph that motivate our design.We then present the design of Season coloring algorithm to solve reader collisions.Those solutions and describe the three protocols we propose. thereby are similar to finding the smallest number of total colors for coloring the RCG such that any two adjacent vertices A.Observations are in different colors.Indeed,a color is corresponding to We observe three intuitive but important facts in practice: a periodic reservation for collision-free transmissions.The Observation 1:Majority of tags are non-contentious due signal interference can be addressed by well arranging neigh- to the well advanced deployment of readers.If we allow boring readers to send commands exclusively.However,as the readers concurrently interrogate non-contentious tags,we we discussed before,the exclusive scheduling incurs a poor can improve the identification throughput.Hence,a key throughput of identification. step of improving the identification throughput is to enable the concurrency for neighboring readers in identifying non- C.Reader-Tag Collision contentious tags.This observation motivates us to handle the To resolve reader-tag collision,EPCglobal Gen II stan- non-contentious and contentious tags separately. dards [9]specify two separated frequencies for the reader's Observation 2:The minor contentious tags indeed cause query and tag's response,respectively,if readers are densely the major delay during the identification.Sometimes,only one deployed.In fact,we can boil down reader-tag collisions contentious tag may incur large delay.As shown in Fig.2(a), to reader collisions as long as we synchronize all readers' there is one contentious tag in the contentious region between behaviors.For example,if we schedule (r1,r2 )in sequence, ri and r2,while no tag is in the contentious region between we can only consider the other two types of collisions. rI and ra.However,both reader ri and r3 are not aware of this situation since they have no knowledge about the locations D.System Model of tags.These two readers have to be activated exclusively if In our model,we use slotted channel as the communication utilizing prior works [12]-[14].Therefore,we seek to design model between readers and tags.The transmissions happen new identification pattern for contentious tags. within predefined and equally spaced intervals,termed as slots. Observation 3:The signals from the contentious tags can The reader guarantees the slot synchronization via energizing be received by the readers that cover these tags.For instance, probe/request.Obviously,the time required to identify tags is the responding signal generated by the contentious tag t will proportional to the number of tags.All readers are connected be received by two neighboring reader ri and r2,as shown by wired or wireless networks which enable them to commu- in Fig.2(b).If we can deliberately arrange one reader to nication with each other at high speed. interrogate the contentious tags while its neighboring readers Consider a set of readers R={r1,...,rm}are deployed passively listen to the responses from these tags,the system is at a region.An identification procedure is the procedure to able to retrieve the data from the contentious tag even there is identify all the tags within the region at a time.In this paper, a potential reader collisions in RCG.Unfortunately,existing we use the terms 'collect a tag','collect data from a tag',and approaches do not facilitate this feature. 'identify a tag'interchangeably.For simplicity,we assume a unit disk model for the interrogation region of a reader.Note B.Overview that our scheme is not constrained by this assumption.We Motivated from the above observations,we split an identi- denote Ti=[t1,...,tn}as the tag set.The tags in Ti are fication procedure in two phases.In Phase-I,the system iden- located in the interrogation region of reader ri.T=UreRTi tifies all non-contentious tags.We term this phase as Shelv- denotes the set of all tags.The neighboring reader set of r; ing Interference.In Phase-II,neighboring readers jointly and is denoted as I(ri).The tags in Te=Ur,er(r)(TinTj) collaboratively identify contentious tags.We call this phase are the contentious tags of reader ri.They are located in the as Joint Identification.Hence,we propose our anti-collision
find that when two readers attempt to communicate with those tags at the same time, the signals cannot be correctly resolved and considered as environment noises by the tags. Meanwhile, each reader is unaware of the existence of interference from other readers. Therefore, those tags fail to be identified by any reader. To resolve the signal interference, existing approaches convert the potential reader collision to an undirected graph, named as Reader Conflict Graph (RCG). In RCG, a node represents an individual RFID reader and an edge represents a collision constraint: if two nodes are connected with an edge in RCG, the related readers will collide if they transmit the command at the same time. Note that the edge does not represent the communication between readers but only the potential reader collision. Indeed, all readers in the network are often linked through LAN. The existing approaches, e.g., Colorwave [13], utilize the graph coloring algorithm to solve reader collisions. Those solutions thereby are similar to finding the smallest number of total colors for coloring the RCG such that any two adjacent vertices are in different colors. Indeed, a color is corresponding to a periodic reservation for collision-free transmissions. The signal interference can be addressed by well arranging neighboring readers to send commands exclusively. However, as we discussed before, the exclusive scheduling incurs a poor throughput of identification. C. Reader-Tag Collision To resolve reader-tag collision, EPCglobal Gen II standards [9] specify two separated frequencies for the reader’s query and tag’s response, respectively, if readers are densely deployed. In fact, we can boil down reader-tag collisions to reader collisions as long as we synchronize all readers’ behaviors. For example, if we schedule (r1,r2 ) in sequence, we can only consider the other two types of collisions. D. System Model In our model, we use slotted channel as the communication model between readers and tags. The transmissions happen within predefined and equally spaced intervals, termed as slots. The reader guarantees the slot synchronization via energizing probe/request. Obviously, the time required to identify tags is proportional to the number of tags. All readers are connected by wired or wireless networks which enable them to communication with each other at high speed. Consider a set of readers R = {r1, · · · , rm} are deployed at a region. An identification procedure is the procedure to identify all the tags within the region at a time. In this paper, we use the terms ‘collect a tag’, ‘collect data from a tag’, and ‘identify a tag’ interchangeably. For simplicity, we assume a unit disk model for the interrogation region of a reader. Note that our scheme is not constrained by this assumption. We denote Ti = {t1, · · · , tn} as the tag set. The tags in Ti are located in the interrogation region of reader ri . T = ∪ri∈RTi denotes the set of all tags. The neighboring reader set of ri is denoted as Γ(ri). The tags in T C i = ∪rj∈Γ(ri)(Ti ∩ Tj ) are the contentious tags of reader ri . They are located in the overlapped regions between ri and its neighboring readers. On the contrary, the tags in T N i = ∪rj∈Γ(ri)(Ti\Tj ) , where Ti\Tj = {t|t ∈ Ti & t /∈ Tj}, are non-contentious tags of reader ri . They are only covered by reader ri . We use undirect graph G = (R, E) to denote RCG. Reader ri and rj ,where ri , rj ∈ R, are adjacent in G if their corresponding nodes are connected by an edge, i.e., (ri , rj ) ∈ E. The degree d(ri) of reader ri is the number of edges connected to ri in RCG. The maximum degree of graph G is defined as ∆(G) = maxr∈Rd(r). We assume the readers can be well synchronized through a global clock and some synchronization protocols [16]. III. SEASON In this section, we first present three important observations that motivate our design. We then present the design of Season and describe the three protocols we propose. A. Observations We observe three intuitive but important facts in practice: Observation 1: Majority of tags are non-contentious due to the well advanced deployment of readers. If we allow the readers concurrently interrogate non-contentious tags, we can improve the identification throughput. Hence, a key step of improving the identification throughput is to enable the concurrency for neighboring readers in identifying noncontentious tags. This observation motivates us to handle the non-contentious and contentious tags separately. Observation 2: The minor contentious tags indeed cause the major delay during the identification. Sometimes, only one contentious tag may incur large delay. As shown in Fig. 2(a), there is one contentious tag in the contentious region between r1 and r2, while no tag is in the contentious region between r1 and r3. However, both reader r1 and r3 are not aware of this situation since they have no knowledge about the locations of tags. These two readers have to be activated exclusively if utilizing prior works [12]–[14]. Therefore, we seek to design new identification pattern for contentious tags. Observation 3: The signals from the contentious tags can be received by the readers that cover these tags. For instance, the responding signal generated by the contentious tag t1 will be received by two neighboring reader r1 and r2, as shown in Fig. 2(b). If we can deliberately arrange one reader to interrogate the contentious tags while its neighboring readers passively listen to the responses from these tags, the system is able to retrieve the data from the contentious tag even there is a potential reader collisions in RCG. Unfortunately, existing approaches do not facilitate this feature. B. Overview Motivated from the above observations, we split an identi- fication procedure in two phases. In Phase-I, the system identifies all non-contentious tags. We term this phase as Shelving Interference. In Phase-II, neighboring readers jointly and collaboratively identify contentious tags. We call this phase as Joint Identification. Hence, we propose our anti-collision
Contentious region Contentious TN before identification.In detail,the reader maintains a tag variable k to record the number of tags that have been collected so far.Initially,k=0.To minimize the identification time.we dynamically adjust the frame to T-k after the k-th tag is collected. D.Season-II After all readers finish their identification of non- contentious tags,the system enters into Phase-II.Based on our (a) (b) third observation,we design joint identification protocols to identify contentious tags.For a group of neighboring readers, Fig.2.(a)Potential reader collisions incur significant delay;(b)The signal we only let one of them become active to interrogate the from tag ti will be received by reader ri and r2 tags while others stay in silence and just passively listen to the signals from contentious tags.Joint identification has two clear advantages:(1)A joint identification can avoid reader scheme,Season,to undertake the tasks of these two phases. collisions among neighboring readers since only one of them Season is a protocol stack comprising of three protocols. sends query commands,(2)Reduce the identification delay Season-I is designed to collect data from non-contentious tags significantly because the readers concurrently receive the IDs in Phase-I.Phase-II includes multiple rounds.In each round, of continuous tags. we first employ Season-II to determine appropriate readers For easy illustration,we term the reader being responsible for actively interrogating contentious tags while keeping other for interrogating tags as active reader and the reader staying readers passively listening.Then we conduct Season-III to in listening state as passive reader.Hence,the first task in collect data from contentious tags.The iterative execution of Phase-II is to select appropriate active readers from a group Season-II and Season-III continues until the system collects of neighboring readers.We propose Season-II,which is a data from all contentious tags. distributed algorithm for determining proper active readers. In our system model,the edges of a reader in RCG C.Season-I represent the contentious regions that the reader shared with In Phase-I,Season-I allows neighboring readers to concur- its neighbors.In RCG,we determine active readers according rently identify tags in spite of the signal interference occurred to two conditions as follows:(1)they are able to cover edges at contentious tags.Although those contentious tags cannot as most as possible:(2)these active readers will not incur correctly resolve the readers'query commands,this treatment signal interference among themselves if they are concurrently helps us to naturally distinguish all non-contentious tags from activated.Namely,the selected active readers are not adjacent contentious tags.The non-contentious tags transmit their IDs in RCG.Clearly,these two conditions are the Necessary and then transfer into the silent state.Our approach can Conditions for the optimal selection of active readers.We guarantee that the majority of tags can be identified after thereby convert the problem of selecting active readers to Phase-I,if most tags are located in non-contentious regions,finding the Maximal Weighted Independent Set(MWIS)in and hence significantly improve the identification throughput. an undirected graph. In an idea case,there are no contentious tags and all tags can Given an undirected graph G.A independent set of V is a be identified after Phase-I. subset SCV such that no any two nodes n,v E S are neigh- Season-I is a state based anti-tag-collision protocol.Similar bors in V,and every node wS has at least one neighbor in to FSA.it divides the identification procedure into many S.The MIS of V is the maximal independent set generated frames and each frame contains several equivalent time slots. from V.A natural variant of MIS is the maximal weighted Different from FSA based approaches,Season-I adaptively independent set (MWIS),where each node is associated with tunes the length of frame to optimize the identification latency.a weight.Solving MWIS is to find a MIS with the maximal That is,the reader will terminate the frame once it successfully total weight of its nodes. receives a tag's ID and then start a new frame. In our problem,we set the weight of each node as the Obviously,each tag independently transmits its ID with a number of its edges since we attempt to employ the min- probability of 1/f in each slot.One important goal of Season- imum nodes (active readers)to cover the maximum edges I is to choose appropriate f so as to minimize the expected (contentious regions)in RCG. identification time.Not surprisingly,the optimal choice of f We adopt a MWIS solution proposed by [23]to determine is TN.The problem of choosing an optimal f for ALOHA active readers.For example,as illustrated Fig.4 (a),the based approaches has been widely studied in the literature [17]set of active readers is A=fr2,r6,r7}while others are [18].But the challenge is that we usually do not know the considered as passive readers,i.e.,the set of passive readers number of tags in advance.Fortunately,a number of recent is P1=[r1,r3,r4,r5).By activating the active readers in A works [19]-[22],effectively estimate the number.We adopt and keeping the readers in P listening,the contentious regions USE [19]in Season.We require the reader to estimate number corresponding to the edges that are connected to the nodes in
r1 r2 t1 r1 r2 r3 Contentious tag Contentious region (a) (b) Fig. 2. (a) Potential reader collisions incur significant delay; (b) The signal from tag t1 will be received by reader r1 and r2. scheme, Season, to undertake the tasks of these two phases. Season is a protocol stack comprising of three protocols. Season-I is designed to collect data from non-contentious tags in Phase-I. Phase-II includes multiple rounds. In each round, we first employ Season-II to determine appropriate readers for actively interrogating contentious tags while keeping other readers passively listening. Then we conduct Season-III to collect data from contentious tags. The iterative execution of Season-II and Season-III continues until the system collects data from all contentious tags. C. Season-I In Phase-I, Season-I allows neighboring readers to concurrently identify tags in spite of the signal interference occurred at contentious tags. Although those contentious tags cannot correctly resolve the readers’ query commands, this treatment helps us to naturally distinguish all non-contentious tags from contentious tags. The non-contentious tags transmit their IDs and then transfer into the silent state. Our approach can guarantee that the majority of tags can be identified after Phase-I, if most tags are located in non-contentious regions, and hence significantly improve the identification throughput. In an idea case, there are no contentious tags and all tags can be identified after Phase-I. Season-I is a state based anti-tag-collision protocol. Similar to FSA, it divides the identification procedure into many frames and each frame contains several equivalent time slots. Different from FSA based approaches, Season-I adaptively tunes the length of frame to optimize the identification latency. That is, the reader will terminate the frame once it successfully receives a tag’s ID and then start a new frame. Obviously, each tag independently transmits its ID with a probability of 1/f in each slot. One important goal of SeasonI is to choose appropriate f so as to minimize the expected identification time. Not surprisingly, the optimal choice of f is |T N i |. The problem of choosing an optimal f for ALOHA based approaches has been widely studied in the literature [17] [18]. But the challenge is that we usually do not know the number of tags in advance. Fortunately, a number of recent works [19]–[22], effectively estimate the number. We adopt USE [19] in Season. We require the reader to estimate number |T N i | before identification. In detail, the reader maintains a variable k to record the number of tags that have been collected so far. Initially, k = 0. To minimize the identification time, we dynamically adjust the frame to |T N i | − k after the k-th tag is collected. D. Season-II After all readers finish their identification of noncontentious tags, the system enters into Phase-II. Based on our third observation, we design joint identification protocols to identify contentious tags. For a group of neighboring readers, we only let one of them become active to interrogate the tags while others stay in silence and just passively listen to the signals from contentious tags. Joint identification has two clear advantages: (1) A joint identification can avoid reader collisions among neighboring readers since only one of them sends query commands, (2) Reduce the identification delay significantly because the readers concurrently receive the IDs of continuous tags. For easy illustration, we term the reader being responsible for interrogating tags as active reader and the reader staying in listening state as passive reader. Hence, the first task in Phase-II is to select appropriate active readers from a group of neighboring readers. We propose Season-II, which is a distributed algorithm for determining proper active readers. In our system model, the edges of a reader in RCG represent the contentious regions that the reader shared with its neighbors. In RCG, we determine active readers according to two conditions as follows: (1) they are able to cover edges as most as possible; (2) these active readers will not incur signal interference among themselves if they are concurrently activated. Namely, the selected active readers are not adjacent in RCG. Clearly, these two conditions are the Necessary Conditions for the optimal selection of active readers. We thereby convert the problem of selecting active readers to finding the Maximal Weighted Independent Set (MWIS) in an undirected graph. Given an undirected graph G. A independent set of V is a subset S ⊆ V such that no any two nodes n, v ∈ S are neighbors in V , and every node w /∈ S has at least one neighbor in S. The MIS of V is the maximal independent set generated from V . A natural variant of MIS is the maximal weighted independent set (MWIS), where each node is associated with a weight. Solving MWIS is to find a MIS with the maximal total weight of its nodes. In our problem, we set the weight of each node as the number of its edges since we attempt to employ the minimum nodes (active readers) to cover the maximum edges (contentious regions) in RCG. We adopt a MWIS solution proposed by [23] to determine active readers. For example, as illustrated Fig. 4 (a), the set of active readers is A1 = {r2, r6, r7} while others are considered as passive readers, i.e., the set of passive readers is P1 = {r1, r3, r4, r5}. By activating the active readers in A1 and keeping the readers in P1 listening, the contentious regions corresponding to the edges that are connected to the nodes in
readers to identify contentious tags collaboratively. Given that the set of active readers is A and the set of passive readers is the p in the current scheduling round. Season-III works as follows. On one hand,for active readers: 1)Each active reader r;A starts a special frame to Fig.3.Cross-range tag collision estimate the number of its contentious tags in its con- tentious regions using USE [19].The number is denoted r1(1) r6(1 re(O) as n,which can be approximated to T.For instance, 4 n6≈5，n2≈3+5+8+9=25 as shown in Fig.4(a). 9 rs(4)/3 9 rs(1 2)Reader r;divides the procedure into several frames.Each m 3 、6 frame contains n time slots,where n is a constant. In each frame,every contentious tag in ri's contentious r3(1) ra(2) r1) r(1) r70 regions randomly selects a slot to transmit its ID.Namely, (a) (b) each tag independently transmits its ID with the proba- Fig.4.The number on the edge represents the real number of contentious bility of 1/n in each time slot. tag.Active readers are shown in highlight.The number in bracket denotes 3)Reader ri always sends an ACKF feedback to the tag even the weight of the reader.(a)In the first round,active reader set is A1= if it successfully receives the tag's ID.This treatment is r2,r6,r7;(b)In the second round,active reader set is A2 =r5 to force contentious tags always transmit its ID in each frame.In this way,we can guarantee every contentious tag has a chance to be identified by either active or passive A are covered by active readers.Thus,the contentious tags readers. in those regions can be powered and successfully collected. However,only one round of finding MWIS is insufficient to 4)After collecting data from all the contentious tags within cover all the contentious regions.From Fig.4(a),we find that its contentious regions,reader ri still keeps the tags in the the tags in the contentious regions corresponding to edges active state by powering the tags in this round because its neighboring passive readers may miss some tags due to (r4,r5)cannot be powered by any active readers because both r4 and r5 are passive readers. the cross-range tag collision.This is in contrast to Season- I which immediately forces a tag to enter the silent state if To cover all contentious regions,we start the next schedul- the tag is collected in a slot.Until it receives "FINISH" ing round.In this round,we first let each node mark the edges that have covered in previous scheduling rounds and messages from all its neighboring passive readers,the active reader ends its job in the current identification modify the node's weight as the number of left unmarked edges connected to this node.If the weight of a node equals procedure.Note that once a reader becomes an active reader,it will quit Season after the current round. zero,this node does not involve in this scheduling round.In 5)Before ending its job,reader ri broadcasts a"SILENCE" this way,the active reader set becomes A2 =r5 and passive reader set is P2=fr4}in RCG,as shown in Fig.4-(b).After command to its contentious tags to force them to enter the second round,all the contentious regions are covered.In the silent state in the following scheduling rounds.The practice,Season-II will be executed iteratively until all nodes' reader also sets its weight to zero in RCG. weights become zero. On the other hand,for passive readers: 1)During the estimate phase of active readers,each passive E.Season-III reader rjp listens to the responses from tags and Season-III is designed to tackle a new tag collision.Assume estimates the number ni of contentious tags within the readers rI and r2 are chosen as active readers,as shown in contentious regions between it and its neighboring ac- Fig.3.A tag collision happens at reader r3 when tag ti and tive readers.The n estimated by passive readers may t2 are interrogated by ri and r2,respectively.In this case, be less than T,since there may exist contentious reader r1 can correctly receive the ID of t1 and reader r2 regions among passive readers.After estimation,n= can retrieve the ID of t2.However,reader r3 cannot collect Urer()A(TenTe)l.For example.n=8 and any ID because of the collision from two tags.We define n5=5+8+9=22 in Fig.4(a). such a tag collision as cross-range tag collision.Furthermore, 2)Reader ri passively listens to the responses from con- both of reader r1 and reader r2 have no knowledge about tentious tags during its neighboring active readers'inter- whether reader ra has collected data from all contentious rogation.After collecting these tags,it sends a"FINISH" tags.This leads to a confusion from readers r1 and r2: message to its neighboring active readers. when they should stop powering contentious tags?The above 3)If reader rj has no neighboring passive readers in this issue indicates that Season-I cannot be directly applied to round,it ends its job in current identification procedure collect data from contentious tags.Therefore,we propose a and sets its weight to zero in RCG.Otherwise,it still randomized protocol,Season-IIl,to allow active and passive executes the Season protocols in the next scheduling
r1 t1 r3 t2 r2 Fig. 3. Cross-range tag collision 3 9 5 3 8 5 8 r1(1) r2(4) r3(1) r4(2) r7(1) r5(4) r6(1) (a) 3 9 5 3 8 5 8 r1(0) r2(0) r3(0) r4(1) r7(0) r5(1) r6(0) (b) Fig. 4. The number on the edge represents the real number of contentious tag. Active readers are shown in highlight. The number in bracket denotes the weight of the reader. (a) In the first round, active reader set is A1 = {r2, r6, r7} ; (b) In the second round, active reader set is A2 = {r5} A1 are covered by active readers. Thus, the contentious tags in those regions can be powered and successfully collected. However, only one round of finding MWIS is insufficient to cover all the contentious regions. From Fig. 4(a), we find that the tags in the contentious regions corresponding to edges (r4, r5) cannot be powered by any active readers because both r4 and r5 are passive readers. To cover all contentious regions, we start the next scheduling round. In this round, we first let each node mark the edges that have covered in previous scheduling rounds and modify the node’s weight as the number of left unmarked edges connected to this node. If the weight of a node equals zero, this node does not involve in this scheduling round. In this way, the active reader set becomes A2 = {r5} and passive reader set is P2 = {r4} in RCG, as shown in Fig. 4-(b). After the second round, all the contentious regions are covered. In practice, Season-II will be executed iteratively until all nodes’ weights become zero. E. Season-III Season-III is designed to tackle a new tag collision. Assume readers r1 and r2 are chosen as active readers, as shown in Fig. 3. A tag collision happens at reader r3 when tag t1 and t2 are interrogated by r1 and r2, respectively. In this case, reader r1 can correctly receive the ID of t1 and reader r2 can retrieve the ID of t2. However, reader r3 cannot collect any ID because of the collision from two tags. We define such a tag collision as cross-range tag collision. Furthermore, both of reader r1 and reader r2 have no knowledge about whether reader r3 has collected data from all contentious tags. This leads to a confusion from readers r1 and r2: when they should stop powering contentious tags? The above issue indicates that Season-I cannot be directly applied to collect data from contentious tags. Therefore, we propose a randomized protocol, Season-III, to allow active and passive readers to identify contentious tags collaboratively. Given that the set of active readers is A and the set of passive readers is the P in the current scheduling round. Season-III works as follows. On one hand, for active readers: 1) Each active reader ri ∈ A starts a special frame to estimate the number of its contentious tags in its contentious regions using USE [19]. The number is denoted as n 1 i , which can be approximated to |T C i |. For instance, n 1 6 ≈ 5,n 1 2 ≈ 3 + 5 + 8 + 9 = 25 as shown in Fig. 4(a). 2) Reader ri divides the procedure into several frames. Each frame contains n 1 i time slots, where n 1 i is a constant. In each frame, every contentious tag in ri’s contentious regions randomly selects a slot to transmit its ID. Namely, each tag independently transmits its ID with the probability of 1/n1 i in each time slot. 3) Reader ri always sends an ACKF feedback to the tag even if it successfully receives the tag’s ID. This treatment is to force contentious tags always transmit its ID in each frame. In this way, we can guarantee every contentious tag has a chance to be identified by either active or passive readers. 4) After collecting data from all the contentious tags within its contentious regions, reader ri still keeps the tags in the active state by powering the tags in this round because its neighboring passive readers may miss some tags due to the cross-range tag collision. This is in contrast to SeasonI which immediately forces a tag to enter the silent state if the tag is collected in a slot. Until it receives “FINISH” messages from all its neighboring passive readers, the active reader ends its job in the current identification procedure. Note that once a reader becomes an active reader, it will quit Season after the current round. 5) Before ending its job, reader ri broadcasts a “SILENCE” command to its contentious tags to force them to enter the silent state in the following scheduling rounds. The reader also sets its weight to zero in RCG. On the other hand, for passive readers: 1) During the estimate phase of active readers, each passive reader rj ∈ P listens to the responses from tags and estimates the number n 1 j of contentious tags within the contentious regions between it and its neighboring active readers. The n 1 j estimated by passive readers may be less than |T C j |, since there may exist contentious regions among passive readers. After estimation, n 1 j = | ∪ ri∈Γ(rj )&ri∈A (T C i ∩ T C j )|. For example, n 1 4 = 8 and n 1 5 = 5 + 8 + 9 = 22 in Fig. 4(a). 2) Reader rj passively listens to the responses from contentious tags during its neighboring active readers’ interrogation. After collecting these tags, it sends a “FINISH” message to its neighboring active readers. 3) If reader rj has no neighboring passive readers in this round, it ends its job in current identification procedure and sets its weight to zero in RCG. Otherwise, it still executes the Season protocols in the next scheduling
session number.Each tag only replies the query command ▣ with same session number as it holds.In this way,the readers can only collect non-contentious tags during Phase- I.In Phase-II,the reader broadcasts query commands with 口 a unified session number of zero.Because the contentious ◇ 回 tag's session number has not changed during Phase-I.they will reply to the query command.Another consequence produced Fig.5.Unbalanced loads of readers by unbalanced loads of readers is that the readers with lower loads will wait for the ends of the readers with higher loads during Phase-I.We can simply switch Phase-I and Phase-II round. to shorten such delay.Namely,readers first jointly identify The role of readers may change during the scheduling contentious tags and then identify their own non-contentious round.Assume the scheduling sequence of active readers is tags. (A1,A2),where A1 {r2,r6,r7}and A2 (rs}as 2)Source Sensitive and Insensitive:RFID application can illustrated in the example shown in Fig.4.Reader r5 is a be summarized into two categories.One is source-insensitive, passive reader in the first round but it becomes an active reader in which the source,namely the ID of reader that detected the in the second round.Once a reader becomes an active reader tag,is not concerned.The user may only want to confirm that in one round,its weight will become zero and then finishes all tags can be collected,for example in warehouse monitoring. identification process. Another is source-sensitive,in which tags must be exactly To illustrate execution of Season,we give an example shown reported multiple times,for example the object tracking.In in Fig.4.At the beginning of the first round shown in Fig. the second type of applications,a tag can be approximately 4(a),active reader r2 estimate the number of its contentious located by recording the readers that collect the tag.Duplicate tags n3+5+8+9=25.At the same time,the passive reports of a tag from neighboring readers can also help the reader rs estimates the number of its contentious tags in the administrator to re-deploy readers for better coverage.Season current round n9+5+8=22.Reader r2 continues to can well support both the source insensitive and sensitive power tags until it collects the 25 tags and also receives the applications.For source-insensitive application,Season allows "FINISH"messages from r1.r3,r4 and r5.Concurrently,rs passive readers to immediately send a "FINISH"message listens to the tags'replies.After successfully collecting its 22 to their neighboring active readers without identifying its tags,it sends a "FINISH"message to r2,r6 and r7.At the contentious tags. end of the first round,all of the readers adjust their weights. Reader ri,r2.r3.r6,and r7 set their weights to zero and IV.PERFORMANCE EVALUATION report their collections.In the second round as shown in Fig. We now evaluate Season using real-world logistics and 4(b),there are only ra and rs's weights not equaling to zero tracking traces. in RCG.Reader r5 is selected as the active reader.It starts to power tags and r4 listens to the tags'replies.The procedure A.Evaluation Methodology ends when r4 sends a "FINISH"message to rs. 1)Testbed and deployment:To validate the feasibility of joint identification,we use a NI PXI-1044 RFID testing tool F Discussion with PXI 5600 receiver as our passive reader.We uniformly 1)Unbalanced Loads of Readers:The load of reader is set the power of antenna as 20 dBm which supports around defined as the number of tags located in its integration range. an interrogation range of 2m.We also deploy five readers In Season,neighboring readers may have unbalanced loads. in a logistics enterprise,Xi'an postal processing center in For example in Fig.5,reader r2 have more tags in its inter- Shaanxi,China.The center is the one of the seven largest rogating regions than reader r1.At the beginning of Phase-I, postal processing centers in China.It covers an area of about two readers cannot collect tag to due to the reader collision. 16,128m2 and contains 30 importing/exporting gates.Fig.7 However,reader ri complete running Season-I earlier than r2 shows the architectural plans of the center.We attach more and then stopping interrogating.Then the reader r2 is able than 100 passive tags into pouches and find that the percentage to collect to since it is still running Season-I.In this case, of contentious tags is less than 10%for a stable and full some contentious tags may be collected in Phase-I and cause coverage. confusion to the joint identification in Phase-II. 2)Simulating Real RFID Applications:For simulation,we We introduce session number to solve this problem.Each use two typical application scenarios and three random reader tag contains a session number with the initialized value as zero. topologies described as follows. At the beginning of Season,each reader randomly generates Warehouse:According to our measurement results in Xi'an a non-zero session number and broadcasts it.If a tag can postal center,we simulate a total of 12 *6=72 readers for resolve a session number,it must be non-contentious.Then covering the entire center in a square-grid formation.Each the tag changes its session number to what it receives.In reader is located at one vertex in the grid.Each reader has an Phase-I,the reader sends query commands with the non-zero interrogating range of 7m,which has 126 contentious regions
r1 r2 t0 Fig. 5. Unbalanced loads of readers round. The role of readers may change during the scheduling round. Assume the scheduling sequence of active readers is {A1, A2}, where A1 = {r2, r6, r7} and A2 = {r5} as illustrated in the example shown in Fig. 4. Reader r5 is a passive reader in the first round but it becomes an active reader in the second round. Once a reader becomes an active reader in one round, its weight will become zero and then finishes identification process. To illustrate execution of Season, we give an example shown in Fig. 4. At the beginning of the first round shown in Fig. 4(a), active reader r2 estimate the number of its contentious tags n 1 2 ≈ 3 + 5 + 8 + 9 = 25. At the same time, the passive reader r5 estimates the number of its contentious tags in the current round n 1 5 ≈ 9 + 5 + 8 = 22. Reader r2 continues to power tags until it collects the 25 tags and also receives the “FINISH” messages from r1, r3, r4 and r5. Concurrently, r5 listens to the tags’ replies. After successfully collecting its 22 tags, it sends a “FINISH” message to r2, r6 and r7. At the end of the first round, all of the readers adjust their weights. Reader r1, r2, r3, r6, and r7 set their weights to zero and report their collections. In the second round as shown in Fig. 4(b), there are only r4 and r5’s weights not equaling to zero in RCG. Reader r5 is selected as the active reader. It starts to power tags and r4 listens to the tags’ replies. The procedure ends when r4 sends a “FINISH” message to r5. F. Discussion 1) Unbalanced Loads of Readers: The load of reader is defined as the number of tags located in its integration range. In Season, neighboring readers may have unbalanced loads. For example in Fig.5, reader r2 have more tags in its interrogating regions than reader r1. At the beginning of Phase-I, two readers cannot collect tag t0 due to the reader collision. However, reader r1 complete running Season-I earlier than r2 and then stopping interrogating. Then the reader r2 is able to collect t0 since it is still running Season-I. In this case, some contentious tags may be collected in Phase-I and cause confusion to the joint identification in Phase-II. We introduce session number to solve this problem. Each tag contains a session number with the initialized value as zero. At the beginning of Season, each reader randomly generates a non-zero session number and broadcasts it. If a tag can resolve a session number, it must be non-contentious. Then the tag changes its session number to what it receives. In Phase-I, the reader sends query commands with the non-zero session number. Each tag only replies the query command with same session number as it holds. In this way, the readers can only collect non-contentious tags during PhaseI. In Phase-II, the reader broadcasts query commands with a unified session number of zero. Because the contentious tag’s session number has not changed during Phase-I, they will reply to the query command. Another consequence produced by unbalanced loads of readers is that the readers with lower loads will wait for the ends of the readers with higher loads during Phase-I. We can simply switch Phase-I and Phase-II to shorten such delay. Namely, readers first jointly identify contentious tags and then identify their own non-contentious tags. 2) Source Sensitive and Insensitive: RFID application can be summarized into two categories. One is source-insensitive, in which the source, namely the ID of reader that detected the tag, is not concerned. The user may only want to confirm that all tags can be collected, for example in warehouse monitoring. Another is source-sensitive, in which tags must be exactly reported multiple times, for example the object tracking. In the second type of applications, a tag can be approximately located by recording the readers that collect the tag. Duplicate reports of a tag from neighboring readers can also help the administrator to re-deploy readers for better coverage. Season can well support both the source insensitive and sensitive applications. For source-insensitive application, Season allows passive readers to immediately send a “FINISH” message to their neighboring active readers without identifying its contentious tags. IV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION We now evaluate Season using real-world logistics and tracking traces. A. Evaluation Methodology 1) Testbed and deployment: To validate the feasibility of joint identification, we use a NI PXI-1044 RFID testing tool with PXI 5600 receiver as our passive reader. We uniformly set the power of antenna as 20 dBm which supports around an interrogation range of 2m. We also deploy five readers in a logistics enterprise, Xi’an postal processing center in Shaanxi, China. The center is the one of the seven largest postal processing centers in China. It covers an area of about 16,128m2 and contains 30 importing/exporting gates. Fig.7 shows the architectural plans of the center. We attach more than 100 passive tags into pouches and find that the percentage of contentious tags is less than 10% for a stable and full coverage. 2) Simulating Real RFID Applications: For simulation, we use two typical application scenarios and three random reader topologies described as follows. Warehouse: According to our measurement results in Xi’an postal center, we simulate a total of 12 ∗ 6 = 72 readers for covering the entire center in a square-grid formation. Each reader is located at one vertex in the grid. Each reader has an interrogating range of 7m, which has 126 contentious regions
990909999 00000 0 0 9999999999= -999P99999 (a)Sparse (b)Moderate (c)Dense Fig.6.PAMF Fig.7.Floor-map of the postal center Fig.8.Random RCGs We employ the real EMS trace of this center,which deliveries (iv)Scheduling Round:We also evaluate the efficiency 2,456 items,including express mails,parcels,and boxes,to a of anti-reader-collision by using the total number of medium-size city each day on average.We collect the delivery scheduling rounds. records in the month of December,2009 as our basic dataset. The dataset contains 78,606 records B.Implementation Results Object tracking:We collect the tracking dataset from the For testing joint identification,we employ a NI PXI-1044 RFID Ecosystem project [24].The deploying map is shown testing tool with a PXI 5600 receiver as the passive reader. in [25].There are 30 readers (or antennas)in the deployment We also employ an Alien reader as the active reader.The area.The tracking dataset has 1653 records.Each record tags are put in the middle between these two readers,with includes the tag locations,source,and identification time. a distance 2.5m in between.The CDF of read rate of our Random Topologies:Without losing generality,we also passive reader is shown in Fig.9.We can observe that the randomly generated 3 separate RCGs with 100 readers,labeled passive reader achieves a read rate of 0.73 in 60%of testing with“Sparse',“Moderate'”,and“Dense'”,respectively..They cases.The average value of its read rates is up to 0.71,which is have different maximum degrees to reflect the three deploying nearly as good as that in the single-reader deploying scenario. topologies,as summarized in Table I.The topologies of these C.Simulation Results three RCGs are also illustrated in Fig.8. 1)Identifying tags without reader collisions:We first sim- 3)Performance Metrics:Assume the set of time slots ulate the environment of deploying a single reader to show the consumed by a single reader ri is Z(ri),then the identification performance of identifying non-contentious tags.We compare time of this reader equals I(ri)=Z(ri).Besides the identi- Season-I with prior anti-tag-collision protocols with number of fication itme,we also measure the following four matrices: tags ranging from 1 to 1000.The identification time of three (i)Throughput:It is defined as the ratio of total number types of protocols,FSA based approach,Balanced Tree(BT) of tags to the overall identification time,denote as A. based approach,and Season,is shown in Fig.10.From the Namely,.入=U4eRtr可 T figure,we observe that the identification time of each protocol (ii)Average Delay:The delay of tag t,denoted as D(t),is is proportional to number of tags.Among them,Season-I defined as the expected number of time slots consumed is much faster than both FSA and BT based approaches. by tag t in waiting for its identification.The average Especially when number of tag is above 100,Season-I has delay is defined as D) 30.6%and 42.2%time saving on average than BT and FSA, (iii)Read Rate:In practice,the reader cannot accurately respectively.Furthermore,we also evaluate the throughput of collect all the tags in their interrogation region even if these anti-tag-protocols as illustrated in Fig.11.The results there is no reader collisions due to environment noise show that Season-I is the best anti-tag collision protocol whose multi-path,signal attenuation,and other factors.We maximum throughput is up to 0.4 and 60%of the cases has a use read rate,defined as the ratio of the number of throughput higher than 0.37.However,the throughput of FSA correctly collected tags to the total number of tags in and BT is typically lower than 0.29.We also observe that BT the interrogation region,to measure the feasibility of our is the most stable protocol,90%of the cases keeps around approach. 0.25to0.26. 2)Identifying tags with reader collisions:In the exper- iment,we simulate multi-reader environments to show the TABLE I performance of Season under reader-collision.We compare SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS Season with DCS and Colorwave via the number scheduling Scenarios of readers #of max of edges #of tags rounds needed for anti-reader-collision.DCS and Colorwave degree employ the graph coloring method to schedule the readers.The Warehouse 72 4 126 2.456 Tracking 30 29 1,653 results are shown in Fig.12.Season has the least number all the Sparse 100 3 133 50.000 time compared with other anti-reader-collision protocols in the Moderate 100 8 343 50.000 five scenarios.For example,Season only needs 4 scheduling Dense 100 16 495 50.000 rounds in the 'warehouse'scenario where the maximum degree
Fig. 6. PAMF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Fig. 7. Floor-map of the postal center (a) Sparse (b) Moderate (c) Dense Fig. 8. Random RCGs We employ the real EMS trace of this center, which deliveries 2,456 items, including express mails, parcels, and boxes, to a medium-size city each day on average. We collect the delivery records in the month of December, 2009 as our basic dataset. The dataset contains 78,606 records. Object tracking: We collect the tracking dataset from the RFID Ecosystem project [24]. The deploying map is shown in [25]. There are 30 readers (or antennas) in the deployment area. The tracking dataset has 1653 records. Each record includes the tag locations, source, and identification time. Random Topologies: Without losing generality, we also randomly generated 3 separate RCGs with 100 readers, labeled with “Sparse”, “Moderate”, and “Dense”, respectively. They have different maximum degrees to reflect the three deploying topologies, as summarized in Table I. The topologies of these three RCGs are also illustrated in Fig.8. 3) Performance Metrics: Assume the set of time slots consumed by a single reader ri is I(ri), then the identification time of this reader equals I(ri) = |I(ri)|. Besides the identi- fication itme, we also measure the following four matrices: (i) Throughput: It is defined as the ratio of total number of tags to the overall identification time, denote as λ. Namely, λ = |T| | ∪ ri∈R I(ri)| (ii) Average Delay: The delay of tag t, denoted as D(t), is defined as the expected number of time slots consumed by tag t in waiting for its identification. The average delay is defined as Davg = ∑ ti∈T D(ti) |T| (iii) Read Rate: In practice, the reader cannot accurately collect all the tags in their interrogation region even if there is no reader collisions due to environment noise, multi-path, signal attenuation, and other factors. We use read rate, defined as the ratio of the number of correctly collected tags to the total number of tags in the interrogation region, to measure the feasibility of our approach. TABLE I SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS Scenarios # of readers # of max degree # of edges # of tags Warehouse 72 4 126 2,456 Tracking 30 3 29 1,653 Sparse 100 3 133 50,000 Moderate 100 8 343 50,000 Dense 100 16 495 50,000 (iv) Scheduling Round: We also evaluate the efficiency of anti-reader-collision by using the total number of scheduling rounds. B. Implementation Results For testing joint identification, we employ a NI PXI-1044 testing tool with a PXI 5600 receiver as the passive reader. We also employ an Alien reader as the active reader. The tags are put in the middle between these two readers, with a distance 2.5m in between. The CDF of read rate of our passive reader is shown in Fig. 9. We can observe that the passive reader achieves a read rate of 0.73 in 60% of testing cases. The average value of its read rates is up to 0.71, which is nearly as good as that in the single-reader deploying scenario. C. Simulation Results 1) Identifying tags without reader collisions: We first simulate the environment of deploying a single reader to show the performance of identifying non-contentious tags. We compare Season-I with prior anti-tag-collision protocols with number of tags ranging from 1 to 1000. The identification time of three types of protocols, FSA based approach, Balanced Tree (BT) based approach, and Season, is shown in Fig.10. From the figure, we observe that the identification time of each protocol is proportional to number of tags. Among them, Season-I is much faster than both FSA and BT based approaches. Especially when number of tag is above 100, Season-I has 30.6% and 42.2% time saving on average than BT and FSA, respectively. Furthermore, we also evaluate the throughput of these anti-tag-protocols as illustrated in Fig.11. The results show that Season-I is the best anti-tag collision protocol whose maximum throughput is up to 0.4 and 60% of the cases has a throughput higher than 0.37. However, the throughput of FSA and BT is typically lower than 0.29. We also observe that BT is the most stable protocol, 90% of the cases keeps around 0.25 to 0.26. 2) Identifying tags with reader collisions: In the experiment, we simulate multi-reader environments to show the performance of Season under reader-collision. We compare Season with DCS and Colorwave via the number scheduling rounds needed for anti-reader-collision. DCS and Colorwave employ the graph coloring method to schedule the readers. The results are shown in Fig.12. Season has the least number all the time compared with other anti-reader-collision protocols in the five scenarios. For example, Season only needs 4 scheduling rounds in the ‘warehouse’ scenario where the maximum degree
4 5000 -FSA -BT (s]os jo#) 4D00 Season-I 30a0 40 2000 0 20 000 20」 FSA 0.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.80 200 400 600 800 1000 20 0.30 0.35 0.40 Read Rate #of tags throughput Fig.9.CDF of read rate Fig.10.Identification time Fig.11.Throughput of RCG is 4.However,DCS and Colorwave require 27 and algorithm has been adopted by another well-known RFID 28 rounds due to the high probability of collision among their protocol family,ISO 18000-6 [10].When designing tree based randomly chosen colors in RCG.DCS is better than Colorwave algorithms,researchers usually organize the tags in a binary since DCS knows the maximum degree of RCG in advance tree according to their IDs and identify the tags by using the and this information helps DCS to reduce the probability of tree based search technique.Myung and Lee [29]propose an color collision. adaptive binary splitting(ABS)protocol to reduce collisions Furthermore,we measure the overall throughput of three and efficiently identify tags based on previous result. protocols in the five scenarios and show the results in Fig.13. For avoiding reader collisions,Colorwave [13]is one of The overall throughput of Season is much higher than other pioneer works.Colorwave tries to color the readers randomly twos due to the concurrent identification of non-contentious in a RCG such that each pair of interfering readers can gain tags and joint identification of contentious tags.For example, different colors.In [30],the authors suggest k-coloring of the the overall throughput of Season in 'sparse'scenario is 8.5, interference graph,where the k is the number of available meaning 8.5 tags can be identified per slot on average.Finally, channels.Recently,EPCGlobal [9]proposes a dense reading we measure the average delay of the three protocols and plot mode,in which the tag responses happen in different channels the results in Fig.14.In all the five scenarios,the average to avoid collisions.In [31].the authors design a Q-learning delay of Season is no more than 300 time slots,which can process to arrange channels and allocate time slots for readers be negligible in practice.It also indicates that Season can be with a help of a training process.In [14],the author proposes applied in mobile environments to identify high-speed tags(up a tag-access-scheduling protocol (EGA)based on STDMA. to 9 m/s).On the other hand,DCS and Colorwave suffer from Tang,et al.[15 study a challenging problem of scheduling a longer delays,i.e.,the longest delay is up to 62,352 time the activation of the readers without collision such that the slots,in which some tags have to wait for at least 2 minutes system can wok in a stable way in the long term. before the reader collects them To speed-up the identification procedure,Floerkemeier [32] suggests estimating the cardinality of tags based on the number V.RELATED WORKS of idle slots in the current frame.Kodialam and Nandagopal In the literature,RFID anti-tag-collision mechanisms com- [19]propose two estimation algorithms,Unified Simple Esti- prise of two categories,Framed Slotted ALOHA (FSA)based mator (USE)and Unified Probabilistic Estimator (UPE)with [9],[26]-[28]and Binary Tree (BT)based algorithms [10], three estimators.In addition,there are a lot of security and [29].The well known RFID organization,EPC Global,adopts privacy issues about the RFID system,such as [33]-[35].In a variation of FSA,'Q-Adaptive'in its protocol family,EPC our feature work,we will more focus on these issues in our Gen2 [9],which adaptively tunes the frame length according protocols. to the type of last slot.Lee et al.[26]find that the maximum identification throughput can be achieved within a reader's VI.CONCLUSION scanning field when the size of detecting frame equals to the Anti-collision is a crucial task in RFID systems.In this number of tags.Sheng et al.[27]focus on the fundamental paper,we propose an anti-collision protocol stack,Season, problems of continuously scanning in RFID systems and to improve the identification efficiency for densely deployed design their identifying algorithms based on the information RFID systems.Our results show that Season significantly gathered in the previous scanning process.Xie et al.[28] increases the identification throughput in both the single- involves the practical conditions in the design of probabilistic reader and multi-reader environments,and hence dramatically model of RFID systems,such as the path loss and multi- reduces the identification delay for tags.In our future work, path effect.They also utilize the real settings to efficiently we plan to extend our scheme to mobile reader environments identify tags on the moving conveyor.The binary tree based and explore more practical issues in the RFID identification
0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cumulative Frequency Read Rate Fig. 9. CDF of read rate 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Identification time (# of sots) # of tags FSA BT Season-I Fig. 10. Identification time 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage (%) throughput BT Season-I FSA Fig. 11. Throughput of RCG is 4. However, DCS and Colorwave require 27 and 28 rounds due to the high probability of collision among their randomly chosen colors in RCG. DCS is better than Colorwave since DCS knows the maximum degree of RCG in advance and this information helps DCS to reduce the probability of color collision. Furthermore, we measure the overall throughput of three protocols in the five scenarios and show the results in Fig.13. The overall throughput of Season is much higher than other twos due to the concurrent identification of non-contentious tags and joint identification of contentious tags. For example, the overall throughput of Season in ‘sparse’ scenario is 8.5, meaning 8.5 tags can be identified per slot on average. Finally, we measure the average delay of the three protocols and plot the results in Fig.14. In all the five scenarios, the average delay of Season is no more than 300 time slots, which can be negligible in practice. It also indicates that Season can be applied in mobile environments to identify high-speed tags (up to 9 m/s). On the other hand, DCS and Colorwave suffer from a longer delays, i.e., the longest delay is up to 62,352 time slots, in which some tags have to wait for at least 2 minutes before the reader collects them. V. RELATED WORKS In the literature, RFID anti-tag-collision mechanisms comprise of two categories, Framed Slotted ALOHA (FSA) based [9], [26]–[28] and Binary Tree (BT)based algorithms [10], [29]. The well known RFID organization, EPC Global, adopts a variation of FSA, ‘Q-Adaptive’ in its protocol family, EPC Gen2 [9], which adaptively tunes the frame length according to the type of last slot. Lee et al. [26] find that the maximum identification throughput can be achieved within a reader’s scanning field when the size of detecting frame equals to the number of tags. Sheng et al. [27] focus on the fundamental problems of continuously scanning in RFID systems and design their identifying algorithms based on the information gathered in the previous scanning process. Xie et al. [28] involves the practical conditions in the design of probabilistic model of RFID systems, such as the path loss and multipath effect. They also utilize the real settings to efficiently identify tags on the moving conveyor. The binary tree based algorithm has been adopted by another well-known RFID protocol family, ISO 18000-6 [10]. When designing tree based algorithms, researchers usually organize the tags in a binary tree according to their IDs and identify the tags by using the tree based search technique. Myung and Lee [29] propose an adaptive binary splitting (ABS) protocol to reduce collisions and efficiently identify tags based on previous result. For avoiding reader collisions, Colorwave [13] is one of pioneer works. Colorwave tries to color the readers randomly in a RCG such that each pair of interfering readers can gain different colors. In [30], the authors suggest k-coloring of the interference graph, where the k is the number of available channels. Recently, EPCGlobal [9] proposes a dense reading mode, in which the tag responses happen in different channels to avoid collisions. In [31], the authors design a Q-learning process to arrange channels and allocate time slots for readers with a help of a training process. In [14], the author proposes a tag-access-scheduling protocol (EGA) based on STDMA. Tang, et al. [15] study a challenging problem of scheduling the activation of the readers without collision such that the system can wok in a stable way in the long term. To speed-up the identification procedure, Floerkemeier [32] suggests estimating the cardinality of tags based on the number of idle slots in the current frame. Kodialam and Nandagopal [19] propose two estimation algorithms, Unified Simple Estimator (USE) and Unified Probabilistic Estimator (UPE) with three estimators. In addition, there are a lot of security and privacy issues about the RFID system, such as [33]–[35]. In our feature work, we will more focus on these issues in our protocols. VI. CONCLUSION Anti-collision is a crucial task in RFID systems. In this paper, we propose an anti-collision protocol stack, Season, to improve the identification efficiency for densely deployed RFID systems. Our results show that Season significantly increases the identification throughput in both the singlereader and multi-reader environments, and hence dramatically reduces the identification delay for tags. In our future work, we plan to extend our scheme to mobile reader environments and explore more practical issues in the RFID identification
Fig.12.Scheduling rounds Fig.13.Throughput Fig.14.Delays procedure,such as the asynchronization,background noise,[13]J.Waldrop.D.W.Engels,and S.E.Sarma,"Colorwave:An Anticol- and the like. lision Algorithm for the ReaderCcollision Problem,"in Proceedings of IEEE ICC.2003. [14]Z.Zhou.H.Gupta.S.R.Das,and X.Zhu."Slotted Scheduled Tag ACKNOWLEDGMENT Access in Multi-Reader RFID Systems,"in Proceedings of ICNP.2007 We thank Qinsong Yao and Yiyang Zhao for their kind help [15]S.Tang.J.Yuan,X.Y.Li,G.Chen,Y.Liu,and J.Zhao,"RASPberry: A Stable Reader Activation Scheduling Protocol in Multi-reader RFID in our experiment.This work is supported in part by National Systems,"in Proceedings of ICNP,2009 Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)(No.60933003. [16]L.S.Leong.N.M.Ng.A.R.Grasso,and P.H.Cole,"Synchronization No.60736016,No.60873262,and No..60903155),National of RFID Readers for Dense RFID Reader Environments,"in Proceedings of SAINT Workshops 2006. High Technology Research and Development Program of [17]J.F.Kuros and K.W.Ross,Computer Networking:A Top-Down China(863 Program)under Grants No.2009AA01Z116,Na- Approach Featuring the Internet,2005. [18]F.C.Schoute,"Dynamic Frame Length ALOHA,"IEEE Transactions tional Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) on Communications,1983. under Grants No.2011CB302705.No.2010CB328004 and [19]M.Kodialam andT.Nandagopal,"Fast and Reliable Estimation Schemes No.2010CB328101,China Postdoctoral Science Foundation in RFID Systems,"in Proceedings of MobiCom,2006. [20]C.Qian,H.Ngan,and Y.Liu,"Cardinality Estimation for Large-scale funded project (No.20090461298),Hong Kong Innovation RFID Systems,"in Proceedings of PerCom,2008. and Technology Fund GHP/044/07LP and ITP/037/09LP,the [21]T.Li.S.Wu.S.Chen,and M.Yang"Energy Efficient Algorithms for Science and Technology Research and Development Program the RFID Estimation Problem,"in Proceedings of INFOCOM,2010. (22]H.Han,B.Sheng.C.Tan,Q.Li,W.Mao and S.Lu,"Counting RFID of Shaanxi Province under Grant No.2008KW-02.and IBM Tags Efficiently and Anonymously,"in Proceedings of INFOCOM,2010. Joint Project.This work also Partially supported by the Danish [23]S.Basagni,"Finding a Maximal Weighted Independent Set in Wireless Agency for Science,Technology and Innovation,International Networks."Telecommunication Systems,2001. (24]E.Welbourne,K.Koscher,E.Soroush,M.Balazinska,and G.Borriello, Network Program. "Longitudinal Study of a Building-scale RFID Ecosystem,"in Proceed- ings of ACM MobiSys,2009. REFERENCES [25]http://rfid.cs.washington.edu/deployment/ (26]S.R.Lee,S.D.Joo,and C.W.Lee,"An Enhanced Dynamic Framed [1]B.Sheng,C.C.Tan,Q.Li,and W.Mao,"Finding Popular Categories Slotted ALOHA Algorithm For RFID Tag Identification,"in Proceedings for RFID Tags,"in Proceedings of MobiHoc,2008. of MobiQuitous,2005. [2]T.Kriplean,E.Welbourne,N.Khoussainova,V.Rastogi,M.Balazinska, [27]B.Sheng.Q.Li,and W.Mao,"Efficient Continuous Scanning in RFID G.Borriello,T.Kohno,and D.Suciu,"Physical Access Control for Systems,"in Proceedings of INFOCOM,2009. Captured RFID Data,"Pervasive Computing,2007. [28]L.Xie,B.Sheng.C.C.Tan,H.Han.Q.Li,and D.Chen,"Efficient Tag [3]C.C.Tan.S.Bo.and L.Qun,"How to Monitor for Missing RFID tags," Identification in Mobile RFID Systems,"in Proceedings of INFOCOM. in Proceedings of ICDCS,2008. 2009. [4]L.M.Ni,Y.Liu,Y.C.Lau,and A.P.Patil,"LANDMARC:Indoor [29]J.Myung and W.Lee."Adaptive Binary Splitting:A RFID Tag Colli- Location Sensing Using Active RFID,"in ACM Wireless Networks, sion Arbitration Protocol for Tag Identification,"Mobile Networks and Volume 10,Issue 6,November 2004,Pages 701-710. Applications,2006. [5]M.Kodialam,T.Nandagopal,and W.C.Lau,"Anonymous Tracking [30]H.Gupta,Z.Zhou,S.R.Das,and Q.Gu,"Connected Sensor Cover: Using RFID Tags",in Proceedings of INFOCOM,2007. Self-organization of Sensor Networks for Efficient Query Execution." [6]Y.Liu,Z.Yang,X.Wang,and L.Jian,"Location,Localization,and IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking,2006. Localizability,"in Journal of Computer Science and Technology,2010. [31]J.Ho.D.W.Engels.and S.E.Sarma."HiQ:A Hierarchical Q-leaming [7]Z.Yang.and Y.Liu,"Quality of Trilateration:Confidence based Algorithm to Solve the Reader Collision Problem,"in Proceedings of Iterative Localization",in IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed IEEE SAINT Workshops 2006. Systems,Vol.21,No.5,May 2010,Pages 631-640. (32]C.Floerkemeier and E.Zurich,"Transmission Control Scheme for Fast [8]Z.Yang.Y.Liu,X-Y.Li,"Beyond Trilateration:On the Localizability of RFID Object Identification,"in Proceedings of PerCom Workshop,2006 Wireless Ad-hoc Networks",in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking [33]L Yang,J.Han,Y.Qi,Y.Liu,"Identification-Free Batch Authentication (TON).Vol.18,No.6.December 2010,Pages 1806-1814. for RFID Tags".in Proceedings of IEEE ICNP.2010. [9]"EPCglobal RFID Class-1 Gen2 UHF RFID Protocol,"Standard,2005. [34]L.Lu,J.Han,L.Hu,Y.Liu,and L.M.Ni,"Dynamic Key-Updating: [10]"RFID For Item Management Air Interface.Part-6,"ISO 18000-6 Privacy-Preserving Authentication for RFID Systems,"in Proceedings Standard,2003. of IEEE PerCom 2007. [11]J.R.Cha and J.H.Kim,"Novel Anti-collision Algorithms for Fast [35]L.Lu,J.Han,R.Xiao,and Y.Liu,"ACTION:Breaking the Privacy Object Identification in RFID System,"in Proceedings of ICPADS.2005. Barrier for RFID Systems,"in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM,2009 [12]D.W.Engels and S.E.Sarma."The Reader Collision Problem."in Proceedings of IEEE SMC.2002
Warehouse Tracking Sparse Moderate Dense 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Scheduling rounds (# of time slots) DCS Colorwave Season Fig. 12. Scheduling rounds Warehouse Tracking Sparse Moderate Dense 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput DCS Colorwave Season Fig. 13. Throughput Warehouse Tracking Sparse Moderate Dense 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 Delay(# of time slots) DCS Colorwave Season Fig. 14. Delays procedure, such as the asynchronization, background noise, and the like. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We thank Qinsong Yao and Yiyang Zhao for their kind help in our experiment. This work is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No.60933003, No.60736016, No.60873262, and No.60903155), National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) under Grants No.2009AA01Z116, National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) under Grants No.2011CB302705, No.2010CB328004 and No.2010CB328101, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project (No.20090461298), Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Fund GHP/044/07LP and ITP/037/09LP, the Science and Technology Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province under Grant No.2008KW-02, and IBM Joint Project. This work also Partially supported by the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, International Network Program. REFERENCES [1] B. Sheng, C. C. Tan, Q. Li, and W. Mao, “Finding Popular Categories for RFID Tags,” in Proceedings of MobiHoc, 2008. [2] T. Kriplean, E. Welbourne, N. Khoussainova, V. Rastogi, M. Balazinska, G. Borriello, T. Kohno, and D. Suciu, “Physical Access Control for Captured RFID Data,” Pervasive Computing, 2007. [3] C. C. Tan, S. Bo, and L. Qun, “How to Monitor for Missing RFID tags,” in Proceedings of ICDCS, 2008. [4] L. M. Ni, Y. Liu, Y. C. Lau, and A. P. Patil, “LANDMARC: Indoor Location Sensing Using Active RFID,” in ACM Wireless Networks, Volume 10, Issue 6, November 2004, Pages 701-710. [5] M. Kodialam, T. Nandagopal, and W. C. Lau, ”Anonymous Tracking Using RFID Tags”, in Proceedings of INFOCOM, 2007. [6] Y. Liu, Z. Yang, X. Wang, and L. Jian, “Location, Localization, and Localizability,” in Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2010. [7] Z. Yang, and Y. Liu, “Quality of Trilateration: Confidence based Iterative Localization”, in IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, Vol. 21, No. 5, May 2010,Pages 631-640. [8] Z. Yang, Y. Liu, X-Y. Li,“Beyond Trilateration: On the Localizability of Wireless Ad-hoc Networks”, in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), Vol. 18, No. 6, December 2010, Pages 1806-1814. [9] “EPCglobal RFID Class-1 Gen2 UHF RFID Protocol,” Standard, 2005. [10] “RFID For Item Management Air Interface. Part-6,” ISO 18000-6 Standard, 2003. [11] J. R. Cha and J. H. Kim, ”Novel Anti-collision Algorithms for Fast Object Identification in RFID System,” in Proceedings of ICPADS, 2005. [12] D. W. Engels and S. E. Sarma, “The Reader Collision Problem,” in Proceedings of IEEE SMC, 2002. [13] J. Waldrop, D. W. Engels, and S. E. Sarma, “Colorwave: An Anticollision Algorithm for the ReaderCcollision Problem,” in Proceedings of IEEE ICC, 2003. [14] Z. Zhou, H. Gupta, S. R. Das, and X. Zhu, “Slotted Scheduled Tag Access in Multi-Reader RFID Systems,” in Proceedings of ICNP, 2007. [15] S. Tang, J. Yuan, X. Y. Li, G. Chen, Y. Liu, and J. Zhao, “RASPberry: A Stable Reader Activation Scheduling Protocol in Multi-reader RFID Systems,” in Proceedings of ICNP, 2009. [16] L. S. Leong, N. M. Ng, A. R. Grasso, and P. H. Cole, “Synchronization of RFID Readers for Dense RFID Reader Environments,” in Proceedings of SAINT Workshops 2006. [17] J. F. Kuros and K. W. Ross, Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet, 2005. [18] F. C. Schoute, “Dynamic Frame Length ALOHA,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, 1983. [19] M. Kodialam and T. Nandagopal, “Fast and Reliable Estimation Schemes in RFID Systems,” in Proceedings of MobiCom, 2006. [20] C. Qian, H. Ngan, and Y. Liu, “Cardinality Estimation for Large-scale RFID Systems,” in Proceedings of PerCom, 2008. [21] T. Li, S. Wu, S. Chen, and M. Yang “Energy Efficient Algorithms for the RFID Estimation Problem,” in Proceedings of INFOCOM, 2010. [22] H. Han,B. Sheng, C. Tan, Q. Li, W. Mao and S. Lu, “Counting RFID Tags Efficiently and Anonymously,” in Proceedings of INFOCOM, 2010. [23] S. Basagni, “Finding a Maximal Weighted Independent Set in Wireless Networks,” Telecommunication Systems, 2001. [24] E. Welbourne, K. Koscher, E. Soroush, M. Balazinska, and G. Borriello, “Longitudinal Study of a Building-scale RFID Ecosystem,” in Proceedings of ACM MobiSys, 2009. [25] http://rfid.cs.washington.edu/deployment/ [26] S. R. Lee, S. D. Joo, and C. W. Lee, “An Enhanced Dynamic Framed Slotted ALOHA Algorithm For RFID Tag Identification,” in Proceedings of MobiQuitous, 2005. [27] B. Sheng, Q. Li, and W. Mao, “Efficient Continuous Scanning in RFID Systems,” in Proceedings of INFOCOM, 2009. [28] L. Xie, B. Sheng, C. C. Tan, H. Han, Q. Li, and D. Chen, “Efficient Tag Identification in Mobile RFID Systems,” in Proceedings of INFOCOM, 2009. [29] J. Myung and W. Lee, “Adaptive Binary Splitting: A RFID Tag Collision Arbitration Protocol for Tag Identification,” Mobile Networks and Applications, 2006. [30] H. Gupta, Z. Zhou, S. R. Das, and Q. Gu, “Connected Sensor Cover: Self-organization of Sensor Networks for Efficient Query Execution,” IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, 2006. [31] J. Ho, D. W. Engels, and S. E. Sarma, “HiQ: A Hierarchical Q-learning Algorithm to Solve the Reader Collision Problem,” in Proceedings of IEEE SAINT Workshops 2006. [32] C. Floerkemeier and E. Zurich, “Transmission Control Scheme for Fast RFID Object Identification,” in Proceedings of PerCom Workshop, 2006. [33] L Yang, J.Han, Y. Qi, Y. Liu, “Identification-Free Batch Authentication for RFID Tags ”, in Proceedings of IEEE ICNP, 2010. [34] L. Lu, J. Han, L. Hu, Y. Liu, and L. M. Ni, “Dynamic Key-Updating: Privacy-Preserving Authentication for RFID Systems,” in Proceedings of IEEE PerCom 2007. [35] L. Lu, J. Han, R. Xiao, and Y. Liu, “ACTION: Breaking the Privacy Barrier for RFID Systems,” in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 2009
