Abstract
This paper investigates the issue of missing-tag event detection in practical radio frequency identification (RFID) systems with the presence of not only unexpected tags but also the detection error. Among all the previous works, the recently proposed protocol “RFID monitoring with UNexpected tags (RUN)” is one of the first studies taking the unexpected tags into account. The protocol is proven to outperform conventional ones in terms of achieving a required reliability. Nevertheless, it completely ignores the effect of the so-called detection error, which is a common phenomenon in the literature of RFID, on tag reading. The phenomenon might result in the false-alarm detection of the event and it is believed that RUN is no longer efficient and reliable. We therefore propose two modified versions of the RUN protocol, namely, mRUN1 and mRUN2, as solutions for the issue. Similarly to RUN, the protocols execute multiple Aloha reading rounds to cope with the unexpected tags. On the other hand, they utilize tracking counters supposedly available at the reader to mitigate the effect of the detection error. While mRUN1 requires many counters to monitor the existence of each expected tag (the tag’s identity is already known), mRUN2 uses only one counter to deal with the event caused by either real missing tags or the detection error. Performance analysis will be investigated to find optimal parameter settings for the protocols. Computer simulation results are also provided to validate our analysis as well as to show the merit of the proposed protocols in comparison with the conventional protocols.
Highlights
Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) has been considered as one of the key technologies in future networks [1,2,3] owing to many great benefits, such as low cost (5 cents per tag [4]) and non-line-of-sight wireless transmission
We can see in RFID monitoring with UNexpected tags (RUN) that effects of the detection error on the tag reading are completely ignored. We believe that it would be useful if RUN is reconsidered in a more practical model where both the unexpected tags and the detection error are taken into account
It is noted in based missingtag detection protocol (BMTD) that a Bloom filter is exploited at the reader to first deactivate the unexpected tags and test the membership of the other expected ones
Summary
Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) has been considered as one of the key technologies in future networks [1,2,3] owing to many great benefits, such as low cost (5 cents per tag [4]) and non-line-of-sight wireless transmission. The assumption is, clearly, not practical since there exists unexpected tags (the ones whose IDs are not known a priori to the reader) in real RFID systems This fact can be seen in monitoring baggage of passengers of different airline companies where each company uses its own readers. Many similar examples could be observed in hospitals, prisons, and shopping malls [23, 24] In such scenarios, the unexpected tags might result in more severe radio collision and wrong observations of the status of each time slot, and the previous protocols may report false alarms on the event detection. As with RUN, mRUN1, and mRUN2 protocols execute multiple Aloha reading rounds to cope with the unexpected tags They utilize tracking counters supposedly available at the reader to mitigate the effect of the detection error.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
