Cited by 61Indoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesWireless Networks and ProtocolsHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis

CrossCount: A Deep Learning System for Device-Free Human Counting Using WiFi

Open access

Abstract

Counting humans is an essential part of many people-centric applications. In this paper, we propose CrossCount: an accurate deep-learning-based human count estimator that uses a single WiFi link to estimate the human count in an area of interest. The main idea is to depend on the temporal link-blockage pattern as a discriminant feature that is more robust to wireless channel noise than the signal strength, hence delivering a ubiquitous and accurate human counting system. As part of its design, CrossCount addresses a number of deep learning challenges such as class imbalance and training data augmentation for enhancing the model generalizability. Implementation and evaluation of CrossCount in multiple testbeds show that it can achieve a human counting accuracy to within a maximum of 2 persons 100% of the time. This highlights the promise of CrossCount as a ubiquitous crowd estimator with nonlabor-intensive data collection from off-the-shelf devices.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jsen.2019.2928502

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Limited data collection can create an imbalanced data distribution for different count classes, limiting the availability of large training data for deep learning models.

    “a limited data collection can create an imbalanced data distribution for different count classes, which limits the availability of large amounts of training data for deep learning models (Ibrahim etal. 2019).”
  • Previous studies evaluated systems with limited numbers of people: up to 10 people (Choi et al. 2022; Ibrahim et al. 2019), or up to 5 people in an indoor environment (Liu et al. 2019).

    “Previous studies on automatic people counting evaluated their systems with limited numbers of people, such as up to 10 people (Choi etal. 2022; Ibrahim etal. 2019), or up to 5 people in an indoor environment (Liu etal. 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ibrahim, O. T., Gomaa, W., & Youssef, M.
Affiliations
  • Zagazig University (EG)
  • Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology (EG)
  • Alexandria University (EG)
Venue
IEEE Sensors Journal
Published
2019-11-01
Volume
19
Issue
21
Pages
9921-9928
ISSN
  • 1530-437X (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-1748
  • 2379-9153
OpenAlex
W2956800107
Cited by
61
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Sensors Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Ph.D. Scholarship from the Missions Department, Ministry of Higher Education, Government of Egypt
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Indoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Wireless Networks and Protocols
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Keywords
WiFi sensing, link blockage, crowd counting, class imbalance, data augmentation, deep learning, ubiquitous sensing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review