Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The positioning error of a WiFi fingerprinting system is commonly determined by dividing a database at random into training and testing partitions. This article treats that division as a metrological question: it determines the conditions of measurement. A survey records several measurements at each of a few reference points, so dividing the measurements does not divide the positions : UJIIndoorLoc draws 19 937 fingerprints from only 933 reference points, and a random division places every test position in training. The result is obtained under a repeatability condition in the sense of the VIM: re-identification of surveyed positions, not localisation of new ones. Four protocols separating re-identification, spatial generalisation and deployment are applied across three public databases, to a region-conditioned support vector regression localiser and three further learners. Upon UJIIndoorLoc, the displacement between a random division and a device-and-time holdout is a protocol-induced systematic effect of ( − 4.60 ± 1.26 ) m against 10.85 m under the holdout’s conditions, 3.6 times the expanded uncertainty of 1.29 m evaluated per the GUM. It exceeds it under every holdout clustering, although the lower end of its interval does not under clustering by handset. Thinning the reference points against a size-matched control calibrates the effect against survey geometry, the inflation rising from 1.32 to 2.01 as spacing widens from 3 to 17 m whilst the control stays flat; the calibration is within-survey. Tampere, with one capture per position, shows no detectable effect, as predicted. Evaluations should report the protocol and survey geometry alongside the positioning error. The harness is released.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hada et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: